Attention: Deficit!

[shuize]

Luke T. and Grammatron's posts above pretty much reflect my opinion on the tax debate.

If I thought the Democrats would be satisfied with just a tax increase to reduce the debt and not increase spending I'd put every other political difference aside and pledge my vote to them for all time.

But I am as certain as it's possible to be about anything in this lifetime that if given back control of Congress the Democrats will not be satisfied with just increasing taxes but will see the possibility of increased revenue as a green light to spend even more.

 

[WildCat]

The Pentagon told Congress the week of April 18th that it would need another $4 billion to get through the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. That's on top of $87 billion approved in a supplemental budget for Iraq and Afghanistan for this year.

Ten years of that and it could approach the new Medicare prescription drug benefit.

And hope for a drought this year, otherwise another $50 billion in farm subsidies could kick in.

 

[a_unique_person]

The US commitment to maintain an occupying security force of 138,000 in Iraq until the end of 2005 must be taken into account in regards to projections about deficit budgets, and debt in general.

Spending could still take an unexpected jump because of surging hostilities in Iraq.



http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/summarytables.html

The Pentagon told Congress the week of April 18th that it would need another $4 billion to get through the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. That's on top of $87 billion approved in a supplemental budget for Iraq and Afghanistan for this year.



The White House is expected to ask for $50 billion to $75 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2005 fiscal year.
Robert Bixby

For all the good it's achieved, they may as well have tied the dollars up in bundles and thrown them on a fire.

 

[Grammatron]

For all the good it's achieved, they may as well have tied the dollars up in bundles and thrown them on a fire.

That sounds like it would cause global warming and here I thought you were an environmentalist.

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

The US commitment to maintain an occupying security force of 138,000 in Iraq until the end of 2005 must be taken into account in regards to projections about deficit budgets, and debt in general.

Spending could still take an unexpected jump because of surging hostilities in Iraq.



http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/summarytables.html

The Pentagon told Congress the week of April 18th that it would need another $4 billion to get through the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. That's on top of $87 billion approved in a supplemental budget for Iraq and Afghanistan for this year.



The White House is expected to ask for $50 billion to $75 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2005 fiscal year.
Robert Bixby

oops; have to revise this as there has been an update Please Congress, may I have some more?

 

[WildCat]

Do I dare bump a 5 year old thread?

$477 billion seems quaint these days.

 

[Meadmaker]

Do I dare bump a 5 year old thread?

$477 billion seems quaint these days.

You're a cruel man, but fair.

 

[WildCat]

Bumping to compare/contrast with the recent thread where the current left wing of the JREF forum sees no issues at all with racking up huge deficits year after year.

 

[Neally]

The budget can't be balanced:

 

[tyr_13]

Bumping to compare/contrast with the recent thread where the current left wing of the JREF forum sees no issues at all with racking up huge deficits year after year.

You know what's funny? That the reasoning has remained consistent. Besides your straw man about 'current left wing sees no issues at all' when in fact no one I've seen has said anything like that, we also have the fact that people were saying that borrowing for infrastructure and like is generally a good idea if you can get the rate low enough and that deficits aren't inherently bad.

So what changed? What the money was being used for. It looks like the nuanced stance of the various posters on 'the left' isn't as hypocritical as you'd like it to be.

 

[Beerina]

Well, up until the recent few years, I regularly pointed out that if we hadn't been borrowing tons and tons every year, and had run a balanced budget, the politicians would have had an additional $300+ billion a year to spend on something that wasn't interest payments on past borrowing.

Would have been nice. Didja get your money's worth over those years?

 

[WildCat]

You know what's funny? That the reasoning has remained consistent. Besides your straw man about 'current left wing sees no issues at all' when in fact no one I've seen has said anything like that, we also have the fact that people were saying that borrowing for infrastructure and like is generally a good idea if you can get the rate low enough and that deficits aren't inherently bad.

So what changed? What the money was being used for. It looks like the nuanced stance of the various posters on 'the left' isn't as hypocritical as you'd like it to be.

You didn't read that other thread, did you? There were actually people arguing for continued deficit spending and printing money to intentionally cause inflation to reduce debt.

 

[tyr_13]

You didn't read that other thread, did you? There were actually people arguing for continued deficit spending and printing money to intentionally cause inflation to reduce debt.

Yes. That doesn't conflict with anything I've said.

 

[Unabogie]

Bumping to compare/contrast with the recent thread where the current left wing of the JREF forum sees no issues at all with racking up huge deficits year after year.

I'm on the left and I'm been complaining about the deficit since Ronald Reagan exploded it. I do think deficit spending has its place during a depression, but now that we're in recovery I'm on the record as supporting the end of the Bush tax cuts. I'd phase them out if there were a choice, but since the GOP won't do anything but argue for a 20% cut in taxes for billionaires, there's no solution except to let them all expire. Why use a straw man here? I'm pretty sure I'm not alone on this.

ETA: Oh, and I want to drastically reduce the defense budget, but last I checked, 99% of all GOPers want that to grow (see Ryan, Paul). So exactly what is your point? I'm in favor of budget reduction and ALSO moving money away from billionaires and war profiteers and over to the folks who are still hurting from 2008.

 

[WildCat]

Yes. That doesn't conflict with anything I've said.

Do you think spending on infrastructure is automatically a good investment?

How about the infamous Alaska "bridge to nowhere"? It's infrastructure, so it must be a good idea, right?

How about high speed rail? Good infrastructure investnent, or a white elephant that will drain funds from other uses for decades to come?

 

[tyr_13]

Do you think spending on infrastructure is automatically a good investment?

How about the infamous Alaska "bridge to nowhere"? It's infrastructure, so it must be a good idea, right?

How about high speed rail? Good infrastructure investnent, or a white elephant that will drain funds from other uses for decades to come?

Hey, you do know there are great threads on all those things? I've not said that spending on infrastructure is automatically a good investment. I hope you knew that and weren't just strawmanning again.

 

[WildCat]

Hey, you do know there are great threads on all those things? I've not said that spending on infrastructure is automatically a good investment. I hope you knew that and weren't just strawmanning again.

Dude, you're the one who brought up infrastructure spending. Now you want to abandon that issue? Ok.

So is our deficit and debt (now equal to GDP for the first time since WWII) A Good Thing^TM?

Should we spend even more?

 

[Meadmaker]

Well, I'm barely part of JREF forums these days, but this particular part of the left on JREF is not hypocritical.

I think Obama's policies on the deficit have been awful. I was willing to cut him some slack for a while, but four years of slack? When he had a filibuster proof majority for the first two years? And he could have raised taxes without even a passing vote?

No, I've been a deficit hawk since the days when I was complaining about Ronald Reagan's 200 billion dollar deficits, and when it comes to handling the deficit, Obama sucks.

 

[Howie Felterbush]

So tell me, which terrorists are about to rain ICBMs on the US so that it needs a new generation missile defense system? How much more secure is the US now that it has taken out a dictator who was no threat to it.

North Korea?

Raining? If they ever try to fire one, it is more likely to end up crashing on themselves. The only purpose it serves is to frighten people. Kim is too comfortably ensconsed in his paradise to end it all with an attack on the US.

This was kind of prophetic.

 

[lomiller]

Bumping to compare/contrast with the recent thread where the current left wing of the JREF forum sees no issues at all with racking up huge deficits year after year.

Cause it the Democrats who refuse to do anything to make up the nearly $1 trillion shortfall in revenue that has resulted from the economic downturn and various tax holidays enacted to deal with it...


As it turns out the structural deficits is pretty much where these projections from 2004 said it would be. This structural deficit still has to be dealt with at some point, but the fact remains that it won't be Republicans who do so. They will not cut defense spending, will get smacked down of they try to cut social security/medicare and there really isn't a lot of spending anyplace else and they have all promised not to raise taxes.

So the 8 year old issue with Republican incompetence remains the real issue with US deficits.