Where is the US economy headed?

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

I thought the primary message of the GOP was to cut spending to meet revenue. What they are doing is increasing the national debt - as always. What's the change? Only the rhetoric?

You miss the point entirely.

The current need to raise the debt ceiling is needed to enable the Treasury to issue more bonds (debt) to raise the cash to pay for expenditures already enacted by previous Congresses. What the new Congress does (or does not) accomplish will affect the future trajectory of the debt. If the Republicans are able to just stop the growth of our debt as a % of GDP that will be a modest accomplishment (and reversal of previous trends). However, as our GDP grows (if growth resumes) the dollar value of the debt will also grow. Moreover as the Fed continues its "quantatative easing" with a continued decline in the value of the dollar relative to core commodity prices, the dollar value of the debt will also rise.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Obama and the left steal from the American people; Pander to Rich liberal progressive democrats.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

If the Republicans are able to just stop the growth of our debt as a % of GDP that will be a modest accomplishment (and reversal of previous trends).

Won't ever happen without tax increases - and you know it.

It was this same group of Republicans who INSTITUTED the previous trends. Did you forget that part? Medicare part D, two rounds of tax cuts, and two wars - all by basically the same people who are now championing drastic cuts to government. More than a little hypocrisy there.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Advocate,

You make it sound like the Ancien Regime Advocate. How many votes have millionaires?

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Oh, there's plenty of hypocrisy to go around. The deficits of the past two years eclipsed even those of prior years. Getting some growth back into the economy is also a significant factor in the deficit equation - one that Democrats choose to overlook in their calculations as they burden the economy with ever more growth-inhibitibg regulation and counterproductive welfare spending.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Oh, there's plenty of hypocrisy to go around. The deficits of the past two years eclipsed even those of prior years.

Uh, yes, because the previous bunch left the Dems with a giant mess to clean up. That's what happens when you have a mess to clean up. Hard to blame that on those who inherited the mess.

Quote:

Getting some growth back into the economy is also a significant factor in the deficit equation - one that Democrats choose to overlook in their calculations as they burden the economy with ever more growth-inhibitibg regulation and counterproductive welfare spending.

Pretty much every professional economist disagrees with your position regarding the stimulative effects of government spending during a recession. Don't know what else I can say besides that.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Read what I actually wrote. I wasn't referring to any "stimulative effects" of government spending. Instead I was referring to the growth suppressing effects of an increasingly intrusive and expensive government on the free economic activity of citizens everywhere.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Read what I actually wrote. I wasn't referring to any "stimulative effects" of government spending.

Oh, you didn't write this?

Quote:

counterproductive welfare spending.

I could have sworn you did. And that was an incorrect statement on your part. There's no evidence that the Dems spending has been counterproductive in any way, concerning the growth of our economy.

Quote:

Instead I was referring to the growth suppressing effects of an increasingly intrusive and expensive government on the free economic activity of citizens everywhere.

Yeah, I think that this is mostly bullshit on your part. The fact that you are against the regulation of business and industry doesn't mean it's a bad thing for the government to be doing...

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Evidently you aren't aware of the paralysis that has stopped development of nearly all needed improvements in our electrical power and transmiaaion industry, not to mention the production of needed fossil fuels. Moreover the unquestioning support of the Democrats for government employee labor unions is one of the major factors limiting the ability of State and local goivernments across the country to excape the public debt crises they face.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob, Some of the increased deficit was the outgrowth of lost jobs and homes for many Americans that carried over from GW Bush's tenure, and they needed the support of our government to have food on their tables. The stim program also cut taxes for the middle class that were badly in need of that extra cash to stay above water; in addition to increasing infrastructure improvements. Where do you fault this cost increases?

When you say "the deficits of the past two years eclipsed those of prior years," that's a strawman argument. GW Bush was the one who cut taxes in 2001 and 2002 for the wealthiest of Americans that led the increased deficits while the middle class and poor lost their jobs and homes.

You need to look at the global influences of what precipitated our drop in tax revenues, decrease in family net assets, and the Great Recession.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Moreover the unquestioning support of the Democrats for government employee labor unions is one of the major factors limiting the ability of State and local goivernments across the country to excape the public debt crises they face.

These organizations have signed contracts. What you want is for one side to break their contractual obligations. And you call yourself a law-abiding conservative?

Serious, since you brought up the subject, do you expect one side to abrogate a signed contract without concessions being made by the othert side? Of course with you being a stooge and mouthpiece for management, with no apparent moral center of your being, you do.

3 Replies

@kuvasz,

Maybe georgeob doesn't have any contracts that he ever signed?

It's my understanding that both parties negotiate contracts before an agreement is made and contracts are signed.

Sounds to me like a sound legal process.

When those contracts are signed, nobody has any idea about the economic future of our country or the world. That's one issue that should be understood by both parties, but isn't.

However, I will provide this caveat about union contracts of government workers and the government representatives who happen to agree to those contracts. Most legislators do not understand fiduciary responsibilities, economics, or how those contracts will impact society in the future.

What has happened during the past several decades when the economy was growing at 3-4% annually, everybody believed our economic future was secure. That's a dumb conclusion if they understood that between after WWII and 2000, we've had several huge deviations in our economy, and that the US economy has changed to the extent it has become a world economy. These changes impacted many of our industries, and many warning signs were evident from the time we stopped producing iron at previous levels, and our clothing and manufacturing industries started to disappear.

Even when government is warned about foreseeable financial problems, they fail to act; good examples are social security and MediCare. They continue to increase the level of national debt to keep up their uncontrolled spending.

They are creating a future disaster that will ultimately hurt our whole country, and we're the ones who elect them to represent us.

0 Replies

@kuvasz,

kuvasz wrote:

Quote:
Moreover the unquestioning support of the Democrats for government employee labor unions is one of the major factors limiting the ability of State and local goivernments across the country to excape the public debt crises they face.

These organizations have signed contracts. What you want is for one side to break their contractual obligations. And you call yourself a law-abiding conservative?

Serious, since you brought up the subject, do you expect one side to abrogate a signed contract without concessions being made by the othert side? Of course with you being a stooge and mouthpiece for management, with no apparent moral center of your being, you do.

I can see where he could argue that the previously signed contracts are unsustainable. But how does one reconcile that argument with the belief that low taxes on the rich ARE sustainable? We could just as easily help close the debt crises in these states by raising taxes on the rich. Yet that is never advocated, not even a little.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

As a matter of fact, the GOP wants to make the GW Bush tax cuts permanent for the wealthy.

They will also approve the increase in the national debt with the new congress; even the House majority will approve it.

They can't see their own folly.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

They will - Boehner is on record saying that they will end up voting to increase it.

Cycloptichorn

Indeed, but it's going to be an interesting show.

Quote:

Some conservative Republicans have urged their GOP colleagues to resist raising the ceiling -- which currently clocks in at $14.3 trillion -- under any circumstances. Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota is collecting signatures on her PAC's website "to force our elected officials to stop spending cold turkey," and Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina has advocated for a "big showdown" with Democrats by blocking the raise.

But House Budget Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan says that tactic isn't viable. "Just refusing to vote for it, I don't think that's really a strategy," he said, noting that a failure to raise the ceiling could result in the nation defaulting on its debts to investors.

"Will the debt ceiling be raised? Does it have to be raised? Yes," he said at a question-and-answer session at the National Press Club Thursday.

But Ryan suggested that Republicans can tweak some specifics of the move - how many years the increase covers, for example. And, more importantly, they can tack on requirements for deep spending cuts as a condition of passage. "I want to make sure we get substantial spending cuts and controls in exchange for raising the debt ceiling," he said. Source

1 Reply

@JPB,

Hah!

Quote:

And, more importantly, they can tack on requirements for deep spending cuts as a condition of passage.

No, they can't. Because Obama and the Dems in the Senate will say 'no way, Jose!' to those draconian spending cuts (betcha none of it is to the military-industrial complex) and then they are back to square one, where they.... have to vote to raise it.

They are in a box on this one for sure...

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@kuvasz,

kuvasz wrote:

Quote:
Moreover the unquestioning support of the Democrats for government employee labor unions is one of the major factors limiting the ability of State and local goivernments across the country to excape the public debt crises they face.

These organizations have signed contracts. What you want is for one side to break their contractual obligations. And you call yourself a law-abiding conservative?

Serious, since you brought up the subject, do you expect one side to abrogate a signed contract without concessions being made by the othert side? Of course with you being a stooge and mouthpiece for management, with no apparent moral center of your being, you do.

Soverign states (all 50 of them) have (and frequently use) their power to unilaterally abrogate any contract. This is an old and established principle of our government and law. Indeed many states have right to work laws that forbid the monopolies that labor unions seek (and thrive on) over various classes of otherwise free citizens and workers. In addition unionization of Federal government employees was prohibited until JFK authorized it in the early 1960s. That prohibition can (and in my opinion should) be restored.

Labor unions representing government employees have systematically paid off legislators to get unsustainable (and compared to other workers, unfair) salaries, benefits and job security (tenure for grade school teachers). Now the people represented by these corrupt legislators demand changes. The changes will come.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Oh, I forgot to add: forcing a shutdown of the government is going to cold **** the Military in a lot of ways, and if the Republicans think their military-humping supporters are going to go for that while we have a couple of wars going, they are absolutely nuts.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Labor unions representing government employees have systematically paid off legislators to get unsustainable (and compared to other workers, unfair) salaries, benefits and job security (tenure for grade school teachers). Now the people represented by these corrupt legislators demand changes. The changes will come.

You got a bug up your ass about unions, a typical management lackey position, and are making up things to support your untenable position of comfort. Is your next step to declare that the notorious Saul Alinsky, dead twenty years, was the bag man too? Instead of admitting your morally reprehensible position of denying the workers the right to organize and benefit from that, you slur with lies anyone who demands that their legal contract of labor be upheld by the courts.

What gets me about your position on the argument, as well as the other tossers on the Right is that if such actions were done to you and sanctioned by the government you would be screaming about tyranny, the abrogation of your rights and, rightly declare that you were living under an unjust form of government that no longer could be legitimately called a law abiding republic.

The laws work for all of us or they work for none of us. You are spouting both anarchy and Orwell, where some contracts are created more equal than others. But one doesn't have to look too deeply at you to see that Tory streak that just flows right out of your feeling that some people are created more equal than others and feel that you fall into the former class, and sucks on the rest. And your ilk calls liberals elitist?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

As a matter of fact, the GOP wants to make the GW Bush tax cuts permanent for all Americans.

Fixed it for you... carry on.

0 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know