QuakerOats;787889 wrote:Ok BoatShoes, let's simply look at the numbers.
In 2003, federal receipts were $1.782 trillion; they steadily grew at a more-than-adequate pace and last year were $2.162 trillion, up 21% during a period of low inflation.
On the other hand, outlays were $2.159 trillion in 2003, and have since swollen to $3.456 trillion, which equates to an
astounding 60% increase in spending. And obama is in line to pile on even more spending in '11 - another $400b!!
You don't need to be a Rhodes Scholar or an economist at a Washington think tank to easily understand that we do not have a revenue problem, rather
we have a massive spending problem.
If you cannot understand this, then there is absolutely no point in further discussion.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
What you don't understand is economics which the civilized world has known since before the birth of our Republic.
Frederic Bastiat, "What Is Seen and Not Seen," on the benefits of fiscal expansion and government employment of the unemployed in a recession:
There is an article in the Constitution which states: "Society assists and encourages the development of labor.... through the establishment by the state, the departments, and the municipalities, of appropriate public works to employ idle hands." As a temporary measure in a time of crisis, during a severe winter, this intervention on the part of the taxpayer could have good effects... as insurance. It... takes labor and wages from ordinary times and doles them out, at a loss it is true, in difficult times...
Jean-Baptiste Say, "Treatise on Political Economy," on the benefits of fiscal expansion and government employment of the unemployed in a recession::
[A] benevolent administration can appropriately make provision for the employment of supplanted or inactive labor in the construction of works of public utility at public expense, as in construction of canals, roads, churches, or the like...
Jean-Baptiste Say, "Complete Course of Political Economy," on how the key problem created by a trust crisis is not the harm it does to aggregate supply--not the disruption of the division of labor--but rather the lack of aggregate demand:
The Bank [of England]... forced the return of its banknotes... cease[d] to discount commercial bills. Provincial banks were... obliged to follow... commerce found itself deprived at a stroke of the advances on which it had counted, be it to create new businesses, or to give a lease of life to the old. As the bills that businessmen had discounted came to maturity, they were obliged to meet them, and finding no more advances from the bankers, each was forced to use up all the resources at his disposal. They sold goods for half what they had cost. Business assets could not be sold at any price. As every type of merchandise had sunk below its costs of production, a multitude of workers were without work. Many bankruptcies were declared among merchants and among bankers...
John Stuart Mill, "Essays on Some Unsettled Questions in Political Economy," on how at the root of high unemployment after a financial crisis is an excess demand for financial assets:
There can never, it is said, be a want of buyers for all commodities; because whoever offers a commodity for sale, desires to obtain a commodity in exchange for it, and is therefore a buyer by the mere fact of his being a seller. The sellers and the buyers, for all commodities taken together, must, by the metaphysical necessity of the case, be an exact equipoise to each other; and if there be more sellers than buyers of one thing, there must be more buyers than sellers for another.... If... we suppose that money is used, these propositions cease to be exactly true.... Although he who sells, really sells only to buy, he needs not buy at the same moment when he sells; and he does not therefore necessarily add to the immediate demand for one commodity when he adds to the supply of another....
In order to render the argument for the impossibility of an excess of all commodities applicable to the case in which a circulating medium is employed, money must itself be considered as a commodity.... [T]hose who have... affirmed that there was an excess of all commodities, never pretended that money was one of these commodities; they held that there was not an excess, but a deficiency of the circulating medium.... [P]ersons... from a general expectation of being called upon to meet sudden demands, liked better to possess money than any other commodity. Money, consequently, was in request, and all other commodities were in comparative disrepute.... [T]he result is that all [other] commodities fall in price or become unsaleable..
IT MAKES SENSE FOR BARRY TO RUN A LARGE DEFICIT TO TRY AND STIMULATE THE ECONOMY BUT UNFORTUNATELY REPUBLICANS WHO'VE STUMBLED UPON THE HETERODOX INCANTATIONS OF LUDWIG VON MISES ARE WINNING THE NATIONAL CONVERSATION WITH ZOMBIE LIES AND BHO DOESN'T HAVE THE POLITICAL WILL OR THE CAJONES TO DO WHAT IS REALLY NECESSARY SO WE GET HALF ASS DEFICIT SPENDING AND QUAKEROATS THINKING HE HAS A POINT WHEN HE REALLY IS JUST SHOWING HIS IGNORANCE OF THE DISMAL SCIENCE!
What you don't do is Run deficits in boom times and justify giving more money to the populace by saying "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" and then, when the government does need to borrow money on the full faith and credit of the United States to counter a massive. historical contraction in the business cycle....START COMPLAINING THAT WE HAVE A SPENDING problem and saying "everyone else is tightening our belt, so should the government Durr" when that is the exact opposite thing you should do and the exact opposite thing that your hero Ronald Reagan did.
Now please, stop.
