Obama's Expedient Debt Logic

[daenku32]

Are the trillion dollar projected deficits 10 years from now under Obama's budget Keynesian as well?

That is a projection, not a plan. The WH is not planning on having trillion dollar deficits 10 years from now.

 

[psychictv]

He promised that his trillion dollar stimulus program would prevent unemployment from exceeding 8%. Yet here we are today with unemployment of over 9.5% (on average nationally). What went wrong?

Do you even know what the stimulus program is? It has barely even gone into effect yet. The majority of the job creating benefits will be from construction projects, most of which haven't even begun yet and are still going through planning and permitting stages.

Maybe we'd have only seen a max of 9% and the economy would already be well on it's way to recovery (because industry wouldn't have delayed actions needed to recover, hoping to get a good deal from the government's largess)?

What sort of actions can private industry take to stimulate the economy?

Government is building inefficiencies into our economy in much the same way government has built inefficiencies into it's own operations and in the trillion dollar programs it controls.

How so? Explain.

 

[Azure]

Both of you miss the point. As the CBO reports, new Obama spending programs will increase the national debt more than $6 trillion dollars over what it would have been had existing law, when Obama entered office, just remained in effect. Obama's efforts will DOUBLE the national debt over what it was when Bush left office. He didn't inherit that. Somehow, debt under Bush was bad but equal debt under Obama is good. I'm just puzzled by the inconsistency in this logic. A topic many here seem to want to avoid.

I never said debt under Obama was good. I'm far from an Obama supporter anyways.

I'm just saying that both Republicans AND Democrats are contributing to this problem. And it wasn't just Bush or Obama either. All of Congress is to blame as well.

 

[Azure]

That is a projection, not a plan. The WH is not planning on having trillion dollar deficits 10 years from now.

The WH hardly ever plans anything right.

I think it goes without saying that the government has a history of under-estimating cost.

So could the deficit be that high? Yes, it certainly could.

 

[sugarb]

Which means what? That we have to do what democrats want regardless of what history shows? Sorry, but at this time our proper job is to make sure this President accomplishes as little of his agenda as possible. Otherwise, we will be saddled with programs just as expensive and just as ineffective as the War On Poverty, War on Drugs, Public Education, Medicare and Medicaid. Programs that will probably bankrupt the country for sure. *snipped to save space* This is top level stuff, sugarb.

Hello, BeAChooser. First let me say that I truly enjoy these conversations, and I apologize, but I'm not very good at doing the quotes like you do, so I keep a notebook and make me a little list of the points I need to respond to. I hope that is okay. (I know that I need to learn to use the quotes better. I know.)

First point I wanted to respond to was your question about doing what the Democrats want? Is that what I think we have to do? My answer to that is "no". Of course I don't think we just need to do what the Democrats want, anymore than I would go along with always doing what the Republicans want. I think that we have to look at who is in power, and find a way to inject ourselves into the debate in a way that is not...um...obnoxious?...so that, for our nation, we can continue moving forward. I don't like how much stalling there is in our government, due to partisanship, and I think that stalling has as much to do with the crises we're experiencing (mortgages, health care, etc) as anything.

Second point? Clinton and Gingrich. Now I'm going to give you this much...and it is why I'm open to being shown where I'm wrong. During that administration, I was pretty young and...well, naive in ways. When Clinton was elected, I was twenty one. Pretty bright, I think, but...well, bogged down in the usual things very young adults easily get distracted by. However, if I recall correctly, it wasn't just Clinton going along with Gingrich. I seem to recall quite vividly that Gingrich also steered the Republican party toward supporting some of Clinton's goals as well. In fact, I recall some hard core Republicans thinking Gingrich was, at times, a traitor. I'll even admit, I was disgusted with Gingrich more than once...and not over any personal things either, but in matters of policy. (Particularly trade policy).

Did Clinton ignore what was to become 9/11. Sure. Yes. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, though, isn't it? I will say this: it seems to me that the Clinton administration really did a number on our intelligence community...and not in a way that led to improvements. I think the Clinton administration (not Clinton himself necessarily) was too paranoid about right wing-ish domestic groups, and spread themselves too thin on that front. WHICH, by the way, I worried was going to happen again in Obama's administration. It sure started out seeming that way (but that's already been discussed).

Third point, Bush. You think Bush tried to appease the Democrats and added more funding to failed/failing programs. I don't agree that Bush tried to appease Democrats. Not at all. I *do* agree that he was a fiscal nightmare...not at all a conservative, and that was my feeling for quite a while before his second term. In my opinion, the biggest difference between Clinton and Bush was that Clinton tried to govern and Bush was just playing politics. Bush relied too heavily on advisers, and frankly I think we should probably be grateful he did, because I really don't think he was the best (or even close to the top) of what Republicans had to offer. Bush was...inept.

Let's see...next, yeah, you are most certainly correct in that a whole lot of people refuse, for some reason, to see how the "war on poverty" is a complete and total failure. Were it in any way a success, I cannot see how we would have reached the point we are at today, with people losing homes, not being able to afford insurance, etc. And I'm going to say this. You know what ticks me off? You are right, Bush absolutely ignored the things that were leading to these crises...but BeAChooser? He also did more than that, if you'll recall. His best advice for our economy? "Go out and SPEND! Spend money you don't have, and everything will be OKAY!" Didn't that tick you off? I mean, be honest...how long did it take you to realize that Bush was completely incapable of understanding basic economics?

But I don't just blame Bush. His mentality on money was the mentality that the ridiculously pathetic "war on poverty" promoted all along. The mentality a lot of people still have. Throw money at problems! That's the ticket to success! ....except that it isn't.

Next point, maybe you're right. I'm open to the possibility, and in general I consider that I'm wrong, at least in ways, a probability. Maybe it does seem bizarre to support throwing more money into government programs. Or...maybe I just see how UHC, that particular issue, could solve a whole lot of economic problems for FAMILIES. You know, BeAChooser, it scares me that people don't have more buying power. It disturbs me greatly that our government, for all of these years, on local, state, and the federal level, keep enacting more and more mandates in terms of family expenses. Property taxes, homeowners insurance, car insurance, licenses and fees for everything...the threat of social services taking your kids if you cannot afford health care. Not only do they keep mandating expenses for US, as individuals, but they keep mandating things that our tax dollars have to go to our states to fund. Then our states and localities mandate yet more expenses for the privilege of living in certain towns or states.

Then they engage in things that cause our costs to increase, like diesel fuel? I think the increase in cost of diesel was actually tacked onto another bill? They had to know this would lead to increased prices in consumer goods, AS WELL AS increased household expenses for things like garbage pickup (ours went up not long after diesel went ridiculously high), AND increased local and property taxes, because it costs a hell of a lot of money to fill police cruisers, ambulances, fire trucks, with fuel. And interestingly enough, it wasn't that many years ago that emergency vehicles switched over to mainly diesel fuel. I think, actually, fire apparatus, as an example, stopped being available with gasoline engines in the mid to late 80's.

I mean, it just gets ridiculous, don't you think? So, if government is considering, and is capable, of a program that will save people money? Lots and LOTS of money? Then yeah, I'm going to support it, and I'm going to hope that there can be reasonable discussions about it and bi-partisan support to come up with something that actually serves us well.

And finally, my last point, and this probably won't be too popular but that's fine. Honestly, BeAChooser? No one is as bright and wonderfully perfect as a lot of President Obama's supporters try to make him out to be. I don't know him personally, I didn't know Bush personally, but...one thing I do know is that, no matter how "brilliant" a person is, no one person could adequately, alone, handle all of the issues, understand all of the issues, construct solutions to all of the issues, a country as big as ours faces. I don't care if they are democrats or republicans, no one person can do that. You know, some of the greatest people in the world, the people we admire and respect, had one cause, two at most. And this attitude we have about how "powerful" our President is has a whole lot to do with why Congress gets away with as much garbage as they get away with. Our arguments always come down to one man (since a woman hasn't been elected yet), and that one man? Just basically signs off on what Congress wants to do, or doesn't.

Sure, that one man can push certain agendas...but...he can't pass them alone. Our problems haven't been because of our Presidents. Our problems are the result of our Congress. And I guess I just wish and hope that one of these days, we'll get that. Really get that. I know that I am constantly making myself keep that in mind. Yes, I'm a Republican. Probably always will be. But I define those values and ideal much, much differently than probably most of our republican politicians. Does that mean I'm abandoning them? No...but it means that, to me, working in terms of republican agendas or democrats agendas isn't that much of a stretch, for me. I don't see our major parties as all that different anymore, so I've kind of stopped noticing the -D or -R after the names. And again, maybe that's wrong.

 

[mhaze]

That is a projection, not a plan. The WH is not planning on having trillion dollar deficits 10 years from now.

Now, don't be making things up. It's just about mathematically impossible to not project a trillion dollar deficit 10 years from now.

 

[Cain]

Let's look at the real story rather than your revisionism. I suggest everyone read this article (I've merely quoted the introduction and conclusions):

http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm1835.cfm

In your attempt to find the slightest cover, you do not even bother addressing the argument, which is not that the Clinton tax increase triggered economic expansion, but that it was vital component to explaining the declining deficits of the 90s.

If you want to argue that politicians could have balanced the budget without the tax increase, then go ahead. Although... I think people will eventually start to wonder why all other modern Republican presidents never came close. I suppose you could go back to your original explanation, which is that Clinton was merely in the right place at the right time, backed up by that saying success is a matter of luck (ask any supporter of failed policies).

 

[BeAChooser]

Because spending money for social programs in the U.S. helps our economy and helps the citizens of the U.S. Spending money on an unnecessary war in Iraq does not.

Prove it. Cite some actual sources. You are just making unsubstantiated claims ... which are false or misleading at best. You claim the Iraq war was unnecessary. I disagree and have argued that repeatedly on this forum ... with sources and sound logic. I asked you some questions about the Iraq war on this thread which you basically ignored. Yet those questions relate to the necessity of that war. But rather than derail this thread into a discussion of that, let's just focus on your first claim.

You say that spending money on social programs helps our economy. Fine. What you are really implying, however, is that money devoted to social programs helps our economy more than allocating that same money by other means ... more than just letting the free market operate. I say that if we had devoted that 10 trillion dollars we spent on the WOP over the last 45 years to other things, our economy would be stronger than it is now and poverty rates would be lower than now.

I say the disincentives to personal responsibility and betterment that are implicit in welfare programs are harmful. I say they create a welfare *mentality* that becomes the status quo ... the ACCEPTED norm. The welfare (and political) system creates a sense of *entitlement* that doesn't promote growth but hinders it. And the national debt associated with such unrestrained, long term social spending as this country has endured has a cost ... a cost that welfare proponents (and recipients) simply want to ignore. That cost has to do with sustainability, and sooner or later that bill will come due. In the form of inflation, if nothing worse.

It really comes down to what mechanisms exist for deciding what is smart spending as opposed to dumb spending. The free market (if left alone) has mechanisms (including recessions) for encouraging smart spending ... for encouraging growth which in the end is the only thing that will make us all wealthier. Capitalism and the free market have mechanisms for rewarding smart spending. For punishing dumb spending. Our government doesn't have such mechanisms. Not effective ones, at least. On the contrary, government is subject to forces and mechanisms that allow dumb spending to persist ... that actually encourage dumb spending. Which is why the government has thrown trillions and trillions of dollars down sinkhole programs that have NOT come close to meeting their goals (e.g., War On Poverty, War On Drugs, Medicare, Public Education) ... that have in many ways done more damage to this country than good ... that may even eventually bankrupt the country (as Obama admits). Yet government keeps throwing even more money down those holes.

It would be unheard of for the board of a private company to make a trillion dollar *investment* in anything without reading the proposal authorizing that decision. Yet that's what many Congresscritters have done during the recent *urgent* efforts to get various trillion dollar measures enacted. And they are doing it again with regards to health care. Some Congresscritters even boast about doing that. Like I say, there are mechanisms and forces that encourage dumb decision making in government. And no mechanisms to really punish those who make such decisions. One can almost guarantee that neither Obama or any Congresscritter will suffer any financial impact if their decisions turn out wrong. They won't even get sued ... because unlike the CEOs of private companies we can't sue them. Private companies go out business when they aren't successful, long before they can impoverish a country. Governments don't. Instead, they tend to run their countries into the ground before change comes (just as we saw happen in the USSR and communist block).

Now mind you, I'm not arguing against all social spending. Especially when such spending is controlled at the local or state level. Just that when it comes to trillion dollar federal programs, we best be careful because those programs haven't really worked very well. It is hard to find success stories. Can you name any?

I'm not sure that I have the space or time here to explain to you how our entire society functions.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
I just know that after spending 10 trillion dollars over the last 40-45 years on welfare programs (that could have been allocated directly to economic growth instead), the number of poor people in the US is just as large as it was 45 years ago.

You have some evidence of that? Looking at this chart it appears that the poverty rate declined or stayed steady from 1965 to about 1980 except for a couple small upticks during recessions. By the end of the Reagan and Bush administrations it was almost up to where it was in 1965 and then it started to fall again around 1993 and rise again in 2000.

First of all, do you know when the WOP began? It didn't begin in 1959 when the number of poor and poverty rate was dramatically falling (as seen in the chart you linked). LBJ announced the WOP in 1964. And it didn't really get underway until years later as spending grew. So in answer to your question, yes, I do have evidence of what I said. Your wikipedia source chart shows that the "number in poverty" in 1964 (about 33 million) is less than the "number in poverty" now (about 37 million).

Now it is true that the poverty rate dropped somewhat after the WOP was announce and hasn't returned to that level. In 1965 it was 15%. It fell to about 12 percent over the next couple years, but it's impossible to say that was due to WOP spending since the rate had fallen from 22% in the 5 years prior to the start of the WOP beginning. There is no reason to believe it wouldn't have continued falling even if the WOP hadn't started. Indeed, an argument can be made that the WOP actually slowed then stopped the fall in the poverty rate and number in poverty. Here:

http://www.friesian.com/stats.htm

The "capitalism alone" phase of poverty reduction can be seen operating from 1950 to 1966. In that period the poverty rate (column H) fell from 30% to 15%. Even poverty in the non-white population (column I) fell from almost 60% in 1960 to 40% by 1966. ... snip ... What attends the striking increase in anti-poverty activity is the actual slowing and halting of the fall in the poverty rate. The percentage of the population below the poverty line bottoms out in 1973 at 11.1% and then stagnates or increases from then on. By 1981, only the first year of the Reagan Presidency, the poverty rate is already back up to 14%, where it hadn't been since 1967. At the same time, the percentage of families on AFDC had skyrocketed, from the disturbing 2% of 1963 to what must be the even more disturbing, or shocking, 6.5% of 1980. Programs intended to reduce "dependency" had instead more than tripled it. ... snip ... It is also noteworthy that the general availability of abortion, often presented as necessary for the alleviation of poverty, in fact coincided, after the Roe v. Wade decision, with the period when poverty ceased to decline and began to increase again.

And I'll leave you with this, hoping you'll you read it all (but here's a quote):

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3864

The poverty rate among black families fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent in 1960, during an era of virtually no major civil rights legislation or anti-poverty programs. It dropped another 17 percentage points during the decade of the 1960s and one percentage point during the 1970s, but this continuation of the previous trend was neither unprecedented nor something to be arbitrarily attributed to the programs like the War on Poverty.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Indeed, prior to the enactment of Johnson's War On Poverty programs, and all those that followed them, the unemployment rate was dropping dramatically.

And it continued to do so until the recession of 1970 and the election of Nixon.

Sorry, I meant to say "poverty rate", not "unemployment rate". It's the WOP that is the topic. The decline of the poverty rate slowed and then stopped soon after the WOP began ... even though Nixon increased WOP spending and programs.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
What benefit is there to creating a stable, prosperous arab democracy in the middle east ... What benefit is there to creating a democracy that is willing to help us fight terrorism in the region and keep terrorists from using that country and it's oil as a resource?

To turn your own question back on you "Perhaps there is some benefit, but can you quantify it in any way?" What evidence is there that a stable prosperous Arab democracy has been created in the middle east?

To turn your question back on you, is there any evidence that the goals of Obama's spending programs (or the WOP, WOD, Medicare, Public Education) have been met? That what has been achieved is anywhere near worth the cost?

And there actually is evidence that Bush succeeded in Iraq. The country has a stable government, that has successfully weathered several contentious elections even with terrorists threatening to kill voters and candidates. The old regime is gone. Al-qaeda has been essentially defeated. The Iraq economy is doing rather well ... especially in certain areas of the country. Tourism is even back. Oil production is up and by most economic measures the country is doing better than before the election. People have more freedoms. Terrorists no longer have a safe haven in the country. Confidence among the Iraqi people is up. And they remain our friends and allies. Let's see if Obama can do anywhere near as well in Afghanistan.

 

[BeAChooser]

TThe WH is not planning on having trillion dollar deficits 10 years from now.

Yes, it is. The White House controlled OMB has now revised it's projected deficit over the next 10 years to match what the CBO was saying it would be back in March (i.e., $9.3 trillion). That chart mhaze posted shows that to get a $9.3 trillion cumulative deficit, yearly deficits have to be climbing by 2019 and have reached the trillion dollar level. Indeed, this (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_msr/10msr.pdf
) from the OMB shows a deficit in 2019 (see Table S-1) of 917 billion dollars ... up from 815 billion the year before.

 

[sugarb]

You've simply missed my point. I suggest you read my last post to psychictv. The issue is why war debt is bad but welfare debt is good. The CBO projected an increase in national debt over the next 10 years, due to changes that Obama made, of nearly twice the total long term projected cost of the Iraq War (by anti-war liberals). Why isn't that increase in debt bad?



But how do you know that Obama's policies didn't make things worse ... as many economists suggested beforehand they would? In selling the stimulus, his own people projected a maximum unemployment rate of 9% IF WE DID NOTHING. He promised that his trillion dollar stimulus program would prevent unemployment from exceeding 8%. Yet here we are today with unemployment of over 9.5% (on average nationally). What went wrong? How do we know that had we done nothing his economists wouldn't have been right? Maybe we'd have only seen a max of 9% and the economy would already be well on it's way to recovery (because industry wouldn't have delayed actions needed to recover, hoping to get a good deal from the government's largess)? What you folks don't seem to understand is that recessions serve a purpose. They help economies eliminate inefficiencies and waste. But government interference is preventing that. Government is building inefficiencies into our economy in much the same way government has built inefficiencies into it's own operations and in the trillion dollar programs it controls. And those inefficiencies will make us all poorer that we would have been if government had just kept it's hands off OUR MONEY and let the capitalist and free market mechanisms work.

Hello again, BeAChooser. I did, and yes, you're right. I *did* miss the point...entirely. My bad.

Why the inconsistency? Why "war debt bad, welfare debt good"? When debt is debt is debt.

You know, I don't have an answer for that. I wish I did, but...I just don't. I dunno, it's weird because historically, for us anyway, wars have stimulated the economy, and that has certainly changed since I was born. Welfare, thus far, hasn't stimulated the economy. Not like war used to. And I go back to how we are a young nation in changing times being a big part of it.

I don't *know* that Obama's policies have helped, or will help, anything. Thus far, I see some things that are obvious failures and totally missing the real needs. But for some strange reason, those are the things that got passed! I can really see how UHC could help the economy, and yet? It is having problems. I don't know. I can't answer it for you, because it doesn't really make sense to me either...and believe me, I *do* understand why, because of that, you don't trust the government to "fix" things.

But you know, even you yourself said (I think it was you anyway...correct me if I'm wrong) that the programs initially implemented to boost the economy after the Depression were working, but we didn't stick to them, instead adding more and more and more "welfare" programs. And yes, in many ways I can see how additional welfare programs and dependency on government helped lead us to the problems we're in now. But at the same time, I think...that if we have a few programs that stimulate people's ability to save and buy, increase consumer power, then perhaps we can slowly start eliminating, or way scaling down, other programs.

I don't understand the inconsistency regarding debt and future generations...and I'm sorry I missed your original point. Thank you for pointing it out.

 

[BeAChooser]

Do you even know what the stimulus program is? It has barely even gone into effect yet.

LOL!

Weren't we told by Obama that we needed the stimulus to stop the recession from getting any worse and reduce unemployment? Didn't he proclaim that the need for stimulus was so urgent that Congresscritters needed to pass the nearly trillion dollar legislation even without taking the time to read it? And now you tell us that they've barely gotten any money out the door in 9 months? How inefficient is the government and Obama administration? Is this supposed to be a demonstration of how efficient they will be in handling the health care problem?

And aren't Obama's minions now claiming that the recession is over? Fed Chairman Bernanke says that. And Obama told CNN a few days ago that he was going to leave it up to the Fed chairman to say whether it's officially over or not. If the recession is over why do we now need to continue spending the stimulus money ... most of which has apparently not stimulated anything, so far.

Even if we do now have 9.5% (or so) unemployment, hasn't unemployment recovered from previous recessions ... ones with even higher unemployment rates than that ... without trillion dollar stimulus spending? That being the case, why don't Obama and the democrats just return whatever hasn't been spent so far (you say most of it)? What makes it necessary for the government to keep our money now and spend it on make work programs most of which actually won't build long term growth? Why wasn't such spending necessary in any previous recessions?

What sort of actions can private industry take to stimulate the economy?

LOL! Do you even know how the private economy works?

 

[BeAChooser]

I never said debt under Obama was good.

I didn't say you did. I simply pointed out that your comment was missing the real point of this thread. That Obama is inconsistent in saying one debt is bad but another, much larger one, is apparently good.

I'm just saying that both Republicans AND Democrats are contributing to this problem. And it wasn't just Bush or Obama either. All of Congress is to blame as well.

That's true but again, I don't recall Bush or Republicans arguing that one debt was bad while the other was good. They may have been wrong in claiming both were good but at least they weren't inconsistent ... as Obama and the democrats appear to be.

 

[psychictv]

But rather than derail this thread into a discussion of that, let's just focus on your first claim.

OK

What you are really implying, however, is that money devoted to social programs helps our economy more than allocating that same money by other means ... more than just letting the free market operate.

Sure. This is obvious on its face. We create social programs to take care of needs that the market ignores. Millions of elderly people were living on the streets before Social Security was created. Millions of people are now dying due to lack of private health care and we're going to do something to fix that too, whether you like it or not.

I say that if we had devoted that 10 trillion dollars we spent on the WOP over the last 45 years to other things, our economy would be stronger than it is now and poverty rates would be lower than now.

You can say it all you like but you have no evidence to support your point of view.

I say the disincentives to personal responsibility and betterment that are implicit in welfare programs are harmful. I say they create a welfare *mentality* that becomes the status quo ... the ACCEPTED norm.

So why are American workers the most productive in the world? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/03/business/main3228735.shtml

Why do we have the highest GDP in the world (or second if you count the EU as a single country)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

And the national debt associated with such unrestrained, long term social spending as this country has endured has a cost ... a cost that welfare proponents (and recipients) simply want to ignore. That cost has to do with sustainability, and sooner or later that bill will come due. In the form of inflation, if nothing worse.

So increase revenues by raising taxes on the wealthy. By the way, those 59-64 years that you seem to admire so much for the rapidly falling poverty had an upper tax bracket of 91%.

It really comes down to what mechanisms exist for deciding what is smart spending as opposed to dumb spending. The free market (if left alone) has mechanisms (including recessions) for encouraging smart spending ... for encouraging growth which in the end is the only thing that will make us all wealthier.

Ah, but we're not talking about making people wealthier. That's not government's role, and the market takes care of that function just fine. We're talking about taking care of basic needs like health care when the market chooses not to provide them. Luckily universal health care happens to be an example of smart spending and it will help the economy as our overall health care costs as a nation will drop, and corporations will save money by no longer having to pay for health care. Imagine how the auto manufacturers could better compete with the Japanese if they weren't saddled with huge legacy health care costs.

Like I say, there are mechanisms and forces that encourage dumb decision making in government. And no mechanisms to really punish those who make such decisions.

On the contrary. The government is, at least theoretically, run by the people and is from time to time forced to answer to the people and be responsive to their needs and concerns. That's why the Republican party is currently not in power. That's the punishment for 8 years of incredibly dumb decision making. Corporate CEOs only have to answer to their shareholders, or nobody if the company is privately held.

One can almost guarantee that neither Obama or any Congresscritter will suffer any financial impact if their decisions turn out wrong. They won't even get sued ... because unlike the CEOs of private companies we can't sue them.

Huh? Since when are you not allowed to sue the government? It's tough to take you seriously when you get such basic facts wrong. And I thought the right was opposed to lawsuits anyway. Aren't you in favor of "tort reform"?

Private companies go out business when they aren't successful, long before they can impoverish a country.

They can at least screw over an entire state though before they go under. See Enron/California.

Just that when it comes to trillion dollar federal programs, we best be careful because those programs haven't really worked very well. It is hard to find success stories. Can you name any?

Name what, trillion dollar federal programs? No I can't, because the largest federal program, Social Security, only had a $544 billion budget in 2008. Oh, did you mean successful social programs? That's easy. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public education, etc. Can you show me any evidence that any of these programs are unsuccessful?

Your wikipedia source chart shows that the "number in poverty" in 1964 (about 33 million) is less than the "number in poverty" now (about 37 million).

Oh god. Really now? REALLY!? You're going to compare poverty numbers rather than rates? We haven't seen any increase in population in the interim?

To turn your question back on you, is there any evidence that the goals of Obama's spending programs (or the WOP, WOD, Medicare, Public Education) have been met? That what has been achieved is anywhere near worth the cost?

No, you got me there. I have no evidence of the success of any of Obama's programs since he's only been in office 9 months.

I always find these discussions amusing though because economic policies either have an effect immediately, or they lag behind about 4 or 8 years. The credit or blame goes to either the President or Congress. It all depends on which side you're on and what the charts and graphs look like when your guy is in power. I suppose in this case, Obama's plans should have had an immediate effect or else he has been a huge failure.

And if you would be so kind as to address any of the other points you dodged:

- What sort of actions can private industry take to stimulate the economy?
- How does the government promote inefficiencies?
- Can you name a specific failed social program that you object to the most so we can focus on that and not have to discuss the pros and cons of every piece of social spending for the last 50 years?

 

[psychictv]

LOL! Do you even know how the private economy works?

Assume I don't. Humor me. What can private industry do to stimulate the economy? I can think of one thing they can do but I don't think it would be the same answer as yours so I'm curious to see what you will say.

 

[Meadmaker]

>>>.Tax Cuts, Not the Clinton Tax Hike, Produced the 1990s Boom

How incredibly, amazingly, stupid.

So here's a question. At the end of Clinton's term, were taxes higher, or lower? Oh, they were higher? I thought so.

So, the best way to stimulate the economy is to raise taxes, and then cut them, but not as much as you raised them in the first place. What could be simpler?

What a bunch of codswallop.

 

[sugarb]

>>>.Tax Cuts, Not the Clinton Tax Hike, Produced the 1990s Boom

How incredibly, amazingly, stupid.

So here's a question. At the end of Clinton's term, were taxes higher, or lower? Oh, they were higher? I thought so.

So, the best way to stimulate the economy is to raise taxes, and then cut them, but not as much as you raised them in the first place. What could be simpler?

What a bunch of codswallop.

Hello, Meadmaker

I'm going to say something here that may or may not make sense about taxes. Okay? Perhaps I'm very wrong and someone could help me understand what I'm missing, but...

I've never been in an income bracket that seems to be affected one way or the other by the tax cuts or increases. I mean, honestly? I don't have kids, so those tax issues don't do me any good or any bad...and...we aren't "rich", so the "tax breaks" or "penalities" for the wealthy have never done me any good or bad...and, we aren't "poor", so things like the earned income doololly and such have never done me good or bad either way...

So I have a hard time relating to people talking about how different administrations tax increases or decreases are so significant. To me, personally. I mean, yeah, I think it stinks that someone in our income bracket can have two or three kids and get back a huge refund...but...I also think it stinks that people would be "penalized" just for being successful, too. For us? Over the years? Seriously, we've never seen much difference in our tax rates.

What I'm wondering is this: is this true for the majority of the population? I mean, any differences have been, really, minor. To us, personally.

 

[psychictv]

So you're comfortably middle class then. Not poor enough to need help but not rich enough to buy influence in Washington. Welcome to the club.

 

[sugarb]

So you're comfortably middle class then. Not poor enough to need help but not rich enough to buy influence in Washington. Welcome to the club.

Thank you, thank you, I consider it an honor to be welcomed into the group. Haven't always been here, though. I know what poor is, and I never forget where I came from.

 

[BeAChooser]

I don't like how much stalling there is in our government, due to partisanship, and I think that stalling has as much to do with the crises we're experiencing (mortgages, health care, etc) as anything.

Well you know what some smart person once said ... the government that governs best is the government that governs least. That being the case, sometimes I think we need to throw even more sand in the gears.

I don't consider taking the time to know what the details of a bill are before voting to approve it "stalling". But apparently the democrat leadership does. That was the case with the Stimulus Bill. The Omnibus. Cap N Trade. And Health Care.

Have you been following the nonsense now going on with respect to the latest democrat health care bill offering? They want the bill passed quickly and solely on the basis of "concept language" (which is several hundred pages in length). But the real language, the legal language, which could be written to hold all manner of ticking time bombs, would be several thousand pages long. And democrats want the bill passed before our representatives (and the people) even get to see that language in it final form. Let's see ... what's the complete opposite of stalling. Because that's what democrats now seem to be doing.

And by the way, you are right that some of the crises we're experiencing are the result of stalling. The Mortgage Crisis certainly was. Early in Bush's first term, republicans, seeing a potential problem in that area, tried to add additional oversight and monitoring to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac operations (both organizations were run by democrats). Oversight that many experts say might have prevented the mortgage industry (and thus banking industry) collapse. But democrats (such as Barnie Franks and Maxine Waters) fought that at every turn. By stalling, equivocating, denying, lying. You ever see some of their speeches in Congress defending Fannie and Freddie ... claiming that there was no problem? They stalled until the house of cards (built in large part by democrat agendas) came down.

I seem to recall quite vividly that Gingrich also steered the Republican party toward supporting some of Clinton's goals as well.

Well you are going to have to tell me more about that. Because I certainly don't remember that and alzheimers hasn't set in yet.

In fact, I recall some hard core Republicans thinking Gingrich was, at times, a traitor.

No, I think you are just confusing two issues. Hard core republicans called Gingrich a traitor for letting Clinton get away with most of the things he could have been charged with during the impeachment. I suggest you read David Schippers book, "Sellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton's Impeachment". You remember who David Schippers was?

I will say this: it seems to me that the Clinton administration really did a number on our intelligence community...and not in a way that led to improvements.

As Obama now seems intent on doing.

Third point, Bush. You think Bush tried to appease the Democrats and added more funding to failed/failing programs. I don't agree that Bush tried to appease Democrats. Not at all.

Then I guess you don't recall his efforts to work with Teddy Kennedy on Public Education (http://blogs.usatoday.com/.a/6a00d83451b46269e20120a51fef58970b-pi ). For example.

I *do* agree that he was a fiscal nightmare...not at all a conservative

In the sense that he didn't seem to know how to say no where welfare was concerned. True. But I think his defense spending was completely necessary. And I think he was right to lower taxes and increase revenues. For most of his term the economy did well, despite a recession going in, the disruption from 9/11 and an ongoing war against terror that has to be won. And he was on the right track with regards to the mortgage industry until democrat stalling succeeded in causing him to fold his hand and adopt some of their same language.

In my opinion, the biggest difference between Clinton and Bush was that Clinton tried to govern and Bush was just playing politics.

No, I think the biggest difference is that Clinton was a crook, a traitor, a liar and cared only about himself. While Bush was none of those things and put his country over his own welfare and legacy.

Bush relied too heavily on advisers

Bush had some very good advisors but he also knew where the buck stopped. Clinton, on the other hand, surrounded himself with fellow criminals and yes men. And Obama now seems to have a bunch of far left incompetents around him. People who got it wrong where the stimulus was concerned. People who apparently couldn't even read and understand the March CBO report. People who are steadily making a mess of our Foreign Policy and War against terrorists. And when Obama is caught doing something wrong, it seems he has a tendency to point fingers, claim he didn't know the person, and throw people under the bus.

I really don't think he was the best (or even close to the top) of what Republicans had to offer.

That may be true. But Obama is close to the top of what democrats can offer. That is sobering. And look at the Vice President ... heart beat from the top spot. Now THAT is scary.

You are right, Bush absolutely ignored the things that were leading to these crises

Untrue. I neither suggested that nor as I pointed out above did he just ignore the things leading to those crises. He did indeed try to get legislation that experts say might have prevented those problems from becoming the *crises* they did.

...but BeAChooser? He also did more than that, if you'll recall. His best advice for our economy? "Go out and SPEND! Spend money you don't have, and everything will be OKAY!"

Don't you think that's precisely what Obama has said ... only with even more spending in mind ... even bigger debt? And contrary to your claim, Bush did try to enact other changes in our economy. For one, he tried to make it possible for people to save more of what they make. Have more control over what they make. Changes to encourage all of us to become capitalists. But then democrats didn't like that either.

I mean, be honest...how long did it take you to realize that Bush was completely incapable of understanding basic economics?

Unlike Obama, Bush actually ran a successful company. I actually think he understands basic economics far better. In fact, Obama understands economics so little that he apparently couldn't even understand the March CBO report that stated in very clear language that Obama's programs would add about 5 trillion to the national debt over what Bush's program would have added. No, instead Obama went before the public and claimed that thanks to his programs the national debt would be 2 trillion less than what it would have been under Bush's programs.

You see, Obama has been thoroughly indoctrinated with socialist/communist *economics* over his life. At every turn, you find hard core socialists and communists by his side. So he has no trouble mouthing their *economics* of "social justice" and redistribution of wealth. Which is to say that Obama does not understand basic economics. He does not understand TANSTAAFL. He probably doesn't even grasp why the Soviet Union and East Block eventually collapsed.

So, if government is considering, and is capable, of a program that will save people money? Lots and LOTS of money? Then yeah, I'm going to support it,

And which program is that? Health Care? The CBO says that the health care proposals offered so far will NOT reduce health care costs but increase them. And do you know that the CBO says that without the final language of the health care bill (that democrat now don't want to release until after the bill is passed), they can't calculate what the latest health care bill will do to health care costs? Coincidence? I think not.

one thing I do know is that, no matter how "brilliant" a person is, no one person could adequately, alone, handle all of the issues, understand all of the issues, construct solutions to all of the issues, a country as big as ours faces.

Certainly true, but then again we are talking about top level stuff, top level concepts, top level logic, top level numbers, top level economics ... stuff that a President certainly should be expected to know ... especially when he personally is pushing trillion dollar programs in those areas. Especially when some of the silly stuff being said is in prepared speeches (not off the cuff) that the President's advisors must have vetted.

I don't see our major parties as all that different anymore, so I've kind of stopped noticing the -D or -R after the names. And again, maybe that's wrong.

Well I certainly agree that the lines have blurred a little but there still are massive differences between the two parties ... between those who represent the two parties. On dozens of major and important issues. The two parties are miles apart on those issues ... foreign policy, terrorism, taxes, welfare, racism, debt. In some cases they are on the same side of ball park, but still miles apart, with one party (democrats) mostly out in left field and the other party about where the short stop is (when I'd like them on the pitcher's mound. Both wrong, but one massively wrong. In other cases they are at opposite ends of the football field, defending different goal posts. Don't buy the lie (promoted by democrats) that there are no differences. And remember this ... one party may still be redeemable (that would be the republican party). I don't think the other is at this point.

 

[BeAChooser]

But you know, even you yourself said (I think it was you anyway...correct me if I'm wrong) that the programs initially implemented to boost the economy after the Depression were working, but we didn't stick to them, instead adding more and more and more "welfare" programs.

No, I didn't say that.