Posted by tecwrg on 2/27/2013 12:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/27/2013 12:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/27/2013 12:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/27/2013 11:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/27/2013 11:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/27/2013 11:42:00 AM (view original):
Why focus on cuts now? Does reducing the deficit benefit the economy?

Would the United States getting a credit rating downgrade benefit the economy?

No, it wouldn't. But it isn't the deficit itself that causes the downgrade, it's the belief that the government is so dysfunctional that instead of working things out in a rational way, the politicians will allow us to hit the debt ceiling and default on obligations.

You don't think our government is dysfunctional now, by doing nothing but fingerpointing at the other side?

Your "solution" is to still do nothing, but without the fingerpointing?

Will that make us somehow magically look better, with the debt continuing to spin out of control?

Are you Captain Smith, directing the Titanic band to keep playing while the ship is going under?

Our government is dysfunctional but deficits financed at a near zero interest rate are manageable and don't affect our credit rating. Playing chicken with the debt ceiling is what earned us a credit downgrade.

Cutting spending to shrink the deficit is a short term negative for the economy. A better solution is to allow the economy to fully recover (which will take care of a lot of the deficit) and then get the budget trimmed.

Who or what defines a "fully recovered" economy?  Because one can define things in such a way that we never get there, and our deficit continues to rise out of control.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/27/2013 12:53:00 PM (view original):
Republicans put up tax increases in the "fiscal cliff" crisis in December.  Obama did not offer any spending cuts at that point.  Now, for the "sequestor", Obama is demanding more tax increases while refusing to offer any spending cuts.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2013 9:43:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/27/2013 9:27:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/26/2013 10:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/26/2013 10:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/26/2013 9:04:00 PM (view original):
This:  "hope the economy grows"

**** hope.  Give me a plan.

If the economy doesn't grow we're ****** regardless of the deficit.

So what part of "**** hope.  Give me a plan" confused you?

You're the one who said "hope the economy grows"

I'm a little tired of "Let's do this and hope it works!!!!"

If the plan is "cut spending" then we're ****** because that will negatively affect the economy.

Do you think it matters what gets cut?   Or do you believe any cut at all will negatively affect the economy?

If that's what you think, that's pretty dumb.

As I said "**** hope.  Give me a plan."    Said plan can include cuts that won't negatively affect the economy, don't you think?

Posted by tecwrg on 2/27/2013 1:32:00 PM (view original):
I do not think the economy is fully recovered.

I also do not think that a debt that continues to rise is in the best interests of our country.

We've had this discussion before.  You seem to think that the government is incapable of multi-tasking, that we have to COMPLETELY fix the economy before we can try to tackle the debt.

Most successful businesses are able to do multiple things at once, i.e. work towards multiple goals at the same time.  The ones that are singularly focused on one and only one thing at a time are the ones that are destined to fail.

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/27/2013 2:09:00 PM (view original):
Based on a purely Keynesian perspective, it is basically impossible to simultaneously reduce the deficit and grow the economy.  Keynesian economics argues that the primary tool the government has to control economic growth rates, aside from the prime rate, is deficit spending, IE injection of additional money into the economy.  I'm fairly certain from previous discussions that BL is a hardcore Keynesian, so he's going to buy into that basically 100%.  I certainly would agree there is some merit to it.  As long as it's being spent domestically, government money is still paying somebody's salary or buying somebody equipment.  Even if the product of the spending isn't terribly useful or worth the money, it is being injected into the economy somewhere.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/27/2013 2:24:00 PM (view original):
I'm sure there are some. But as soon as you get into numbers high enough that the cuts have a real effect on the deficit, you're negatively impacting the economy.

Posted by toddcommish on 2/27/2013 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/27/2013 2:09:00 PM (view original):
Based on a purely Keynesian perspective, it is basically impossible to simultaneously reduce the deficit and grow the economy.  Keynesian economics argues that the primary tool the government has to control economic growth rates, aside from the prime rate, is deficit spending, IE injection of additional money into the economy.  I'm fairly certain from previous discussions that BL is a hardcore Keynesian, so he's going to buy into that basically 100%.  I certainly would agree there is some merit to it.  As long as it's being spent domestically, government money is still paying somebody's salary or buying somebody equipment.  Even if the product of the spending isn't terribly useful or worth the money, it is being injected into the economy somewhere.

Keynesian economics ignore sociological environments and societal attitudes.   Government money might be paying a salary, but if it's not producing a good or benefit, the money is essentially wasted.  Think of it this way, if they wanted to fund fast food companies, they would get a greater benefit by directly subsidizing them rather than giving money to poor people and hoping that they spend it where the government wants them to.

That's the problem right now.  Government money is being given away (to non-producing individuals) and that money isn't being put to any good at all.  Stop giving money to people who aren't working.  Incentivize people who WANT to work to produce something.  Giving money away (which is what increasing the size of government is doing) doesn't encourage growth or productivity.  It encourages government dependence.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2013 2:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/27/2013 2:24:00 PM (view original):
I'm sure there are some. But as soon as you get into numbers high enough that the cuts have a real effect on the deficit, you're negatively impacting the economy.

So, without a "real effect", nothing should be done? 

Are you implying that our government shouldn't care one iota about spending until there is a "full" economic recovery?

Posted by toddcommish on 2/27/2013 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/27/2013 2:09:00 PM (view original):
Based on a purely Keynesian perspective, it is basically impossible to simultaneously reduce the deficit and grow the economy.  Keynesian economics argues that the primary tool the government has to control economic growth rates, aside from the prime rate, is deficit spending, IE injection of additional money into the economy.  I'm fairly certain from previous discussions that BL is a hardcore Keynesian, so he's going to buy into that basically 100%.  I certainly would agree there is some merit to it.  As long as it's being spent domestically, government money is still paying somebody's salary or buying somebody equipment.  Even if the product of the spending isn't terribly useful or worth the money, it is being injected into the economy somewhere.

Keynesian economics ignore sociological environments and societal attitudes.   Government money might be paying a salary, but if it's not producing a good or benefit, the money is essentially wasted.  Think of it this way, if they wanted to fund fast food companies, they would get a greater benefit by directly subsidizing them rather than giving money to poor people and hoping that they spend it where the government wants them to.

That's the problem right now.  Government money is being given away (to non-producing individuals) and that money isn't being put to any good at all.  Stop giving money to people who aren't working.  Incentivize people who WANT to work to produce something.  Giving money away (which is what increasing the size of government is doing) doesn't encourage growth or productivity.  It encourages government dependence.

"Government money might be paying a salary, but if it's not producing a good or benefit, the money is essentially wasted"

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2013 2:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/27/2013 2:24:00 PM (view original):
I'm sure there are some. But as soon as you get into numbers high enough that the cuts have a real effect on the deficit, you're negatively impacting the economy.

So, without a "real effect", nothing should be done? 

Are you implying that our government shouldn't care one iota about spending until there is a "full" economic recovery?

Posted by bheid408 on 2/27/2013 3:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 2/27/2013 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/27/2013 2:09:00 PM (view original):
Based on a purely Keynesian perspective, it is basically impossible to simultaneously reduce the deficit and grow the economy.  Keynesian economics argues that the primary tool the government has to control economic growth rates, aside from the prime rate, is deficit spending, IE injection of additional money into the economy.  I'm fairly certain from previous discussions that BL is a hardcore Keynesian, so he's going to buy into that basically 100%.  I certainly would agree there is some merit to it.  As long as it's being spent domestically, government money is still paying somebody's salary or buying somebody equipment.  Even if the product of the spending isn't terribly useful or worth the money, it is being injected into the economy somewhere.

Keynesian economics ignore sociological environments and societal attitudes.   Government money might be paying a salary, but if it's not producing a good or benefit, the money is essentially wasted.  Think of it this way, if they wanted to fund fast food companies, they would get a greater benefit by directly subsidizing them rather than giving money to poor people and hoping that they spend it where the government wants them to.

That's the problem right now.  Government money is being given away (to non-producing individuals) and that money isn't being put to any good at all.  Stop giving money to people who aren't working.  Incentivize people who WANT to work to produce something.  Giving money away (which is what increasing the size of government is doing) doesn't encourage growth or productivity.  It encourages government dependence.

Absolutely.

Which is better for the economy?
1. Not raising taxes so people have more of their own money to spend on goods and services which in-turn improves the economy 

or

2. Taking that money away in the form of higher taxes and giving it to people who aren't working, or companies that can't be self-sustaining without the government hand-out

#1 would require not raising taxes and less spending (a win win)
#2 would require raising taxes and continued higher spending (lose lose)

Which one do Repubs want?   #1
Which one does Obama and Dems want?  #2

1. I never said that BL wanted to raise taxes. I said Obama and the Dems did. Big difference!

2. I never said that spending towards good programs like roads, parks, education, and research, like you stated, should be cut, however if you think that every f*cking dollar that gets spent in Washington goes to a good cause then you are a fool.

3. Try to start your posts without insulting others. It will make them and yourself more credible.