I think a lot of people who voted Democrat are like me. I don't believe now is the time for austerity. I thought the time for it was between 2002 and 2007, and assuming the economy continues to recover it'll be time to massively reduce the deficit starting in 2014. With interest rates as low as they are, I'm not that worried in the short-term. You may be, and you may think I'm an idiot, but the markets are saying that our current deficits are sustainable and I'm willing to listen to them. If Democrats aren't leading a charge to reduce deficits by 2014, I'll forget about social issues, hold my nose, and vote Republican.
I don't think you appreciate how big the debt is, or the deficits. "massively reduce" them? uh... LOL?
I say this not trying to convince anybody that I (or standard Keynsian types) are right. You feel what you feel, and I won't change it just like you won't change me. But the archetype of the "liberal big spending Democrat" doesn't really take into account that a lot of us are also worried about debt, and we feel like there are times to beat it down and times you live with it.
I have a question then... So since it's pretty obvious that Obama can't reduce the debt and his spending is actually increasing; how do you suppose this policy will generate growth in the economy? I'm still confused on how this will inject a better fiscal "State of the Union"
It's not like Bush could do it on his own. Somehow it passed. As far as it being an issue, I sure didn't hear outcry from the people. Blame Bush, blame the media, blaming doesn't get us anywhere.
Hilarious. You think we have a choice whether or not we have austerity? We're broke. Other countries will not keep funding our debt.
When deficits are primarily due to entitlements, which is the case with the U.S., it is essentially impossible to cut the budget. So, tell me, how in your mind, will the budget be drastically cut back? It is probably "too late" now. The longer things go on the more difficult a fix is politically. Then, the only possible fix is a crisis - like the one Europe is going through now.
yeah, but then we'll deal with that with hyperinflation! we're in for a 10-15 year monetary crisis once the shit hits the fan. :MARIS61:
I actually like that approach -- was that Romney lol? I don't think it would be very likely to happen in a two step dance, but I could imagine setting a budget limit of $XT and at the same time raising revenue. Obviously, figuring what to cut to reach that goal would be the key to it all.
That's a tough one. I think there needs to be some flexibility in the budget -- sometimes it actually makes sense to have a decent sized deficit. In the short term, I could imagine setting a goal that is negotiated (no one loves the number whatever it is, but everyone can live with it.) Setting a hard stop total budget number with inflation/GDP increases that works over time would be a tough one. I'm sure conservatives would want it because any tax increases would likely be in for the long haul.
I disagree with this because there are lots of people like me. Obama squeaked out a win because people like me are willing to live with current spending levels for the near term. If in 4 years it hasn't drastically changed, like I said, they'll lose my vote. And the votes of a lot of people like me. Assume that just 1 in 5 Democrats think like I do. (I estimate that there's a lot more than that, but whatever. And that's not even factoring in Independents.) That's more than enough to completely overhaul the legislative and executive. If that were to happen, a lot of things that are politically unfeasible right now suddenly become very feasible. There are three camps, not two: #1. Cut deficits now #2. Forget about deficits #3. Cut deficits soon, but not now That #3 group that I belong to is critical. We've cast our lot with the #2's, but it's not a deal that goes on forever. No matter what the #1's or #2's might think.
I asked you a question before. Maybe you overlooked it. I'm curious on how you believe this spending will generate fiscal growth in 4 years? And I suspect after this next term; they will lose your vote.
That wasn't Romney, but it's pretty obvious. At $3T, we're still ~$500B in the red - and that's after a 1/6th across the board type cut. You're not going to raise taxes to cover $500B, but you can raise them $50B (tax the rich!, Clinton era tax rate). If you hold spending at $3T, GDP will grow yearly to the point the deficit is $0. Likely by 2016, maybe even sooner. Raise taxes $50B and spend at a deficit > $1T and all you've done is raise taxes for revenge and no better reason.
Not to derail the thread, but I see people saying "Keynesian" economics all the time, but am I the only one on this board that has actually read The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money? The poor guy is having only half of his theory used. Keynes HATED structural deficits. His idea was essentially "saving for a rainy day". You balance the budget or run a small surplus in good times so if a storm comes, you have the ability to deficit spend to jump start an economy that won't jump start itself. Based on his writings, there's no way Keynes would support any of the policies enacted in his name.
I read it years ago. i have trouble with it because govt. tries it (Keynesian stimulus) and it never works as they promise. It's also massively expensive. And I don't buy that govt. spending has a multiplier >= 1.
The quotes you had on it made me think you were pulling from someone's budget plan. Regardless, I actually like it because I don't think either side will like it, but both sides could live with it and that's usually the sign everyone's negotiated well. It could be the budget number would be negotiated slightly north of $3T or that the tax increases are lower than what the liberals want, but it's at least an approach that could set things in the right direction. Again, the key would be figuring out what to cut to make the goal and that could be tough.
