jmog;794294 wrote:Year-Budget Deficit
2007-$167 billion
2008-$459 billion
2009-$1.7 trillion
2010-$1.1 trillion
2011-$972 billion
You do realize that Obama took office in January of 2009 right? Please show me how the "levels" of deficits are remotely close.This year, the projected deficit is the lowest under Obama (partially due to talks in the repub House right now) and it is STILL twice the highest it ever was under Bush.
Again, I hated Bush's deficit spending, but to even compare his levels to Obama's is laughable at best.
See now you're a smart guy but all you're demonstrating by saying that you're more upset about the 2009-2011 budget deficits is that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the role of government deficit spending in normative orthodox economics. It is not the size of deficits that should be a concern but the
when of deficits. The time you should be upset is when we are running deficits when we have 4% unemployment, not 9-10% in a liquidity trap with interest rates at the zero bound!
And furthermore, you have to acknowledge that half of those deficits run by Obama are the result of cuts in revenue which is the desirable conservative fiscal policy!
And this right here is why people like Footwedge don't take Conservatives seriously. Every Conservative I know has been like "Oh, well, I disagreed with Bush too..." but where was the anger???
Footwedge is a Ron Paul guy and was all about TEA parties before it was cool to do so and Hannity started giving them coverage. I'm sure he's seen it for several decades. The average republican doesn't give a damn about deficits until they don't have the presidency. It is really that simple. In fact, because our country ran deficits at the wrong time, we lacked the political capital to have large enough deficits that would have actually have turned the recession around as opposed to merely prevent a depression. the 2009 budget deficit should have been twice as big.
If Conservatives during the Bush years really had a problem with debt increases, when they had the Congress and the presidency they could have passed a law that required matching spending cuts if you're going to cut revenue. If they were really Conservative, they would not have put money on the credit card once they decided to drastically cut revenue in 2001. But no, the concern back then was "don't want to pay off the debt too fast" and "deficits don't matter, ask Ronny Reagan."
If all these Conservatives want to say that they care about deficits, those tax cuts that they passed should have been offset by spending reductions. They always say that borrowing increases and spending increases ought to be offset by spending cuts. Well, the same ought to hold true for revenue cuts. Otherwise, revenue cuts
do contribute to the deficit despite they're saying otherwise. I can virtually guarantee that neither Jmog nor Writerbuckeye were making these demands back then. And no Writer, most of Obama's fiscal stimulus was 1. Aid to States and 2. Cuts in Revenue! (what you love!) which is why Martin Feldstein came out against it because
take relief is a bad stimulus! But, Obama doesn't have the political balls to tell Republicans that their lies are wrong and caves. Austan Goolsby just resigned and stated as much; how Obama and he's boys would not listen to economic sense because he didn't want to upset Republicans. What a joke! Don't sit here and act like you would have supported more socialist direct spending! C'mooooon!
If we're to take you guys seriously, the 10 years of Afghan war that footwedge has been against from the start and now Writerbuckeye is pretending he was, should have been offset by spending cuts just like they're trying to do with the Debt ceiling now (which is insanity). But no, they make their living running deficits and then suddenly get mad
when major deficit was finally justifiable
Footwedge is onto you.
Though I disagree with Footwedge's beliefs on Hard Money, etc. he and other paleo-conservatives are the only ones I will take seriously.
And furthermore, though Footwedge has made it clear his distaste for Obama's policies, why would he constantly trump them up here when this place is an anti-Obama circle-jerk?? I'm sure he spends time around more libertarian sites where they share their contempt for Republicans and Democrats as a whole. If he wants to convince people toward his way of thinking, in this place anyway, would he not be better served to try and convince Conservatives of what he believes to be the error of their ways?
