the Obama budget

[PostmodernProphet]

from what I have been able to glean, the final spending resolution for 2012 provided for $3.72trillion in spending......

Obama has proposed a $3.8trillion budget for 2013......

how many here believe he's cut spending?.......

 

[Damocles]

How many think he kept his promise to half the deficit this year?

 

[Bonestorm]

How many think he kept his promise to half the deficit this year?

I don't remember that one.

 

[Damocles]

I don't remember that one.

He promised, "today I'm pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term".

He promised this in February of 2009... Just after taking office and just after the stimulus passed...

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/obamas-broken-deficit-promise/

 

[Bonestorm]

Well, that was stupid. I'm glad he didn't follow through on that one.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Well, that was stupid. I'm glad he didn't follow through on that one.

yeah, why do that when we can continue fucking over future generations and make them either pay our bills or take the pain for our inept spending habits.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I'm disappointed none of the board liberals defended his budget......I guess that means even they reject it....

 

[Rationalist]

Well, that was stupid. I'm glad he didn't follow through on that one.

Ah, the new liberal strategy: when Obama fails to cut the deficit in half, claim that cutting the deficit is a bad thing.

Here's a question for you. If deficits don't matter, why stop at spending $3.8 trillion per year? Why not spend $10 trillion, or $20 trillion? If deficit spending helps the economy and carries no consequences, that would only be logical.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Ah, the new liberal strategy: when Obama fails to cut the deficit in half, claim that cutting the deficit is a bad thing.

Here's a question for you. If deficits don't matter, why stop at spending $3.8 trillion per year? Why not spend $10 trillion, or $20 trillion? If deficit spending helps the economy and carries no consequences, that would only be logical.

that is the line of thought people like Dung adhere to. Though he has not stated specific numbers, his proclamations in the past have centered on the theme of 'money is cheap right now so lets borrow even more/the stimulus needed to be much bigger'.

But ask people like him what happens when the money is supposed to be repaid and he conveniently ignores the obvious.

 

[Bonestorm]

that is the line of thought people like Dung adhere to. Though he has not stated specific numbers, his proclamations in the past have centered on the theme of 'money is cheap right now so lets borrow even more/the stimulus needed to be much bigger'.

No, that's not my line of thought. It isn't "logical" to says that because X amount of something is not problematic that x^n amount of the same thing is likewise not problematic.

But ask people like him what happens when the money is supposed to be repaid and he conveniently ignores the obvious.

No, I don't ignore it. When the money needs to be repaid, it gets repaid or rolled over, and, yes, at higher rates. But that doesn't change the fact that there are lots of things that we will eventually need to spend money on that we can spend money on right now while we can borrow it cheaply (we can actually make out on the deal with negative real interest rates). It is stupid not to do it simply as a matter of long term infrastructure investment policy. But, it has the added benefit of contributing to aggregate demand while demands is low, growing the economy at a more rapid pace when growth is too slow for honest to goodness recovery and employing lots of people that are idle collecting unemployment. Its a win-win-win proposition.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

No, that's not my line of thought. It isn't "logical" to says that because X amount of something is not problematic that x^n amount of the same thing is likewise not problematic.

Good, I am glad to hear you say that.

No, I don't ignore it. When the money needs to be repaid, it gets repaid or rolled over, and, yes, at higher rates. But that doesn't change the fact that there are lots of things that we will eventually need to spend money on that we can spend money on right now while we can borrow it cheaply (we can actually make out on the deal with negative real interest rates). It is stupid not to do it simply as a matter of long term infrastructure investment policy. But, it has the added benefit of contributing to aggregate demand while demands is low, growing the economy at a more rapid pace when growth is too slow for honest to goodness recovery and employing lots of people that are idle collecting unemployment. Its a win-win-win proposition.

On that we do agree. It has been my suggestion all along that the money borrowed be spent on infrastructure. Yet our idiot in Chief doesn't seem to grasp that. He has stated it many times that he will do it. But little is finding its way into such projects. Instead he is using the money to prop up public sector unions and states who have incredibly poor spending habits.

That is what Keynes suggested to Roosevelt. Unfortunately too many of the 'Keynesians' today have warped that into spending on whatever you want.

If you take money that you would have spent in the future and spend it now instead, then it most certainly makes sense as the labor market is very loose, construction costs are lower and interest rates are low.

The two biggest problems facing us:

1) The Dems/Obama can't resist funding stop gap measures because it benefits their constituents.
2) The Reps refuse to look at the revenue side.

The easiest solution:

Dramatic simplification of the US tax code. But neither side has the spine to do what needs to be done. You even see the benefits of doing so, but get all hung up on some 'not progressive enough' line of thought.

 

[Bonestorm]

Good, I am glad to hear you say that.

Anything to make you happy.

On that we do agree. It has been my suggestion all along that the money borrowed be spent on infrastructure. Yet our idiot in Chief doesn't seem to grasp that. He has stated it many times that he will do it. But little is finding its way into such projects. Instead he is using the money to prop up public sector unions and states who have incredibly poor spending habits.

That is what Keynes suggested to Roosevelt. Unfortunately too many of the 'Keynesians' today have warped that into spending on whatever you want.

If you take money that you would have spent in the future and spend it now instead, then it most certainly makes sense as the labor market is very loose, construction costs are lower and interest rates are low.

I'm just going to ignore the bit on Keynes, but the Obama budget proposal has lots in it for infrastructure spending. On the discretionary side, that's where a lot of the spending is. I know, I know. Should have been done a long time ago.

The two biggest problems facing us:

1) The Dems/Obama can't resist funding stop gap measures because it benefits their constituents.
2) The Reps refuse to look at the revenue side.

The easiest solution:

Dramatic simplification of the US tax code. But neither side has the spine to do what needs to be done. You even see the benefits of doing so, but get all hung up on some 'not progressive enough' line of thought.

I'm not hung up on it as an opposition to doing anything to change the code, just that if we were picking our ideal tax code mine would look a little different than yours.

I saw this chart the other day and I think it pretty much shows the difference in what we think an idea tax code would look like. Mine is more in line with Obama, where it increases, flattens in the middle and increases again. Your is more in line with Romney, where it increases and then flattens out: