QuakerOats;1256104 wrote:Yes, but it is being reversed now with obama's trickle up poverty.

Change we can believe in ...

Obama Trickle up economic .... poverty is poverty because they don't know how to spend, save and manager their money Trickle up ... better term would be Pissing Up and that what Obama has done pissed away tax payer money and mine and your kids and grand kids future.... do you really want 4 more year of failure

jmog;1254802 wrote:So, you bring up the revenues and spending as a percent of GDP as proof we need more revenues. I then point out that we are only 1 or 2% off compared to Clinton and Bush years in revenues but 5% off in spending.

You then realize I'm correct and change your story/move the goal posts.

I understand well enough.

No...that is not why I brought it up at all. I'm not talking about deficit reduction at all here. I didn't move any goal post. You're still in the mindset that we should close the budget deficit now (like all pubs) and I want to know how you're going to do that by cutting spending.

I brought it up to show what type of spending our current increased outlays are...specifically...social safety net spending which automatically rises in periods of high unemployment.

The CBO has said that this type of spending (i.e. food stamps) will not play a factor in contributing to large deficits once unemployment is back to normal levels...so they're not a problem in a our long run budget problem.

My ultimate point has always been that attempting to close the budget deficit right now, whether with tax raises or spending cuts is wrong.

You claim "we need to get spending down." Since the majority of increases in spending is due to helping out folks who have lost their income in the recession...I will ask again;

how do you propose closing the budget deficit by eliminating this spending right now which would certainly lead to slower economic growth, higher unemployment and ultimately large budget deficits.

You haven't recognized that an answer has been provided. Safety nets can be reduced and should be. Having a saftey net in place doesn't mean that safety net should be a person's or family's entire solution to economic ills.

BoatShoes;1256128 wrote:My ultimate point has always been that attempting to close the budget deficit right now, whether with tax raises or spending cuts is wrong.

No, it is NOT wrong. It may be wrong in your opinion, or in liberal fantasyland, but we could easily be closing the gap on a $1.3 trillion deficit, withoutout batting an eyelash.

BoatShoes;1256128 wrote:You claim "we need to get spending down." Since the majority of increases in spending is due to helping out folks who have lost their income in the recession...I will ask again;

how do you propose closing the budget deficit by eliminating this spending right now which would certainly lead to slower economic growth, higher unemployment and ultimately large budget deficits.

The majority of the increase in spending cannot be for what you cite; we could give 15 million unemployed a check for $18,000 and that equates to $270 billion. Obama has spend an extra $1.3 trillion, every year; where's the money?

BoatShoes;1256128 wrote: how do you propose closing the budget deficit by eliminating this spending right now which would certainly lead to slower economic growth, higher unemployment and ultimately large budget deficits.

It would not lead to slower economic growth. The economy isn't growing now. Borrowing $1+ trillion per year and adding it on to the GDP is not economic growth. Unemployment would also be reduced depending on what you cut. The government subsidizing unemployment certainly does nothing to get people back to work. Cut that and they will be forced to take the jobs that are out there.

QuakerOats;1256139 wrote:Twhere's the money?

Increases in DOD, SS, Medicare and other mandatory spending.

To JMog.

What I mean is...I agree that spending has risen more than tax revenue has fallen as a percentage of gdp but even still...with the particular character of the spending, the evidence indicates that it is unlikely that you will successfully close the budget deficit by cutting the spending that has increased because it will reduce aggregate demand more so than any increase in confidence will increase it which will further increase unemployment, slow economic growth and in turn make our short and medium term budget problems worse.

If that type of spending were up while at full employment I would agree with you.

ptown_trojans_1;1256165 wrote:Increases in DOD, SS, Medicare and other mandatory spending.

Somehow, I think the notion of "mandatory" spending gets abused.

ptown_trojans_1;1256165 wrote:Increases in DOD, SS, Medicare and other mandatory spending.

A 60% increase over the Bush years ...... not hardly.

QuakerOats;1256212 wrote:A 60% increase over the Bush years ...... not hardly.

Well, then, prove it?
Over 75% of the budget is DOD and mandatory spending.
http://www.usfederalbudget.us/federal_budget_detail_fy13bs12012n_201000#usgs302

BoatShoes;1256128 wrote:No...that is not why I brought it up at all. I'm not talking about deficit reduction at all here. I didn't move any goal post. You're still in the mindset that we should close the budget deficit now (like all pubs) and I want to know how you're going to do that by cutting spending.

I brought it up to show what type of spending our current increased outlays are...specifically...social safety net spending which automatically rises in periods of high unemployment.

The CBO has said that this type of spending (i.e. food stamps) will not play a factor in contributing to large deficits once unemployment is back to normal levels...so they're not a problem in a our long run budget problem.

My ultimate point has always been that attempting to close the budget deficit right now, whether with tax raises or spending cuts is wrong.

You claim "we need to get spending down." Since the majority of increases in spending is due to helping out folks who have lost their income in the recession...I will ask again;

how do you propose closing the budget deficit by eliminating this spending right now which would certainly lead to slower economic growth, higher unemployment and ultimately large budget deficits.

Actually I'm not of the mold that says "eliminate the deficit in the next year's budget" type. I am of the type that would go all for a plan that reduces the deficit every year over the next 5 years or so until it reaches 0.

Yes, I 100% believe it should be reductions in spending, once spending has been cut enough to do this (FYI, I'm all for spending across the board, even miliary) THEN come asking for more taxes to help pay the actual debt.

BoatShoes;1256189 wrote:To JMog.

What I mean is...I agree that spending has risen more than tax revenue has fallen as a percentage of gdp but even still...with the particular character of the spending, the evidence indicates that it is unlikely that you will successfully close the budget deficit by cutting the spending that has increased because it will reduce aggregate demand more so than any increase in confidence will increase it which will further increase unemployment, slow economic growth and in turn make our short and medium term budget problems worse.

If that type of spending were up while at full employment I would agree with you.

You have to agree that the increase in spending that was a direct effect of people losing jobs (increase in welfare, foodstamps, unemployment, etc) was multiplied by the continuing extensions provided. The increase would have happened, but it would NOT have been as much if we stuck to our own rules.

Cleveland Buck;1256157 wrote:It would not lead to slower economic growth. The economy isn't growing now. Borrowing $1+ trillion per year and adding it on to the GDP is not economic growth. Unemployment would also be reduced depending on what you cut. The government subsidizing unemployment certainly does nothing to get people back to work. Cut that and they will be forced to take the jobs that are out there.

I agree we could do better things than paying people not to work but paying them nothing at all when there's not enough demand for the available labor will contract gdp. This belief that if unemployment insurance suddenly ceased all of these jobs would magically appear is a fantasy. But then again so is hyperinflation 2012.

jmog;1256281 wrote:You have to agree that the increase in spending that was a direct effect of people losing jobs (increase in welfare, foodstamps, unemployment, etc) was multiplied by the continuing extensions provided. The increase would have happened, but it would NOT have been as much if we stuck to our own rules.

This is true for the extensions of unemployment insurance benefits but again, you're suggesting that these folks would find jobs if this didn't exist but there is not enough demand for the available labor...which is implied when unemployment is higher than full employment. We should be doing something besides paying people to sit on their ass when they desire to work but alas, your alternative results in even slower gdp and higher unemployment and worse budget problems.

QuakerOats;1256138 wrote:No, it is NOT wrong. It may be wrong in your opinion, or in liberal fantasyland, but we could easily be closing the gap on a $1.3 trillion deficit, withoutout batting an eyelash.

The guy you're going to vote for disagrees:

""Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5 percent. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I'm not going to do that, of course,"

One of the more sensible things he's said.

QuakerOats;1256212 wrote:A 60% increase over the Bush years ...... not hardly.

Nope you're right...why believe the facts when it fits your narrative to believe that Barack Obama and his socialist pawns have increased the size and scope of regulatory agencies and the like with the purpose of ruining the traditional American way of life.

Con_Alma;1256133 wrote:You haven't recognized that an answer has been provided. Safety nets can be reduced and should be. Having a saftey net in place doesn't mean that safety net should be a person's or family's entire solution to economic ills.

I would be with you if the economic system was providing able bodied individuals with opportunities to provide for themselves at full employment. This is not the case and cutting the safety net (which is designed to catch the unemployed) when millions of Americans who've done nothing wrong can't find work is a mistake on moral and economic grounds.

believer;1254764 wrote:If the government had the resources to spend on common-sense projects like highway infrastructure I might understand....but it simply doesn't. The only way that should happen would be if (a) the government balances the budget and (b) tax revenues increase. And where do those revenues come from? That's right....the private sector.

The private sector is begging to lend the government money at incredibly low interest rates despite at least have of Congress desiring to have the government default on its obligations.

Footwedge;1255346 wrote:Boats, we have just witnessed the biggest explosion of Keynesian economics this country has ever witnessed sans WWII. You can show all the pie charts you want but the deficit spending has shown shit for growth and shit for dropping unemployment.

What do we have to show for this? Absolutely nothing. It's time to address radical changes in an attempt to right a systemic clusterfuck.

That's fair but it still wasn't big enough given the massive economic contraction (which you've alluded to). In today's dollars, WWII was about $3 trillion stimulus. Additionally, this isn't you're father's deficit spending which was done with productive activity...in a lot of ways we're paying the unemployed to sit around and leaving revenue off the table to pay down private debt.

Additionally, the state's enacting the largest spending cuts since the de-mobilization after the Korean War have offset the work of the stimulus and large deficits at the federal level. God bless federalism!

I mean we've got a little something to show for it though. We could be the UK who have a full blown recession from following the advice of our resident conservatives here but hey...it's not like the CBO says our own austerity next year is going to cause a recession...oh wait.

"I would be with you if the economic system was providing able bodied individuals with opportunities to provide for themselves at full employment"

And the fault belongs where? Have you owned a business in your life (my guess is no)? With government regulations and "employee and consumer protection" it is damn near impossible to hire someone legally in the U.S. in the start-up community. That's why private contracting and 1099 work as a percentage has exploded in the last few years. It is a toxic business environment. I remember the years of the 'horrific' W administration with low unemployment there was continual griping from the intelligentsia about how "these jobs just aren't good enough" or "we need jobs with pensions (what an antiquated concept now)" - in our current state people would line up for hundreds of meters to make minimum wage cleaning the floor at a peep show. Somewhere these voices have been muted. I don't know why, after all they voted for hope and change and they got it.

And yet austerity worked in Canada. Trillion dollar deficits don't cut it. The business environment created by this administration doesn't cut it. More money wasted by this administration isn't going to cut it.

It's convenient to pick-and-choose and ignore other factors in deriding austerity, but the fact is keynesian policies are failing all over the place. And it's unbridled keynesian economics that has gotten a lot of them in this mess in the first place.

"Additionally, the state's enacting the largest spending cuts since the de-mobilization after the Korean War have offset the work of the stimulus and large deficits at the federal level. God bless federalism!"

How many times will you parrot this (boatshoes is Keynesian, boatshoes tax and spend, Squawk!!!!) and how many times will I refute it with "what the hell are these government people supposed to do?" Hire policemen to patrol safe areas. Hire firefighters to not fight fires. Hire teachers to sit in a room watching the students while real teachers teach? More likely hire more bureaucrats to stifle real growth. We all can't be government employees. We need REAL growth.

Parrot away. Tax and Spend, More Government Spending. Squawk Squawk Squawk!

BoatShoes;1256728 wrote:This is true for the extensions of unemployment insurance benefits but again, you're suggesting that these folks would find jobs if this didn't exist but there is not enough demand for the available labor...which is implied when unemployment is higher than full employment. We should be doing something besides paying people to sit on their ass when they desire to work but alas, your alternative results in even slower gdp and higher unemployment and worse budget problems.

No, I did not suggest they would find jobs, they would have a much higher motivation to find a job though.

I also agree that technically the GDP would not rise as fast but that is only because when the government hands people money to spend in the market it is a false increase or "bubble" that will burst sometime anyway. It is not true GDP or demand. It is just GDP taken from one sector (or borrowed from one sector) and distributed to another, not real growth.

I know I just made a Keynesian's head explode, but the truth hurts. Oh, and sorry I didn't try to use big words and an essay in an attempt to confuse everyone into believing I know what I'm talking about. I just talk in common sense that everyone can understand.