posted at 11/12/2012 1:01 PM EST
In response to Joebreidey's comment:
In response to moonslav59's comment:
In classical Keynesian modeling, it was never anticipated that deficits would be run in perpetuity.
This seems to get lost on a lot of democrats, and no small amount of republicans as well. You run deficits in a recession, you run surpluses and pay back your debt when you expand.
Are you forgetting GW was a Republican and had a Republican Congress for a while. We had a surplus, but he started 2 wars, raised no defense spending as well, and then made massive tax cuts. Stop blaming the Democrats for this mess, Obama inherited a situation that dictaed spending to get out of it, and yet his hands were tied for the last 2 years. Spending on Public jobs went down not up. The tax cuts remained in place as a compromise that Republicans claimed Obama never did any of.
We've has about 10 years of tax cuts in place. Where's the trickle down? The profits have been pocketed or moved overseas. The stock market has doubled, and yet BO is viewed as the enemy of capitalism.
Our car industry has rebounded. The housing market is now as well. Consumer confidence is growing. Consumer debt is low. Our highways and public transportation systems need enormous work, our schools are crumbling (physically and otherwise), and cutting spending will just add to a loss of our abiltiy to move good, compete intellectually with a world that is passing us up. I know spending more is not always the solution to every problem, but the states are hurting so much right now, and many have strict rules about increasing spending that for our infastructure to be updated, it almost has to come from a massive federal investment.
There is room to cut spending in other areas, including defense and some entitlements, but there has to be a balanced approach.
Comments at random-
1-Bush didn't start two wars, he started one.
2-Obama should've let the tax cuts expire. He didn't do so because he feared it would hurt his re-election campaign.
3-Profits have not moved overseas as much as left overseas because they will get taxed when they get repatriated. If you want that $1T repatriated, motivate the companies by allowing a lower tax on funds sent back to build new factories.
4-Schools are crumbling (if they are, which they aren't in my area of the Bronx) because the state grants monopoly power over the education system. Monopolies don't work. Let me know when you want to live in a city where only one food chain could operate, and where Exxon owned every gas station.
5-Some states are hurting because they pay off the unions, knowing full that they'd be out of office by the time the bills come due. Gov't accounting rules encourage non-recognition of the true costs of these deals. Go to a 401k defined contribution approach, like we little people have, and many of those issues go away.
Past that, I agree that we need to look at everything. Go over the cliff, then tell tell the right that they can re-allocate the tax increase, but the total increase stays the same, and tell the left they can re-allocate the spending cuts, but the total decrease stays the same.
Actually, it's two wars. Afghanistan was against the Taliban and al Qaida and Iraq was against Saddam Hussein, who was never linked or allied with al Qaida. After Saddam was defeated in 3 weeks, iraq turned into a counter insurgency and during that phase terrorists and I'm sure al Qaida elements got in there. Even today, however, Iraq is not allied with al Qaida or Afghanistan. We have been fighting two separate and costly wars. We had to go into Afghanistan, but not into Iraq, especially not for the reason stated, WMD.
max, student of and participant in military history, including two wars.