Top Democrats Say Balancing the Budget a Bad Idea:

After a week of withering attacks on President Obama's fiscal record, top Democrats on Sunday defended the president's plans for shaving down the deficit -- but said balancing the budget now would actually be a bad idea.

Dems Defend Obama on Budget:

So I have a question for those of you still on the fence. If your main concern is supposedly the economy and the spending of government why would you ever vote for a party that DEFENDS spending and NOT balancing the budget? Voting for Obama will give you more spending and more taxes!!!!!!!

reply to post by jjf3rd77


I was reading this article this morning and my jaw about hit the floor. How can they think drastically overspending would be better than controlling the budget? I know that drastic changes in spending could be harmful but at least get a control on the obviously ridiculous spending or else we will be screwed a lot more than any drastic cut could cause. They just think we are too stupid to realize the harm it will cause their own personal pockets to quit the stupid spending

reply to post by jjf3rd77


Well, many of us understand where the government stands right now, we have a unsustainable deficit that never will be repaid, under the type of governance we have right now.

In other words to keep the economy revolving and to avoid falling into economic chaos is with more spending.

When your generated income is less of what you have in debt, guess what, you either keep getting into debt to maintain your way of living with more spending or defaulting on that debt.

classic keynesian economics

spending your way out of an economic mess

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
Voting for Obama will give you more spending and more taxes!!!!!!!

That's a good thing though! Government spending creates jobs, government revenue comes from taxes. You lower taxes to the levels that this country has without curtailing spending you end up with debt. A vast majority of that debt is owned by the people of the United States though. Don't believe me? Look around the world;

The EU went after spending without raising taxes, they're (collectively) at 11%. The US has an unemployment rate of just over 8%.

Canada has a corporate tax rate of 15%, twenty points lower than the United States! They have an unemployment rate of just over 7% (the US is at 8%) and an economy that's grown 1.8% in the last quarter, the same rate that the US economy grew in the same period.

Balancing the budget is a terrible idea, it leaves us in the situation of drastically lowering taxes to a point of government collapse or cutting spending to the point of self-destruction of the government whenever the economy takes a hit.

reply to post by MidnightTide


Actually that would have worked if you can predict the future and bet that it will get better, but betting is the worst reliable type of prediction, that is why the government keeps spending but have no idea how to fix the problem of lost taxable income.

reply to post by jjf3rd77
Just shows that the "recovery" was a false one.

All it is, is a sham propped up by our tax dollars.

They now admit it.

Buh-bye.

reply to post by jjf3rd77


Your article says "Balancing the Budget a Bad Idea" ,
the Dems are actually saying, shrinking the economic output during a slow economy
is a bad idea.

It is true, it will reduce currency in circulation, which will mean less money is captured by
business.

Anyone care to argue the point?

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by jjf3rd77

 

Just shows that the "recovery" was a false one.

All it is, is a sham propped up by our tax dollars.

They now admit it.

Buh-bye.

Uh, nope,

Sorry the recovery is real

See you in 2016

reply to post by MidnightTide



Uh, it's common sense.


Reducing the amount of circulation slows down the economy.

reply to post by jjf3rd77

Senior campaign adviser David Axelrod, speaking on "Fox News Sunday," repeated claims that Obama's plan would cut the deficit by $4 trillion over the next decade, bringing the budget shortfall down to a point that would "stabilize" the debt.

"And then, with growth, we'll be in a position to begin reducing it further," he said...

...What's necessary is to stabilize the debt and then work from there," he said. "You can't balance the budget in the short term, because to do that would be to ratchet down the economy."

Axelrod was referring to warnings that to act too quickly to close the deficit would deprive the economy of needed federal dollars at a time when it is barely growing and is creating jobs at a still-modest pace.

A recent Congressional Budget Office report said that if tax rates rise and sweeping defense cuts go into effect as planned in January, it could result in the economy contracting by .5 percent and unemployment rising to 9.1 percent -- even though the tax hikes and defense cuts would help to close the deficit...

from the OP source

Without stating any personal thoughts or opinions, it appears to me that the statement is not that balancing the budget is a bad idea - but that doing it blindly and irresponsibly would hurt the economy.

~Heff

reply to post by thepresident


I hope you are been funny, because by that time Obamacare will finish bankrupting the nation.

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by jjf3rd77

 

Well, many of us understand where the government stands right now, we have a unsustainable deficit that never will be repaid, under the type of governance we have right now.

In other words to keep the economy revolving and to avoid falling into economic chaos is with more spending.

When your generated income is less of what you have in debt, guess what, you either keep getting into debt to maintain your way of living with more spending or defaulting on that debt.

edit on 2-9-2012 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)

The money government SPENDS

is EARNED by businesses in the private economy AFTER the government SPENDS it.

Thanks for playing

reply to post by Hefficide


I agree, betting on the future has not been a good way to predict the outcome of a economic recovery at all.

Look at us 4 years later since the last market crash, we are still in the same economic mess that we were before and getting worst.

reply to post by marg6043


Agreed. The government action is akin to someone basically saying, "I can spend more than I bring in, because someday I'll get a better job and be rich!"

reply to post by thepresident


Well not when the biggest employer in the US is the government itself, that is why the America economy is a revolving economy.

That is why the defense budget is the biggest, because even private interest depend on the government budget, in the form of contracts, subsidies and more to create jobs, is all tax payer funded.

reply to post by beezzer


He, he, that used to be call once upon the time, "the American dream" now is an American nightmare.

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by beezzer

 

He, he, that used to be call once upon the time, "the American dream" now is an American nightmare.

It's okay for Americans to have the dream. Not the government, however.

reply to post by beezzer


True very true, but you know politicians, they think they are magicians and have a hidden rabbit under their sleeves.

Promises and more promises, the truth is that the budget has gotten so out of hand that nobody can balance the sheets, as we know that what is shown to us the tax payer is not the same as the true numbers the government keeps away from the public eyes.

reply to post by thepresident


Some people just never learn, I suppose you believe in this "recovery" as well.

The only thing keynesian economics does is keep the phony economy going, but that is going to end sooner or later.....when people stop lending the USA money, or people wise up to the bond bubble.