Top Democrats Say Balancing the Budget a Bad Idea:

Originally posted by benrlOr kindly tell her neighbor go ahead and try to collect while she calmly polishes her guns?

edit on 3-9-2012 by benrl because: (no reason given)

Want to know who the neighbor is? Her children. The greatest holder of US debt is ... the US.

Originally posted by charles1952
I'm beginning to understand why the country can't have a serious discussion on economics. As just one example, I seem to remember a poster saying that if the government spends more money on its employees, they can go out and buy things thus improving the economy. By taxing people to get the money to pay the government employees, the people as a whole are less able to buy things, they have less money. Net result? No improvement in the overall economy, government employees get to buy more, everyone else gets to buy less.

And no, I don't feel like explaining the Laffer Curve, or explaining the "crowding out" effect that the government has.

I was about to more or less say this same exact thing, can't believe no one else brought up this point. Basically I need to have less so that I can give my money to someone else so they can spend my money? The genius of Keynesian Economics.

As Americans, we all collectively missed the point here. Whether you are a hard working individual or a family that lives off welfare, our economy needs to produce more revenue. Government does not generate more revenue, businesses do. When the environment is right, more money will be generated through businesses. AND THEN, it can be taxed and redistributed.

Bottom Line: If businesses don't fare well, everyone suffers.

Case in Point: We're at the "Saturation Point" in terms of import, "more trade" will alleviate the "Trade Deficit." Why not create more revenue on what America does best? Energy and Energy Independence, or shall we repeat history using the FDR model and go to war with those resources?

Happy Labor Day Everyone!

reply to post by jjf3rd77

I think its a given that the Dems dont care about the debt burden piled on the backs of the American people but are the Republicans much better? Maybe a little but under Bush the deficit nearly doubled in 8 years.

Obama added 5 trillion to the deficit in 4 years.

Bush added 5 trillion to the deficit in 8 years and this is "conservative"?

Write in Ron Paul.

Originally posted by marg6043
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.

Wall street is doing better now than it ever has. When Obama took office the DOW was a good 400 points lower than it is now so how are things getting worst?

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by inverslyproportional

 

Great explanation, people sometimes tend to have short memories they forgot that the only reason the economy "look like it balanced back after the market crash in 2008" was due to the generosity of the American tax payer to keep the wealthiest elite Aka too big to fail from going under water. In other words the too big didn't fix anything they just got bailed out until the next crash.

So what we did is to patch the problem no fix it.

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

So why didn't Bush fix it? Remember Bush bailed out wall street not Obama.

Today's democrats seriously need to go take economic lessons from Bill Clinton.
I didn't like the cuts he gave the military but by golly, back in the day he understood
the need to balance a budget.

You can obviously live a better lifestyle if you supplement your earnings with credit but eventually you will have to start living within your means and pay back what you have borrowed as well as the interest. The longer you leave it the more significant the debt and interest repayments will be. Balancing the budget will hurt the economy but that's not going to suddenly change some time in the future. Regardless of how much money you have you could always have more if you use credit but you can't keep using credit forever and sooner or later you will have to stop kicking the can down the road.

We have spent 1.3 trillion on war since 2001. That would have gone a long way towards balancing the budget. How many roads would that have built? Schools? How many students could have become scientists and engineers with that money? Not to mention the cost for lifetime care for all the veterans coming back maimed. Its so ridiculous to me how conservative war hawks have no problem spending money at this level on their perpetual wars, but are worried when it comes to spending money on medicaid or social programs, or anything to improve the country. You want to balance the budget? STOP ALL THE WARS.

Here is a link that might interest all you "fiscal conservatives"

costofwar.com...

Originally posted by openminded2011
We have spent 1.3 trillion on war since 2001. That would have gone a long way towards balancing the budget. How many roads would that have built? Schools? How many students could have become scientists and engineers with that money? Its so ridiculous to me how conservative warhawks have no problem spending money at this level on their perpetual wars, but are worried when it comes to spending money on medicaid or social programs, or anything to improve the country. You want to balance the budget? STOP ALL THE WARS.

edit on 3-9-2012 by openminded2011 because: (no reason given)

I didn't hear Romney or Ryan speak about War or Iran at their convention. Please do us all a favor and write to your master Obama and let him know your dissatisfaction.

reply to post by RELDDIR


I didnt watch the convention, not a fan of the GOP. Funny they didn't invite Bush or Cheney to speak there I am told. As for Romney, he may not have mentioned war with Iran there (which is in itself interesting he didnt state a position) But has done so numerous times on other occasions. If republican presidents of times past are any precedent, I have noticed its a pretty short time between them talking about war and actually going to war. I wonder what a war with Iran will cost the US? What would that do for balancing the budget??

[

reply to post by inverslyproportional


Government economy for dummies.....I like it. You did a great job of explaining in layman's terms without all the fancy footwork.

On a another thought, I also would like to know why Obama stated that America measures the economy on CLINTON’s record, where 23 million jobs were created. He isn’t Clinton and can’t claim any of it. The blind adoration has to stop. The democrats have already admitted that Obamacare will cost much more that originally thought. And the experts state it will be three times more expensive than what was originally projected. So with Obama, we will have an unaffordable healthcare system, new taxes that low and middle income won't be able to afford (even with vouchers=your tax dollars given to low income), so those same people who can't afford the new healtcare tax will STILL be uninsured. Which means there will STILL be people on public (State/County) low income healthcare (YOUR tax dollars paying for low income) or have no insurance coverage at all. I'm sure this is akin to jumping from the frying pan into the fire. My opinion of the low income voucher system is probably going to be a tax refund similar to the low income tax "refund" (again, YOUR tax dollars given to low income in addition to any funds/grants/food stamps they already receive) which can be spent anyway the receiver desires. This might put money (again, YOUR tax dollars) in the people's pocket to pay their electric bill or buy more groceries (which isn't a bad thing), but there is a great possiblity that it won't pay for any healthcare premiums.

Originally posted by benrl
So let me make a rather simplistic analogy.

Let's say a single mother of three loses her job.

She has credit card that are near maxed out say some are not.

One or two of her kids will starve if she stops using them completely.

How ever if she tries to say budget their usage and prioritize what she buys, she has a chance to keep the kids going, maybe not in the style they would like but no one will starve. In hope that better times can be had if she spends the available credit wisely.

Some additional information is this women has a neighbor who seems to really want her in debt and freely lends her money, clearly the neighbor wants something.

Lucky for this women during good times she stocked her house full of weapons a kick ass alarm system and a huge Pitt bull to protect her.

So which option do you take?

Starve the kids and balance her budget?

Reduce her spending while still borrowing and hope for better times?

Or kindly tell her neighbor go ahead and try to collect while she calmly polishes her guns?

edit on 3-9-2012 by benrl because: (no reason given)

Eat the dog.....and the neighbor, use the credit card to buy a new freezer.

reply to post by buster2010


Like I said we humans tend to have short memories, I guess you forgot again that the only reason the markets, or let say the elite thrives is due to the stolen money from the tax payer in the name of "bailouts", and yes some of that money went also to pay the whores in congress in the names of briberies to turn again one blind eye to the thieve of peoples wealth.

Or also forgot the scandal behind the pay outs to congress on inside trading last year and how easily went under the table.

In America we have a corporate dictatorship, they run the government, Obama and congress, dirty money buys laws and bills and the whores do not even have to write the laws, they are written for them and they pass them.


Federal Reserve’s Bailout of the Rich and Well-Connected

Read more: www.foxbusiness.com...

Insider trading and Congress
Capitol crimes

www.economist.com...

The big bailout scam

blogs.euobserver.com...

Special interests honor Congress, executive branch with nearly $19 million in 2011

reporting.sunlightfoundation.com...

Now wonder the rich get richer and working class get screw all the time

reply to post by buster2010


I never said that Obama did it, he just kept the policies in places, see one corrupted figurative president in our two party deceiving system complements each others corruption, while keeping and cementing those policies.

The bailouts to the rich is ongoing, some of them are under "unlimited tag".

CNNMoney.com's bailout tracker
The government is engaged in a far-reaching - and expensive - effort to rescue the economy. Here's how you can keep tabs on the bailouts.

money.cnn.com...

reply to post by thepresident


I never said that, actually a revolving economy is when the tax payer money is pay out and back into the confers of the American economy not oversea on waste and abuse.

But while the government keeps cutting jobs, in America and creating but welfare jobs, the waste and abuse oversea is on going.

reply to post by jjf3rd77


Of Course its a bad idea. People who have NO IDEA how to MAKE A BUDGET and KEEP IT would be against it to begin with. Its not profitable for them to LIVE WITHIN THEIR MEANS.

However, there is a MAJORITY of Americans that do and have to. The FEW are NOT going to RUN things and our government into the ground if the rest of us have anything to say about it.

Originally posted by charles1952
I'm beginning to understand why the country can't have a serious discussion on economics. As just one example, I seem to remember a poster saying that if the government spends more money on its employees, they can go out and buy things thus improving the economy. By taxing people to get the money to pay the government employees, the people as a whole are less able to buy things, they have less money. Net result? No improvement in the overall economy, government employees get to buy more, everyone else gets to buy less.

And no, I don't feel like explaining the Laffer Curve, or explaining the "crowding out" effect that the government has.

Hey Charles,

You can speak to me directly... I did not say

"if the government spends more money on it's employees"


I am not sure why all of you are putting words in my mouth.


I said that government employees and the money they spend via their paychecks
is currently a structural part of the U.S economy. That portion of economic activity
generated by government employees spending their income is a part of the economy
and that money gets earned/captured by private business every single day.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Today's democrats seriously need to go take economic lessons from Bill Clinton.
I didn't like the cuts he gave the military but by golly, back in the day he understood
the need to balance a budget.

Tax rate also of Clinton sounds good

cuts to bloated agencies, get more revenue from the top hoarders. Simple economics, the more taxes the top pay, the more likely they will keep their money tied up in investments to avoid the taxes, and as a byproduct, have jobs create.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Today's democrats seriously need to go take economic lessons from Bill Clinton.
I didn't like the cuts he gave the military but by golly, back in the day he understood
the need to balance a budget.

Tax rate also of Clinton sounds good

cuts to bloated agencies, get more revenue from the top hoarders. Simple economics, the more taxes the top pay, the more likely they will keep their money tied up in investments to avoid the taxes, and as a byproduct, have jobs create.

If wedo Clintons tax rates, then the same spending (1993) should be enacted.

Just copy the spending budget for 93.