01-26-2013 07:19 AM - edited 01-26-2013 07:20 AM
Hah, that's got to sting.
Deficit Hawks Down
President Obama’s second Inaugural Address offered a lot for progressives to like. There was the spirited defense of gay rights; there was the equally spirited defense of the role of government, and, in particular, of the safety net provided by Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. But arguably the most encouraging thing of all was what he didn’t say: He barely mentioned the budget deficit.
Mr. Obama’s clearly deliberate neglect of Washington’s favorite obsession was just the latest sign that the self-styled deficit hawks — better described as deficit scolds — are losing their hold over political discourse. And that’s a very good thing.
Why have the deficit scolds lost their grip? I’d suggest four interrelated reasons.
First, they have cried wolf too many times. They’ve spent three years warning of imminent crisis — if we don’t slash the deficit now now now, we’ll turn into Greece, Greece, I tell you. It is, for example, almost two years since Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles declared that we should expect a fiscal crisis within, um, two years.
01-26-2013 07:34 AM - edited 01-26-2013 07:34 AM
Yep.
As I've said for 4 years now, the only really bad thing about the high deficits during the recession was that it was already so high when it hit.
The other side of Keynesian economics is that while you run up deficits during bad time, that you pay them back down during good. It's the 2nd part our government has the most problems doing.
01-26-2013 07:45 AM
guido61 wrote:Yep.
As I've said for 4 years now, the only really bad thing about the high deficits during the recession was that it was already so high when it hit.
The other side of Keynesian economics is that while you run up deficits during bad time, that you pay them back down during good. It's the 2nd part our government has the most problems doing.
The Republicans, with their deadbeat voodoo economics, have become a national disgrace.
01-26-2013 08:22 AM
01-26-2013 08:27 AM
Jack Walker wrote:
So you're saying we shouldn't pay our debts? Then why worry about the debt ceiling? None of the new revenues coming in from the 2%payroll tax is earmarked to paydown the debt. I'm pretty sure Obama know he can found the ACA unless he goes single payer with the program.
Strawman much?
Nobody is saying we shouldn't pay our debts. The article is about saying that the size of the deficit is both temporary and isn't something that will "turn the US into Greece".
Why worry about the debt ceiling? The debt ceiling is a phony construct to begin with. I only worry about it to the point of wondering why it exists.
And how, pray tell, does one "earmark" money to pay down the debt?
01-26-2013 08:34 AM
guido61 wrote:
Jack Walker wrote:
So you're saying we shouldn't pay our debts? Then why worry about the debt ceiling? None of the new revenues coming in from the 2%payroll tax is earmarked to paydown the debt. I'm pretty sure Obama know he can found the ACA unless he goes single payer with the program.Strawman much?
Nobody is saying we shouldn't pay our debts. The article is about saying that the size of the deficit is both temporary and isn't something that will "turn the US into Greece".
Why worry about the debt ceiling? The debt ceiling is a phony construct to begin with. I only worry about it to the point of wondering why it exists.
And how, pray tell, does one "earmark" money to pay down the debt?
Simple... with legislation that a certain percentage of new revenues go to pay down the debt. Don't tell me you idiots think we should continue to spend blindly into oblivion. Is this part of the new liberal mantra to ruin America until it no longer exists?
01-26-2013 08:40 AM
Jack Walker wrote:
guido61 wrote:
Jack Walker wrote:
So you're saying we shouldn't pay our debts? Then why worry about the debt ceiling? None of the new revenues coming in from the 2%payroll tax is earmarked to paydown the debt. I'm pretty sure Obama know he can found the ACA unless he goes single payer with the program.Strawman much?
Nobody is saying we shouldn't pay our debts. The article is about saying that the size of the deficit is both temporary and isn't something that will "turn the US into Greece".
Why worry about the debt ceiling? The debt ceiling is a phony construct to begin with. I only worry about it to the point of wondering why it exists.
And how, pray tell, does one "earmark" money to pay down the debt?
Simple... with legislation that a certain percentage of new revenues go to pay down the debt. Don't tell me you idiots think we should continue to spend blindly into oblivion. Is this part of the new liberal mantra to ruin America until it no longer exists?
Dave thinks the interest rates are going to be kept at zip and all is gonna be well. That will not happen. Try a 5 percent rate and see how rosy the future looks.
01-26-2013 08:41 AM
Don't hitch your wagons to Krugman just yet. In objective,economic circles, he's pretty much laughed at.
01-26-2013 08:44 AM
Jack Walker wrote:Simple... with legislation that a certain percentage of new revenues go to pay down the debt. Don't tell me you idiots think we should continue to spend blindly into oblivion. Is this part of the new liberal mantra to ruin America until it no longer exists?
Wow. No WONDER we're having deficit/debt problems if this is the amount of financial understanding most conservatives possess. Can you even balance your own checkbook?
"Earmarking" $20 to pay down debt will do nothing if that $20 has to come from somewhere else and will thereby ADD to the debt. You can ONLY pay down debt if the budget is in surplus. You could come up with "simple" legislation to "earmark" 100% of revenue to debt if you like. All you'd be doing is putting a title over it but you'll accomplish nothing towards actually paying down any debt.
01-26-2013 08:45 AM
TIMKEYS wrote:
Jack Walker wrote:
guido61 wrote:
Jack Walker wrote:
So you're saying we shouldn't pay our debts? Then why worry about the debt ceiling? None of the new revenues coming in from the 2%payroll tax is earmarked to paydown the debt. I'm pretty sure Obama know he can found the ACA unless he goes single payer with the program.Strawman much?
Nobody is saying we shouldn't pay our debts. The article is about saying that the size of the deficit is both temporary and isn't something that will "turn the US into Greece".
Why worry about the debt ceiling? The debt ceiling is a phony construct to begin with. I only worry about it to the point of wondering why it exists.
And how, pray tell, does one "earmark" money to pay down the debt?
Simple... with legislation that a certain percentage of new revenues go to pay down the debt. Don't tell me you idiots think we should continue to spend blindly into oblivion. Is this part of the new liberal mantra to ruin America until it no longer exists?
Dave thinks the interest rates are going to be kept at zip and all is gonna be well. That will not happen. Try a 5 percent rate and see how rosy the future looks.
Wake me up when that happens.
<script type="text/javascript">// onbeforeunload = function() {}; // </script>
01-26-2013 08:45 AM
Mr.NiceGuy wrote:Don't hitch your wagons to Krugman just yet. In objective,economic circles, he's pretty much laughed at.
You mis-spelled "objectivist".
01-26-2013 08:50 AM
Mr.NiceGuy wrote:Don't hitch your wagons to Krugman just yet. In objective,economic circles, he's pretty much laughed at.
Only if your idea of an "objective" economic circle is one populated only with right wing loons.
Where Krugman is 100% OBJECTIVELY correct is this: the bulk of increased deficit/debt since the beginning of the financial crisis is due to the financial crisis itself---the result of decreased tax revenues and increased government spending on things like unemployment insurance and assistance to state and local governments. The amount of NEW spending has been pretty miniscule in comparison. There was Bush's TARP program--most of which has been paid back, and Obama's Stimulus Act---most of which was tax cuts.
As the economy recovers, the tax revenues will return to previous levels (even higher with the new increase on the top rates) and the spending on things like unemployment and assistance to the states will decrease. And we'll be back to the previous levels of deficit.
Of course, the deficits still need to be reduced and the debt needs to be reduced as well. But it's not, and never has been, the immediate fiscal 'emergency' that many have made it out to be.
What still looms ahead as a real issue is dealing with rising health care and medicare/medicaid costs. That's the REAL crisis the government has to deal with.
01-26-2013 08:52 AM
TIMKEYS wrote:Dave thinks the interest rates are going to be kept at zip and all is gonna be well. That will not happen. Try a 5 percent rate and see how rosy the future looks.
No, let's just follow Jack's advice and "earmark" certain funds towards paying down the debt and all will be well......
01-26-2013 08:59 AM - edited 01-26-2013 09:01 AM
Mr.NiceGuy wrote:Don't hitch your wagons to Krugman just yet. In objective,economic circles, he's pretty much laughed at.
That's why it's particularly funny to have him saying "told you so" to all those clowns. All those "objective" morons are equally as stupid. In 2013 economics is basically a giant circular firing squad. None of those idiots knows a thing except how to rip people off.
01-26-2013 09:01 AM
Philter wrote:
TIMKEYS wrote:
Jack Walker wrote:
guido61 wrote:
Jack Walker wrote:
So you're saying we shouldn't pay our debts? Then why worry about the debt ceiling? None of the new revenues coming in from the 2%payroll tax is earmarked to paydown the debt. I'm pretty sure Obama know he can found the ACA unless he goes single payer with the program.Strawman much?
Nobody is saying we shouldn't pay our debts. The article is about saying that the size of the deficit is both temporary and isn't something that will "turn the US into Greece".
Why worry about the debt ceiling? The debt ceiling is a phony construct to begin with. I only worry about it to the point of wondering why it exists.
And how, pray tell, does one "earmark" money to pay down the debt?
Simple... with legislation that a certain percentage of new revenues go to pay down the debt. Don't tell me you idiots think we should continue to spend blindly into oblivion. Is this part of the new liberal mantra to ruin America until it no longer exists?
Dave thinks the interest rates are going to be kept at zip and all is gonna be well. That will not happen. Try a 5 percent rate and see how rosy the future looks.
Wake me up when that happens.
<script type="text/javascript">// onbeforeunload = function() {}; // </script>
Its gotta happen sooner or later or it will destroy the dollar.
01-26-2013 09:19 AM
TIMKEYS wrote:
Philter wrote:
TIMKEYS wrote:
Jack Walker wrote:
guido61 wrote:
Jack Walker wrote:
So you're saying we shouldn't pay our debts? Then why worry about the debt ceiling? None of the new revenues coming in from the 2%payroll tax is earmarked to paydown the debt. I'm pretty sure Obama know he can found the ACA unless he goes single payer with the program.Strawman much?
Nobody is saying we shouldn't pay our debts. The article is about saying that the size of the deficit is both temporary and isn't something that will "turn the US into Greece".
Why worry about the debt ceiling? The debt ceiling is a phony construct to begin with. I only worry about it to the point of wondering why it exists.
And how, pray tell, does one "earmark" money to pay down the debt?
Simple... with legislation that a certain percentage of new revenues go to pay down the debt. Don't tell me you idiots think we should continue to spend blindly into oblivion. Is this part of the new liberal mantra to ruin America until it no longer exists?
Dave thinks the interest rates are going to be kept at zip and all is gonna be well. That will not happen. Try a 5 percent rate and see how rosy the future looks.
Wake me up when that happens.
<script type="text/javascript">// onbeforeunload = function() {}; // </script>
Its gotta happen sooner or later or it will destroy the dollar.
Not when there's no real alternative to the dollar anyway.
<script type="text/javascript">// onbeforeunload = function() {}; // </script>
01-26-2013 09:27 AM
Philter wrote:Not when there's no real alternative to the dollar anyway.
A LOT of truth to that. Back during the last debt-ceiling nonsense when S&P lowered our credit rating, the doom-and-gloomers all believed that would result in a collapse of the dollar, a rise in interest rates and/or investors fleeing from the US. Instead, the immediate response was even GREATER sales of T-bonds. Why? Because there's nowhere else to go during a bad economy besides the dollar.
01-26-2013 09:30 AM
Philter wrote:
TIMKEYS wrote:
Philter wrote:
TIMKEYS wrote:
Jack Walker wrote:
guido61 wrote:
Jack Walker wrote:
So you're saying we shouldn't pay our debts? Then why worry about the debt ceiling? None of the new revenues coming in from the 2%payroll tax is earmarked to paydown the debt. I'm pretty sure Obama know he can found the ACA unless he goes single payer with the program.Strawman much?
Nobody is saying we shouldn't pay our debts. The article is about saying that the size of the deficit is both temporary and isn't something that will "turn the US into Greece".
Why worry about the debt ceiling? The debt ceiling is a phony construct to begin with. I only worry about it to the point of wondering why it exists.
And how, pray tell, does one "earmark" money to pay down the debt?
Simple... with legislation that a certain percentage of new revenues go to pay down the debt. Don't tell me you idiots think we should continue to spend blindly into oblivion. Is this part of the new liberal mantra to ruin America until it no longer exists?
Dave thinks the interest rates are going to be kept at zip and all is gonna be well. That will not happen. Try a 5 percent rate and see how rosy the future looks.
Wake me up when that happens.
<script type="text/javascript">// onbeforeunload = function() {}; // </script>
Its gotta happen sooner or later or it will destroy the dollar.
Not when there's no real alternative to the dollar anyway.
<script type="text/javascript">// onbeforeunload = function() {}; // </script>
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/04/12/c
01-26-2013 09:36 AM
01-26-2013 09:46 AM
Mr.NiceGuy wrote:Don't hitch your wagons to Krugman just yet. In objective,economic circles, he's pretty much laughed at.
Objective economists commute by unicorn.
About HCHarmonyCentral.com is the leading Internet resource for musicians, supplying valuable information from news and product reviews, to classified ads and chat rooms.
Advertise on HC