From Obama's Own Lips: He is against a spending freeze

McCain is lying, he's not going to freeze spending, and he might spend more when you add in his defense budgets.
 
RStringfield said:
McCain is lying, he's not going to freeze spending, and he might spend more when you add in his defense budgets.
Click to expand...

Well both are lying because neither is going to cut spending. There is no hachet and there is no scalple. (sp)

Spending is going to rise.
 
RStringfield said:
McCain is lying, he's not going to freeze spending, and he might spend more when you add in his defense budgets.
Click to expand...
If he wasn't, why would Obama attack him over it? Why not attack him over his spending increases. McCain has fought against pork, you may not like him on other issues, hell I don't like him on other issues (ie: CFR, global warming) but that part is true. He will also allow more healthcare competition instead of government universal healthcare.

Obama wants to increase the defense budget including hiring almost 100,000 more soldiers. From his own site:
http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/defense/#invest-century-military
 
Dungheap said:
A spending freeze during recessions is fucking stupid. Really stupid. Really really stupid.
Click to expand...
Companies cut in downtimes to try and get back in good fiscal health, so do good government's around the world. A spending freeze is certainly better than Obama continuing the status quo with yet more spending increases.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Companies cut in downtimes to try and get back in good fiscal health, so do good government's around the world. A spending freeze is certainly better than Obama continuing the status quo with yet more spending increases.
Click to expand...


Actually, good governments around that world do not cut spending in downtime. Governments aren't companies and shouldn't be run as such.

I know everyone hates on Keynes, but on this issue most people, irrespective of ideology, agree with him on this one.

From the liberal Washington Times:

The financial crisis has rocked the economy's foundations, but it also has opened a window of opportunity for the next president.

It's an opportunity neither Republican Sen. John McCain nor Democratic Sen. Barack Obama seems ready to seize.

With the U.S. economy apparently heading into a deep recession, many economists and budget analysts argue that the next administration should — initially, at least — open its wallet, not tighten its belt. Running up the deficit, through new spending, tax cuts or both, is exactly what a declining economy needs, at least in the short term, the analysts said.

"Definitely in the short term, the policy should be to spend and not worry about the impact on the deficit," said Rob Shapiro, who was a top economic adviser to President Clinton and a specialist in globalization at the center-left NDN think tank.

"Certainly that's the policy you should be following in the face of a deep recession, when there's not a lot of downside risk from inflation."

Conservative Financial Times columnist Samuel Brittan said the fears that short-term stimulus spending by governments will raise deficits miss the point. Even the $700 billion Wall Street rescue plan approved by the U.S. government — part of a more than $2 trillion international bailout of banks by governments around the world — does not change the equation.

"Maxims about debt that might be prudent for families can be the height of folly for government," he wrote.

British economist John Maynard Keynes is credited with the basic insight, arguing that the Great Depression was prolonged because Western governments insisted on balancing budgets, raising taxes and cutting spending at a time when private economic activity had ground to a halt.

Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan research group, said both candidates must put together a credible long-term plan to deal with the exploding deficit, but that the government should be priming the pump in the short term.

"These economic times are so foreign to what we're used to that nobody really knows whether we need a stimulus plan or not," she said. "But we should probably err on the side of caution and have one, with the very clear understanding that in the longer term, we have to get the budget under control.

"And the big risk is always that the transition from one approach to the other is extremely difficult."

David Rothkopf, president of Garten Rothkopf, a Washington economic consulting firm, added, "I do think over the next two years we have to be focused in fiscal policy much more on stimulating the economy than on balancing the budget."

But he and Mr. Shapiro cautioned that bigger short-term U.S. deficits — which the Treasury Department reported this week tripled in the 2007-08 fiscal year to $455 billion — had to be matched by a commitment over the longer run to repair the U.S. balance sheet once the economy revives.

The Democrat-led Congress is already considering a lame-duck session to pass a $300 billion stimulus package, the second this year.

But the idea that the next administration should focus first on spurring the economy appears to have gotten lost in the three presidential debates, with Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama both on the defensive when asked what specific programs and promises they would cut in the wake of the economic implosion.

Mr. Obama said he would take a "scalpel" to the federal budget and focus on his spending priorities such as energy and health care, while Mr. McCain promised to use a "scalpel and a hatchet," including a one-year freeze on spending for programs outside of defense, support for veterans and a few other priorities.

Neither has tried to make the case that the next administration may be taking office amid a deep economic downturn and that fiscal policies may have to be adjusted.

Miss MacGuineas said she sympathized with the candidates, who are being forced to adjust their tax and spending programs on the fly in a rapidly deteriorating economic climate.

"It's tough for them because talking straight about some of these choices three weeks before an election is beyond suicidal," she said. "But it's a loss for the American people, because they won't be as prepared as they should have been when the choices really have to be made."
Click to expand...


Short term spending increases are a good thing. A spending freeze is neo-Hooverite nonsense.
 
Dungheap said:
Actually, good governments around that world do not cut spending in downtime. Governments aren't companies and shouldn't be run as such.

I know everyone hates on Keynes, but on this issue most people, irrespective of ideology, agree with him on this one.

From the liberal Washington Times:




Short term spending increases are a good thing. A spending freeze is neo-Hooverite nonsense.
Click to expand...

Sorry this is ridiculously false, from the "Conservative" Urban institute, Hoover is ranked in the top 2 biggest spenders of the 20th century.
"much of the increase in domestic spending in response to the Depression occurred prior to Roosevelt's presidency, under Hoover."
http://www.urban.org/publications/307052.html

And we all know how those spending increases ended up doing for America.

New Zealand drastically cut spending during it's recession in '87, including farm subsidies slashed to almost nothing and they emerged with a very healthy economy.

Government spending increases during bad times at BEST buy you time, but usually just debt and more long term pain.
 
It's not a question of being run as a company, during recessions households also cut back on spending. You have less, you make do with less. Basic common sense economics.
 
Onceler said:
Here's some big news: Krugman disagrees with Dano...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/opinion/17krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Click to expand...
I would be shocked if he didn't, he's pretty much the left's standard bearer for economists now that Galbraith is gone. Krugman knows his shit on trade, the rest he is pretty much a Liberal Democrat hack, especially in recent years.

Again, Hoover increased federal spending and it did not help, he even did a bailout, did not help.

This is crazy you know, damn near everyone on all sides should be screaming out for government to cut anything with a now $10.5 trillion debt, yet we can't even get a spending FREEZE!?!
 
You should read the article; he makes some very good points regarding why this is the time to do the opposite. Freezing spending costs jobs - and not just gov't jobs. Investing money in infrastructure creates jobs. And so on, and so on, and so on.

Gov't spending & investment can be a real catalyst in bringing the American economy back. Just about every corporation right now is pulling back, cutting investment, cutting jobs. If gov't does that as well, the economy will just keep shrinking. When people are out of work, it hurts everyone.
 
Onceler said:
You should read the article; he makes some very good points regarding why this is the time to do the opposite. Freezing spending costs jobs - and not just gov't jobs. Investing money in infrastructure creates jobs. And so on, and so on, and so on.

Gov't spending & investment can be a real catalyst in bringing the American economy back. Just about every corporation right now is pulling back, cutting investment, cutting jobs. If gov't does that as well, the economy will just keep shrinking. When people are out of work, it hurts everyone.
Click to expand...

It may well give a short term boost, but long term pain. This was the basis of Keynesian thought and in the end all it did and will do is rack up debt that becomes more painful to deal with and it harms the confidence in the dollar to boot.

Remember we cut spending quite nicely in the 90's and we had a fairly sizable wide-ranging boom for all.

You have to bear in mind that all government spending is, is capital taxed (taken) out of private hands, it is not wealth that government created and it's not even wealth that traditionally has been used in productive interests (ie: pork, bridge to nowhere, social welfare, war).
 
You pinheads are confusing "consumer spending" with "government spending" here. During a recession, it is very important to encourage "consumer spending" in order to produce revenues through taxes and ease the burden on government. It is also very important to encourage "investment spending" by companies, to increase the tax revenues. It is utter disaster to continue "government spending" when the government is already over it's head in debt. Essentially, we have two options... print more money, or borrow more money from China. Either option is BAD for a country in recession.

I can't believe, for 8 years, we have heard you people harp on Bush for out of control spending and running up the national debt, now all of a sudden, that is a "good thing" and Obama needs to spend like crazy! Are you people insane? We have no more money to spend! What part of that are you not understanding? We are over $10 trillion in the hole now! We don't have any money to spend! We OWE money to China! We are currently continuing to go in debt to the tune of a half trillion dollars per year, and neither candidate is going to reduce that by much, the rest of the politicians won't let them, because they are listening to your stupid asses! What has to happen before you understand the consequences here? Do we have to completely destroy ourselves? If so, I would say we are well on the way to that!
 
Dixie said:
You pinheads are confusing "consumer spending" with "government spending" here. During a recession, it is very important to encourage "consumer spending" in order to produce revenues through taxes and ease the burden on government. It is also very important to encourage "investment spending" by companies, to increase the tax revenues. It is utter disaster to continue "government spending" when the government is already over it's head in debt. Essentially, we have two options... print more money, or borrow more money from China. Either option is BAD for a country in recession.

I can't believe, for 8 years, we have heard you people harp on Bush for out of control spending and running up the national debt, now all of a sudden, that is a "good thing" and Obama needs to spend like crazy! Are you people insane? We have no more money to spend! What part of that are you not understanding? We are over $10 trillion in the hole now! We don't have any money to spend! We OWE money to China! We are currently continuing to go in debt to the tune of a half trillion dollars per year, and neither candidate is going to reduce that by much, the rest of the politicians won't let them, because they are listening to your stupid asses! What has to happen before you understand the consequences here? Do we have to completely destroy ourselves? If so, I would say we are well on the way to that!
Click to expand...

Vote Obama, vote for "change".

Good post Dixie.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Sorry this is ridiculously false, from the "Conservative" Urban institute, Hoover is ranked in the top 2 biggest spenders of the 20th century.
"much of the increase in domestic spending in response to the Depression occurred prior to Roosevelt's presidency, under Hoover."
http://www.urban.org/publications/307052.html

And we all know how those spending increases ended up doing for America.

New Zealand drastically cut spending during it's recession in '87, including farm subsidies slashed to almost nothing and they emerged with a very healthy economy.

Government spending increases during bad times at BEST buy you time, but usually just debt and more long term pain.
Click to expand...

LULZ

Hoover was a "big spending" president mainly because the GDP contracted substantially during his term.

And New Zealand is an example of how to get shit done. They have universal health care for all and a much larger welfare state than America, and yet they keep spending low or lower than America and have a freer market. Maybe that's because they decided that imprisoning more of their population than any society in history or spending more on the military than any society in history was less important than feeding their poor and making sure their children had healthcare. And they've reaped the benefits of a stable society with low crime and high GDP. Liberalism works. Conservatism doesn't.
 
KingCondanomation said:
I would be shocked if he didn't, he's pretty much the left's standard bearer for economists now that Galbraith is gone. Krugman knows his shit on trade, the rest he is pretty much a Liberal Democrat hack, especially in recent years.

Again, Hoover increased federal spending and it did not help, he even did a bailout, did not help.

This is crazy you know, damn near everyone on all sides should be screaming out for government to cut anything with a now $10.5 trillion debt, yet we can't even get a spending FREEZE!?!
Click to expand...

Hoover didn't really "increase" federal spending. He just kept it flat, and the GDP contracted substantially, which made the spending per GDP figure go way up.
 
And New Zealand is an example of how to get shit done.
Click to expand...

New Zealand has a population of 4.2 million. That's about the size of Kentucky or Louisiana. The reason Socialism works there, is because the cultural structure is small, non-diverse, and largely isolated from the rest of the world. Their main industry is food... mainly beef and dairy production and fishing. Their GDP is just over $100 billion, where ours is over $13 trillion.

Socialism doesn't work in a country our size, because of diverse culture, and an economic base that is largely-industrial and corporate. For a classic example of what happens in a Socialistic society of our size, look at the former Soviet Union.
 
Dixie said:
New Zealand has a population of 4.2 million. That's about the size of Kentucky or Louisiana. The reason Socialism works there, is because the cultural structure is small, non-diverse, and largely isolated from the rest of the world. Their main industry is food... mainly beef and dairy production and fishing. Their GDP is just over $100 billion, where ours is over $13 trillion.

Socialism doesn't work in a country our size, because of diverse culture, and an economic base that is largely-industrial and corporate. For a classic example of what happens in a Socialistic society of our size, look at the former Soviet Union.
Click to expand...

New Zealand isn't socialist. Their means of production is not nationalized. They haven't even nationalized basic industries. Not even socialists are socialist anymore; those free market policies were introduced by the Labor party.

Also, have you ever heard of proportion Dixie? An economic policy that proves good for a small area will prove just as good for a large area. And New Zealands truly free market + a generous safety net is proof of that, while American Republican corporate socialism is just a complete and total failure.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top