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

[blackangst1]

OT...is austerity the new buzz word?

 

[theeedude]

The market is speaking loud and clear what it thinks about this new found financial "prudency." About as prudent as saving money on ambulance when bleeding to death.

 

[sandorski]

meh...




Why would you owe something if the government didn't overspend? The best way now is to cut back on spending. A tax break doesn't mean they aren't taking in enough. Govt spending needs to wisen up. Otherwise its just a black hole where our money goes and they'll always want more.

Like I said, if Your Tax Cut increases Debt, then you are Taxed too low.

 

[sandorski]

Obviously Austerity or Balancing of Budgets needs to happen eventually. However, it is dangerous to rush into it too soon at this point. Greece and few other European Nations really had no choice in the matter as their problems require immediate solutions. That same immediacy doesn't exist for others yet(the US for eg), but will come. 2013 seems like a good enough time period to get the Economy stabilized through Stimulus or not and then begin Cutting the Public Deficit to the intended 50%.

Whether more Stimulus is needed or not I dunno, but if it is it should be done ASAP so that Governments can get on with preparing to meet the 2013 goal. Really, if the first stimulus had been adequate in the first place, they could already be working on this. It is an unfortunate aspect of Politics that things get done Half Assed in order to avoid conflict/appease the Opposition.

That is why Ideologues suck. They are too caught up in their fantasy world to let real solutions be used. They believe so strongly that they influence decisions that shouldn't be compromised on.

 

[Darwin333]

The market is speaking loud and clear what it thinks about this new found financial "prudency." About as prudent as saving money on ambulance when bleeding to death.

I am pretty sure that I recall it being the other way around. The market spoke loud and clear and forced their new found financial "prudency" upon them.

 

[werepossum]

I am pretty sure that I recall it being the other way around. The market spoke loud and clear and forced their new found financial "prudency" upon them.

LOL
Progressive: Greece needs to borrow and spend more money.
Non-idiot: Um, Greece can't borrow any more money, they're tapped out. Even borrowing the same amount has become impossible. Greece literally can't borrow enough money to pay its bills.
Progressive: Uh . . . Greece needs to borrow and spend more money. More government spending is always the answer, even when the problem is too much government spending.

It seems to me to be a pretty simple situation - the non-productive part of an economy has become too large for the productive part of the economy to support it. Yet progressives seem to be stuck on the Magic Cupboard Theory of Economics to the point of honestly being unable to understand that there is a point beyond which one cannot continue borrowing and spending money. In spite of the example of Greece, progressives seem to have faith that if government simply borrows even more money, from somewhere, and spends even more money, on pretty much anything, then things will magically fix themselves. The only way that makes sense is to take the old meaning of "progressive" to mean those dedicated to establishing the Marxist philosophy in progressive steps rather than all at once by a revolution, so that the progressive's desire is to see all wealth controlled by government.

This has huge implications for the USA as well. All our massive debt is financed with short term bonds now. And we are borrowing about half of every dollar we spend at the federal level, not counting money borrowed at state and municipality levels. If our costs of borrowing go up substantially - if Heaven forbid we become unable to sell our debt at all - then we will make Greece look like Nirvana.

 

[StageLeft]

The market is speaking loud and clear what it thinks about this new found financial "prudency." About as prudent as saving money on ambulance when bleeding to death.

You mean this market? http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=^DJI&a=09&b=12&c=2007&d=09&e=12&f=2007&g=d About as predictive and salient as a magic 8 ball.

Or do you mean this one? http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=^DJI&a=02&b=9&c=2009&d=02&e=9&f=2009&g=d

 

[Darwin333]

Obviously Austerity or Balancing of Budgets needs to happen eventually. However, it is dangerous to rush into it too soon at this point. Greece and few other European Nations really had no choice in the matter as their problems require immediate solutions. That same immediacy doesn't exist for others yet(the US for eg), but will come. 2013 seems like a good enough time period to get the Economy stabilized through Stimulus or not and then begin Cutting the Public Deficit to the intended 50%.

Never happen. The problem with a lot of our "stimulus" is it includes a ton of reaccuring spending. So not only do we spend more money now but we spend more money EVERY year due to the "stimulus". This includes both Bush and Obamas stimulus packages. That is one of many reasons that I think that they will cut deficit spending by 50% by 2013 a joke.

Whether more Stimulus is needed or not I dunno, but if it is it should be done ASAP so that Governments can get on with preparing to meet the 2013 goal. Really, if the first stimulus had been adequate in the first place, they could already be working on this. It is an unfortunate aspect of Politics that things get done Half Assed in order to avoid conflict/appease the Opposition.

I am not really arguing if it is needed, although an argument could be made that we should spend all of the first one before diving into a 2nd one. I am arguing that I do not believe we have the ability to fund another one considering our current financial situation.

That is why Ideologues suck. They are too caught up in their fantasy world to let real solutions be used. They believe so strongly that they influence decisions that shouldn't be compromised on.

I agree with the above statement 100%. Unfortunately, I doubt that we have the same view on what the true "reality" of the situation is. I am in the camp that "math doesn't lie" regardless of political party, personal views, ideologue or anything else.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Like I said, if Your Tax Cut increases Debt, then you are Taxed too low.

So in dire financial crisis like now, if my pay is frozen or many 6-figure income friends of mine take a pay cut to keep their jobs and they can't then pay property taxes on their $3 million homes, is it because they're paid too little or they spent too much on something that their incomes can barely support?

Tax cuts only increase debt if you continue spending trends the same way. Why would it increase debt if you were spending wisely enough anyway?

If you can live off $100k, would $99,999 put you in debt? If so, maybe you need to consider how you spend your $100k to begin with because $99,999 isn't your problem, it's your spending problem. Bottom line is based on your income (and in this case the nation's income), you should be spending in an appropriate manner such that when shit happens you won't be in debt automatically.

Obviously even with high taxes our country suffers from deficit issues. So maybe we have a spending issue that we should evaluate first before criticizing tax cuts.

 

[sandorski]

So in dire financial crisis like now, if my pay is frozen or many 6-figure income friends of mine take a pay cut to keep their jobs and they can't then pay property taxes on their $3 million homes, is it because they're paid too little or they spent too much on something that their incomes can barely support?

Tax cuts only increase debt if you continue spending trends the same way. Why would it increase debt if you were spending wisely enough anyway?

If you can live off $100k, would $99,999 put you in debt? If so, maybe you need to consider how you spend your $100k to begin with because $99,999 isn't your problem, it's your spending problem. Bottom line is based on your income (and in this case the nation's income), you should be spending in an appropriate manner such that when shit happens you won't be in debt automatically.

Obviously even with high taxes our country suffers from deficit issues. So maybe we have a spending issue that we should evaluate first before criticizing tax cuts.

The US does not have "High Taxes".

 

[Acanthus]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Bet-o...BlbmQ-?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=7&asset=&ccode=

The world’s rich countries are now conducting a dangerous experiment. They are repeating an economic policy out of the 1930s — starting to cut spending and raise taxes before a recovery is assured — and hoping today’s situation is different enough to assure a different outcome.

In effect, policy makers are betting that the private sector can make up for the withdrawal of stimulus over the next couple of years. If they’re right, they will have made a head start on closing their enormous budget deficits. If they’re wrong, they may set off a vicious new cycle, in which public spending cuts weaken the world economy and beget new private spending cuts.

 

[nobodyknows]

"My plan reduces the national debt, and fast. So fast, in fact, that economists worry that we're going to run out of debt to retire."


o President George W. Bush in a Radio Address (24 February 2001)

"There's no question about it. Wall Street got drunk—that's one of the reasons I asked you to turn off the TV cameras—it got drunk and now it's got a hangover. The question is how long will it sober up and not try to do all these fancy financial instruments."

o President George W. Bush speaking at a private fundraiser and surreptitiously recorded by a reporter with the footage subsequently leaked on various news outlets, Houston, Texas, July 18, 2008

 

[sandorski]

"My plan reduces the national debt, and fast. So fast, in fact, that economists worry that we're going to run out of debt to retire."


o President George W. Bush in a Radio Address (24 February 2001)

"There's no question about it. Wall Street got drunk—that's one of the reasons I asked you to turn off the TV cameras—it got drunk and now it's got a hangover. The question is how long will it sober up and not try to do all these fancy financial instruments."

o President George W. Bush speaking at a private fundraiser and surreptitiously recorded by a reporter with the footage subsequently leaked on various news outlets, Houston, Texas, July 18, 2008

Bush Sr was correct. Clinton pretty much continued the Plan, Bush Jr fucked things up.

 

[nobodyknows]

Bush Sr was correct. Clinton pretty much continued the Plan, Bush Jr fucked things up.

Bush Jr. may have been the idiot-in-chief at the time but it was the greedy ass, socipathic sickos running the GOP who fucked things up.... IMO.

 

[sandorski]

Bush Jr. may have been the idiot-in-chief at the time but it was the greedy ass, socipathic sickos running the GOP who fucked things up.... IMO.

Arguable, but fair point.

 

[jhbball]

LOL...I hope you dont really think he does. I know you are fucking batshit crazy, but you cant really be fucking retarded batshit crazy.

God, you're such a fucking tool.

 

[nick1985]

God, you're such a fucking tool.

And you are a fucking dipshit. So I guess that we are even.

 

[theeedude]

Market is repeating what it thinks about this new found austerity. Stimulate or die.

 

[charrison]

Market is repeating what it thinks about this new found austerity. Stimulate or die.

Or overspend and die, much like greece.

 

[theeedude]

Or overspend and die, much like greece.

I don't think this is a serious threat since we print our own money, unlike Greece.

 

[charrison]

I don't think this is a serious threat since we print our own money, unlike Greece.

running the printing presses is not the answer when you are debt.

 

[Acanthus]

running the printing presses is not the answer when you are debt.

Actually, it is. However no one will want to lend to you in your own currency anymore

 

[Darwin333]

Actually, it is. However no one will want to lend to you in your own currency anymore

Actually, in our current situation it isn't. I have said this a million times and people still don't get it.

Our entitlements are indexed to inflation. Inflating away the debt vastly increases the money you must spend on entitlements which just happens to be the largest part of our spending.

Who do you think the politicians would rather fuck, the holders of our debt (especially foreign governments) or Social security, medicare and medicaid recipients? Inflating away the debt will darn near kill those programs because we won't be able to borrow much money to cover the existing shortfalls and the check they do get is worth much less (in terms of spending power) than it used to be. It would be akin to drastically slashing benefits today.

If anyone thinks our politicians will remove the index to inflation I am more than willing to take bets.