General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Once again, why does he believe that out-republicaning the republicans is going to achieve anything desirable? They hate him. They have always hated him and they will never stop hating him. Ever. Period.
We pay the price for his unending quest to appease these people.
And no, it's not entirely his fault, but that doesn't change the facts.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)I am as big a critic of Obama as anyone here, but this is a good thing. Sadly, there's bad news. Obama hasn't actually cut anything that needed cutting.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Last edited Tue Aug 13, 2013, 02:57 PM - Edit history (1)
We seem to have lost the capacity to understand that bad ideas remain bad ideas regardless of who implements them or when. Believe me, I'd be much happier constantly having to write how wrong I've been, rather than endlessly trying think another way to write "I told you so".
Perhaps you should try forming your opinions by listening to people that make a habit of being right, rather that those that simply succeed in getting their way.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)I have no trouble conceding that Obama's response to this depression was ineffective and misdirected. I also have no trouble conceding that a better response might have been a REAL national infrastructure investment program rather than the half-assed trickle he send the way of the American people. Hell, Bush's cash stimulus probably provided more real impact than what we got under Obama.
However, none of that alters the point of my post. Trillion-plus deficits are unsustainable. If you doubt this then no further discussion is possible.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)I'm not sure what specificity you're looking for. The economic effects of producers, consumers, and the government all reducing spending? The resulting reduction in the money supply in circulation? The results of deficit spending over some time period? What would happen to the global economy if the U.S. actually eliminated the national debt?
Reducing deficit spending is certainly a desirable goal, but the time to do it is during good times. Doing it now creates another drag on the overall economy resulting in just what we're seeing, a fictional, trickle down recovery.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Your comments in BOLD
What would happen to the global economy if the U.S. actually eliminated the national debt?
The debt is another issue. Obviously it needs to be reduced, and the sooner the better, if for no other reason than that a good deal is currently financed through short term notes at low interest rates. This means that if the rates head north we have a major problem when we go to roll it over. Not a good place to be.
Reducing deficit spending is certainly a desirable goal, but the time to do it is during good times. Doing it now creates another drag on the overall economy resulting in just what we're seeing, a fictional, trickle down recovery.
The reduction you are seeing now has little to do with any real changes in spending. We aren't spending less, we're spending more and ever more. Sadly, little of this is directed towards anything that has any real stimulative effect on the economy. Nor could it be, other than towards "short" term projects -- which would be great of course, and are desperately needed, but wont provide anything more than a temporary fix at the price of increased long term debt. We cannot borrow our way to prosperity.
The real changes are the ones no one in Washington is interested in talking about. In my opinion we need to reject so-called free trade in favor of trade laws that benefit the 99% rather than the 1%. We need tax laws that encourage reinvestment. We need a massive investment into our infrastructure including cheap renewable energy. We need to tax capital gains as income and impose a 'sales tax' on financial transactions. We need to end the wars and the police-surveillance state.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)Deficits at any level are perfectly sustainable when you have a fiat currency and your debts are denominated in that currency. You simply cannot run out of money that you create. The idea that dollars are somehow a finite resource for the federal government is simply wrong.
Inflation is a potential concern given this reality, but it requires a special set of circumstances that really don't apply to this discussion.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Like it or not ... a significant segment of the electorate, Democrat and republican, believe that reducing the deficit is/should be a policy priority.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)kind of reservation or camp. Does that qualify him to be Secretary of the Interior?
When you let what people that don't know or understand the subject in question determine actions because they "believe" something, you get bad ideas on top of terrible ideas built on a foundation of ignorance. American "believe" that the federal budget is like their household budget as well, so are you advocating that we should let a H&R Block "financial planner" determine U.S. economic policy?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)my understanding of a democratic republic pretty much requires letting even the people you believe are ignorant have a say in governance. It's frustrating; but the other option is anti-democratic.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)a person has some understanding of the matter, or they do not. People that do possess an understand can have differing opinions, reach conflicting conclusions, engage in meaningful debate,and they can even be flat wrong, but belief never enters into it.
I think you have pointed out one of the most significant problems we have today. Somewhere along the line too many of us have accepted the notion that belief is a valid argument (argumentum ad populum). The notion that because everybody has an opinion, all opinions are equal is another fallacy that has taken hold.
Our system of a republican democracy is not simply a fancy name for mob rule, we have, or had, mechanisms and procedures to protect the minority from the majority. They are/were highly flawed and don't always work, but they exist(ed). You are testament to that.
So to get back to the point of my original reply, my opinion is formed through both my own understanding and that of a whole constellation of economists who have achieved the widespread recognition of their peers, and a consistent track record of actually being right for many years. I think any reasonable person would concede that that is probably more valid than large numbers of people simply nodding their heads to whatever they are told by people with a microphone and an agenda to exploit their ignorance.
PETRUS
(3,678 posts)But many people don't understand why this deficit reduction is not good. Oh well, what do you do...
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)deficit reduction is NOT the primary concern if the goal is to get the country working again.
and lost in the rest of this thread unfortunately.
Welcome to DU.
-p
Way to go!
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)
progressoid
(49,917 posts)forestpath
(3,102 posts)Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Chained CPI is not a cut. Chained CPI is an endless series of cuts compounding on each other. More, it ensures that Social Security will very quickly become privatized. Once Chained CPI goes into effect privitized Social Security is not only an easy sell, it's LOGICAL.
If you are a young person and -- thanks to Obama's Chained CPI -- you have a choice between a guaranteed nothing under the the government Chained CPI Social Security program, or a chance at something (if you are lucky) under privitized SS, you are going to opt for the chance at something every time. You would be a fool not to.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)He did, however, use the CCPI proposal to expose the gop's unseriousness with respect to governing as they ... once again ... rejected want they asked for.
And guess what? It's working (see: gop obstruction polling; pay special attention to the gop and independent numbers) for everyone except liberals, progressive and "true democrats" ...
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)why did the President create the catfood commission and appoint two well known anti-New Deal zealots to head it? The entire thing was the brainchild of Pete Peterson. What kind of a president did we elect? This is alarming. And it's too bad you don't recognize that.
It is clear that part of the President's mission is to accomplish what George W Bush could not.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)It was never going to pass. Obama surprised me on that one because like the public option I thought he'd cave and take the exception out of there.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)on the P/O because he did not have the necessary support for it on the Democratic side of the House or the Senate ... had Democrats been full in, I think the P/O would have been in the ACA.
And, BTW, I suspect that with some many states opting out of the exchanges ... I think the Fed will/could create P/Os in the exchanges that they run for the states.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)to generate ideas; or has no legislative or administrative authority.
It is clear that people have been saying this from Day 2 of his Presidency ... generally, right after writing about how they worked for, donated to and voted for him ... twice ... and as a prelude to announcing how disappointed they are in his presidency.
And yet, they expect to be taken seriously.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I suggest you go back to my posts leading up to and after the election. I was such an Obama fan. My whole history is available for you to see.
Many of us wondered about the RW anti-gay preacher at the inauguration. But for most of us, that was certainly no deal breaker.
No public option was a real disappointment.
All the right wing appointments raised questions.
Allowing the Bush Administration to skate after they committed war crimes and treason was more than a disappointment.
Voluntarily extending the Bush tax cuts was egregious in my mind because it set the stage for all the deficit bullshit to follow.
Then, not prosecuting obvious Wall Street criminals was quite a disappointment.
Proposing Chained CPI was shocking to me.
Now there are the NSA surveillance revelations.
TPP.
It's hard to fathom all these things happening in such a short time.
Many of us had such high hopes.
Good thing we didn't elect Romney.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)but take a step back and think about ... 1) his accomplishments (in the face of historic opposition) and 2) the alternative.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Perhaps only Lincoln had such opposition.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)but then, not from before his inagrauration(sp?).
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Security until the day he leaves office.
No cuts are going to occur, but that won't stop the outrage.
And when he leaves office, and no cut has occurred, the folks who have been endlessly predicting the cuts will happen any second, will then proclaim that it was they who saved Social Security from the evil Obama.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)They held his feet to the fire ... dontchaknow, or some rot.
'
I suspect if President Obama mentioned the term sunrise in a speech ... a certain elelment would go off on a "his gonna stop the sun from rising ... an 'investigative lawyer/journalist' wrote all about it! We must stop it!"
Then, use the rising sun as proof that their posting on an anonymous message proved their opposition, pivotally effective.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)to unravel his devious plans.
For instance, when he says "Strengthen Social Security for future generations" the secret decoder ring shows you that what he REALLY MEANS is that he's going to slash SS to the bone right now.
Squinch
(50,896 posts)is different from saying the word "sunset." Don't get me wrong. I concede that it might have been a tactic to highlight the GOPs intransigence, but it did scare me. And if it was not a tactic, it's a problem.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)this was a tactic to highlight the GOPs intransigence ... and the polling suggests that it is working among the cohort of semi-sane republicans and independent voters ... shortly after the republicans rejected the offer, their numbers ticked downward among this group. And this is the group that we (Democrats) need in 2014 to either: vote Democratic (unlikely), or vote 3rd Party (thereby diluting republican votes), or stay at home. (I posted analysis of the polling numbers as of last week that I can re-post if you wish)
And, sadly, if his offer scared you ... that, I suspect, went into the calculus ... In order for this gambit to work, President Obama (and his team) needed two things: the left to freak out; thereby, showing that HE is the side that is willing to compromise, even to the utter disgust of his base ... (that definitely worked) ... and no one to realize that the offer was going no where because NO Democrat supported it (that worked too).
Squinch
(50,896 posts)
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)those cuts in SS that he approves? The Super Rich people don't need to be drawing SS!
hughee99
(16,113 posts)telling people that everyone gets to pay in, but you may not get a dime out. Then it's not a retirement insurance plan anymore that belongs to everyone. It's a program that benefits one group at the "expense" of another, and the group that's paying is the group that can afford to buy a lot of political influence.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Remove the income cap on contributions (and include ALL forms of income including cap gains), but impose a cap on payouts. If some rich bastard pays in a million a year and gets back 15 grand a year on retirement so what.
In any case this is not a problem, as Social Security payouts are already adjusted for income.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)all except for the separations of powers/legislature must enact it part.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Never mind.
spanone
(135,765 posts)
Cha
(296,679 posts)posting it.. mahalo Play!
Playinghardball
(11,665 posts)
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,927 posts)
hughee99
(16,113 posts)and the auto bailout.
progressoid
(49,917 posts)Oh, wait...
never mind.
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)and as he was elected president shortly after that vote, he was in charge of the implementation.
Now, if you want to say that this money belongs on *'s final budget, you can, but if half *'s final budget was for this 1 time massive expense that President (then Senator) Obama supported, then the "cut the budget deficit in half" argument looks kind of silly, doesn't it?
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)...something he was given information on by someone else.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)If you consider this to be on Obama's budget, how did he manage to do it. If you consider it to be on *'s final budget, then that means HALF of * final budget was this expense, an expense President Obama supported, and without that expense, his final budget would have been as low as any budget produced since the President took office.
I'm not suggesting that Obama didn't have legit reasons to spend that money, but it does make the "cut the budget deficit in half" argument look a little silly.
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)...where he was given information to act ... he didn't come up with the plan himself.
Also, Obama's budget came with a bailout of the middle class.
Wingers and FUDr alike would LOVE to claim Obama had NOTHING to do with the US economy being kept from Great Depression year over year downturns but that's not true.
Obama pushed the bail out of the US economy via the stimulus, I'll give him credit for that but not TARP
hughee99
(16,113 posts)but now you're saying that TARP belongs to *'s final budget. If it does, then it's more than half of his $1.4 trillion, and without it, his final budget deficit would have been about $650 billion, which is as low as anything the President has produced.
Given that the repukes in congress (certainly in the house) fought it, and that it passed because of Dem support, it's hard to put this all on *, as much as we might want to.
The * budget deficit skyrocketed in the last year (roughly tripled in the last year) and this is largely due to this one time expense that Dems (including president Obama) supported and repukes were on the fence for (I think they were roughly 55% against on the final vote). It's a little deceiving to be tooting President Obama's horn for deficit reduction when you're comparing his budgets only to *'s final budget with a huge 1 time expense that bloats it to extreme proportions.
President Obama has done many great things, and a relatively silly (IMO) argument like this makes it look like we can't find better arguments in support of the President.
mountain grammy
(26,594 posts)I'm concerned about the lack of funding for much needed regulations of the out of control corporate polluters. We must change the House in 2014 and turn the tide.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)sheshe2
(83,583 posts)However it needs to be broadcast over and over!
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)It was around $1.4 Trillion, we need to get it down to around $700 Billion for it to be cut in half.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-08/obama-sees-2013-deficit-drop-to-759-billion-gdp-growth-at-2-0-.html
^snip^
Obama Sees 2013 Deficit Lowest in Five Years, GDP Growth at 2.0%
The Obama administration projects that the federal budget deficit will drop to the lowest level in five years, $759 billion for the year ending Sept. 30, as the economy improves and tax collections increase.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Repukes love to complain about taxes, yet never mention their horrible spending habits.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)Between the tax hike and the sequester, it's the largest fiscal contraction, by share of GDP, since 1946. Given the immediate post-war period was quite chaotic economically, this is not a ringing endorsement.
liberal N proud
(60,331 posts)Cutting the deficit also cuts into the reasons for the GOP to gut the government.