Budget deficits

[We need Tom Tupa]

One talking point that wont go away is that Republicans, for all their lip service to fiscal conservatism, historically run the biggest deficits. I think we can put that one to bed now. Add them up, multiply them by each other, do whatever you want, but GOP deficits are going to look like peanuts next to what the next 10 years has in store:

 

 

FDR could run as a Republican right now and truthfully claim a record of relative fiscal conservatism.

[osusev]

sure just add up 3 tax cuts inthe face of 2 wars, sign the biggest cost entitlement to medicare, deregulate/dismantle (starting from 1979) and pushed by the Bush admin and republicans that collapse our financial/economic system/ lead us into a recession and mini depression and then try to get out of all that..... Not to mention send more jobs overseas.....

 

Yes the bad dems trying to get out of all of that by saving our banking and financial systems along with dealing with increased medicare entitlements and the three tax cuts along with legacy cost of inheriting two wars and nation building....

 

Sure keep crowing about defecit problems. Keep up the "conservative" republican talking points its all your party has now that they have basically almost destroyed our economy and pushed down taxes and increased legacy cost from medicare.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Of course, you have to factor in the situation he was presented with and the costs of un-doing the economic crisis/recession. But these are not encouraging numbers and must be dealt with once the economy turns around. That means health care, entitlements, and defense. (Among other things.)

[We need Tom Tupa]

Of course, you have to factor in the situation he was presented with and the costs of un-doing the economic crisis/recession. But these are not encouraging numbers and must be dealt with once the economy turns around. That means health care, entitlements, and defense. (Among other things.)

I'd love to factor in the situation he was presented with. But I'm looking at the rules of the talking point I'm criticizing here and it says I cant excuse Reagan for inheriting double digit inflation or W for the burst of the 90's bubble, so I'm going to have to stick it to Obama too.

[Westside Steve]

Tell ya what Sev, YOU lead the charge against Medicare.

 

We got your back!

WSS

[osusev]

W was "victim" of the 90's bubble? the 3 tax cuts MEANING DECREASED TAXES INCOME in the face of ESCALATING SPENDING ON TWO WARS?

 

Or wait the Enron loophole and the deregulation that led to the human manipulated electricity outages in california by enron and sky rocketed costs had nothing to do with hurting the economy... MEANING THE SAME TACTICS AND LOOPHOLE OIL REFINERS USED TO SHUT DOWN AND ARTIFICIALLY INCREASE OIL PRICE...... No those $4+/gallon gas prices had nothing to do with slowing down gdp and spending also leading to our financial crisis.

 

The right wing republican stupid cry for deregulating the financial/insurance/banking industry had nothing to do with it either.... the same regulations that stopped the 15 year crash cycles for over 50+ years before the republicans started to systematically dismantle them.

 

The expanding medicare entitlements was insane and that little republican get the old vote crap is going to be even more expensive than both of the wars combined.

 

Steve to handle medicare would mean taking out the for profit paper pushing middle industry(which is not needed in the first place) and setting price/patent limits on the drug industry. than the "COST" suddenly is changed.

 

Yes so the measures of spending are EXTREME BECAUSE THE PROBLEM IS EXTREME. Its like when you are bitten by a venomous snake the anti venom is based on the same poison that is killing you. So in this case uncontrolled spending almost has to be treated with controlled directed spending to shore up the damage and let our system heal itself.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Tupa, I don't think that analogy holds with Bush. Reagan perhaps, although he inherited a much different situation, but at least it was similarly grave.

 

Also, Bush's tax cuts were proposed when the government was in surplus and the economy doing fine. The same tax cuts were then justified as stimulus, as were the subsequent tax cuts. This would be more analogous to what Obama is doing if he'd proposed spending $700 billion (or even secretly wanted to) some time in 2007, then applied the same economic rationale for 2009.

 

I get your point - politics doesn't make these distinctions - but they're all very different situations. Which I'm sure you know.

[We need Tom Tupa]

Tupa, I don't think that analogy holds with Bush. Reagan perhaps, although he inherited a much different situation, but at least it was similarly grave.

 

Also, Bush's tax cuts were proposed when the government was in surplus and the economy doing fine. The same tax cuts were then justified as stimulus, as were the subsequent tax cuts. This would be more analogous to what Obama is doing if he'd proposed spending $700 billion (or even secretly wanted to) some time in 2007, then applied the same economic rationale for 2009.

 

I get your point - politics doesn't make these distinctions - but they're all very different situations. Which I'm sure you know.

You do get my point, so I dont have much of an argument with your post.

 

I guess while we're here I'll take a shot at Obama's budget deficits. The fact that he's facing an extremely serious economic situation doesnt excuse every fiscal decision he makes. He proposed huge increases in spending unrelated to the recession and promised tax cuts for 98% of the country. Is there a math that I dont know about that makes this work? Take $2 trillion off of his record because of the economy (which I personally don't think makes sense), and he still owns a MOUNTAIN at the right end of the graph I posted. He has proposed budget deficits for as far as the eye can see, and that's assuming a quick and healthy economic rebound and doesnt include many of his largest programs such as health care. Sev can rehash Bush's sins all he wants, but I dont see how we can explain Obama's fiscal picture unless and until we assume a) his promises were and are more fantasy than reality or he is planning to leave us in an unbelievably horrendous fiscal position.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I understand your complaint. And I hate how a 'B' and a ')' makes a smiley face too.

 

I also don't see how you can add an additional 47 million to the health care rolls and have it be revenue neutral, as Orszag is claiming.

 

I'm hoping a lot of these people are as smart as they're supposed to be. You'll remember that one of my big complaints with Bush was that he went ahead with his second round of tax cuts when it was pretty clear the economy didn't need them and the budget couldn't take them. So you can see how leery I am about pushing forward with the same agenda now that we find ourselves in a remarkably different world (and budget situation) than the one that existed in the campaign.

 

That said, global warming can't wait, and health care needs to happen. xxxx if I know what to do.

 

Ps - Tupa, check the new global warming study MIT just finished. They might as well have titled it, "Oh, Shit."

[Westside Steve]

W was "victim" of the 90's bubble? the 3 tax cuts MEANING DECREASED TAXES INCOME in the face of ESCALATING SPENDING ON TWO WARS?

 

 

 

Steve to handle medicare would mean taking out the for profit paper pushing middle industry(which is not needed in the first place) and setting price/patent limits on the drug industry. than the "COST" suddenly is changed.

 

Damn why didn't I think of that?

Just eliminate the profit.

I'm sure that'll make the industry better.

 

Hey we'll get quinine and sulfa free; why get greedy?

 

WSS

[Guest Aloysius]

I'm hoping a lot of these people are as smart as they're supposed to be. You'll remember that one of my big complaints with Bush was that he went ahead with his second round of tax cuts when it was pretty clear the economy didn't need them and the budget couldn't take them. So you can see how leery I am about pushing forward with the same agenda now that we find ourselves in a remarkably different world (and budget situation) than the one that existed in the campaign.

You have to think that if a Democratic Paul O'Neill had been at Treasury, he would have said, "$787 billion in economic stimulus? You better trigger that shit."

[We need Tom Tupa]

Damn smiley faces.

[heckofajobbrownie]

You have to think that if a Democratic Paul O'Neill had been at Treasury, he would have said, "$787 billion in economic stimulus? You better trigger that shit."

 

That might not have been a bad idea. I have no idea how that would work politically, though. Rescinding spending is not the same as rescinding a tax cut.

[osusev]

Ok I wont bring up the Bush/Republican deregulation causes.

 

Lets really break down Government legislation and stimulas spending... ITS PR for market/consumer confidence to stop running on banks and keep some level of consumer spending.

 

Confidence/perception is what runs the market/economy. Government spending MIGHT trickle down and cash infusion toward Banks which is all about keeping consumer confidence in the stability of the economic system.

 

Yes the Deficit from the budget is crazy but the GDP and tax income is extremely depressed from three tax cuts to the wealthy, those would need to be reversed along with that Medicare entitlement expansion add EXTREMELY to deficit.

 

We will see in a couple years without the defense spending and the 2 nation building/wars along with hopefully increasing those taxes back along with a stable economy paying back into the system where we are deficit wise. IF they crack down on the middle financial industry on healthcare and the drug industry on price than we will see how that affects medicare/medicaid expenses and this defecit.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Last time I checked Obama was only ending one war, and not really ending it, and escalating the other.

[osusev]

Last time I checked Obama was only ending one war, and not really ending it, and escalating the other.

 

 

I am just projecting Heck, I think after 2 years in office with Afghanistan he will be looking to pull out completely with less framework than the Iraq pullout. Its just conjecture but I think he is smart enough not to be married to it before his reelection bid.

[Guest Aloysius]

That might not have been a bad idea. I have no idea how that would work politically, though. Rescinding spending is not the same as rescinding a tax cut.

True. And it kind of gets back to the "shovel-ready" debate. If infrastructure projects get delayed by bureaucratic snafus, they may end up getting built well after there's any need for stimulus. But I don't think that's too big a worry during this prolonged economic slowdown.

 

As for the politics, one thing I kept wondering while skimming through The Price of Loyalty was whether I'd feel the same way about a Democratic Paul O'Neill - a Bob Kerrey type who loves to tell hard truths but also seems to enjoy lobbing grenades at his own side. O'Neill seemed to be right on policy, but there does seem to be a value in being a good soldier, assuming you want your fellow partisans to actually listen to what you happen to say. Maybe that didn't apply in the Bush administration - it didn't work for Colin Powell - but that only highlights the need for there to be real debates within an administration, not maverick adminstration members talking to the media, Alan Greenspan, and other Higher Powers.

 

I am just projecting Heck, I think after 2 years in office with Afghanistan he will be looking to pull out completely with less framework than the Iraq pullout. Its just conjecture but I think he is smart enough not to be married to it before his reelection bid.

With Pakistan going to shit, I don't see how Obama could withdraw completely from Afghanistan. I've got mixed feelings about the escalation in Afghanistan and the drone attacks within Pakistan, but a complete withdrawal seems like a terrible third option.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I like that O'Neill is one of Obama's advisors. Interesting guy.