The Deficit Did Not Cause The Recession, The Recession Caused The Deficit

[Bfgrn]

You are so easily fooled. Those treasuries that are being held in the mythical lock box will have to be sold.

There isn't enough money to pay for the promises of FDR and LBj let alone any new promises from the asswipe in chief.

You are deluding yourself. But you am those like you will just have to learn the hard way

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

 

[Annie]

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

Assume true. Where is there the correction from Obama, that was your intention right? That he was addressing a problem seen by Stockman?

 

[Bfgrn]

Assume true. Where is there the correction from Obama, that was your intention right? That he was addressing a problem seen by Stockman?

The correction is to raise revenues and continue to lower spending.

President Obama Cut the Deficit and Slowed Spending to Lowest Level in 50 Years.

Here is the Federal surplus or deficit in dollars...

And Obama is not growing government...that was Bush.

Obama and the Democrats already put us on a sustainable course. If Congress does NOTHING, we are already on The Extended-Baseline Scenario. If the Bush tax cuts don't end, and the Affordable Health care Act is repealed or significantly altered, then we would be sent down the road of the The Alternative Fiscal Scenario.

We are on The Extended-Baseline Scenario trajectory Obama and the Democrats put us on. If Congress does nothing the Extended-Baseline Scenario is already in place.

IF the Bush tax cuts don't expire and the AHA is not fully implemented or repealed the The Alternative Fiscal Scenario is the trajectory Teapublicans will take us if they gain enough power.

the CBO lays it out perfectly clear...CRYSTAL.

Federal Debt Held by the Public Under CBO’s Long-Term Budget Scenarios
(Percentage of gross domestic product)

The chart shows 2 scenarios. For all practical purposes, you can call the Extended-Baseline Scenario the Democrat scenario and the Alternative Fiscal Scenario the Teapublican scenario.


The Extended-Baseline Scenario adheres closely to current law. Under this scenario, the expiration of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and most recently extended in 2010, the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax, the tax provisions of the recent health care legislation, and the way in which the tax system interacts with economic growth would result in steadily higher revenues relative to GDP.

The Alternative Fiscal Scenario
The budget outlook is much bleaker under the alternative fiscal scenario, which incorporates several changes to current law that are widely expected to occur or that would modify some provisions of law that might be difficult to sustain for a long period. Most important are the assumptions about revenues: that the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and extended most recently in 2010 will be extended; that the reach of the alternative minimum tax will be restrained to stay close to its historical extent; and that over the longer run, tax law will evolve further so that revenues remain near their historical average of 18 percent of GDP. This scenario also incorporates assumptions that Medicare’s payment rates for physicians will remain at current levels (rather than declining by about a third, as under current law) and that some policies enacted in the March 2010 health care legislation to restrain growth in federal health care spending will not continue in effect after 2021.

 

[Annie]

The correction is to raise revenues and continue to lower spending.

President Obama Cut the Deficit and Slowed Spending to Lowest Level in 50 Years.

Here is the Federal surplus or deficit in dollars...

And Obama is not growing government...that was Bush.

Obama and the Democrats already put us on a sustainable course. If Congress does NOTHING, we are already on The Extended-Baseline Scenario. If the Bush tax cuts don't end, and the Affordable Health care Act is repealed or significantly altered, then we would be sent down the road of the The Alternative Fiscal Scenario.

We are on The Extended-Baseline Scenario trajectory Obama and the Democrats put us on. If Congress does nothing the Extended-Baseline Scenario is already in place.

IF the Bush tax cuts don't expire and the AHA is not fully implemented or repealed the The Alternative Fiscal Scenario is the trajectory Teapublicans will take us if they gain enough power.

the CBO lays it out perfectly clear...CRYSTAL.

Federal Debt Held by the Public Under CBO’s Long-Term Budget Scenarios
(Percentage of gross domestic product)

The chart shows 2 scenarios. For all practical purposes, you can call the Extended-Baseline Scenario the Democrat scenario and the Alternative Fiscal Scenario the Teapublican scenario.


The Extended-Baseline Scenario adheres closely to current law. Under this scenario, the expiration of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and most recently extended in 2010, the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax, the tax provisions of the recent health care legislation, and the way in which the tax system interacts with economic growth would result in steadily higher revenues relative to GDP.

The Alternative Fiscal Scenario
The budget outlook is much bleaker under the alternative fiscal scenario, which incorporates several changes to current law that are widely expected to occur or that would modify some provisions of law that might be difficult to sustain for a long period. Most important are the assumptions about revenues: that the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and extended most recently in 2010 will be extended; that the reach of the alternative minimum tax will be restrained to stay close to its historical extent; and that over the longer run, tax law will evolve further so that revenues remain near their historical average of 18 percent of GDP. This scenario also incorporates assumptions that Medicare’s payment rates for physicians will remain at current levels (rather than declining by about a third, as under current law) and that some policies enacted in the March 2010 health care legislation to restrain growth in federal health care spending will not continue in effect after 2021.

Where exactly is the lowering of spending? 100 million over 10 years? LOL!

 

[Bfgrn]

Where exactly is the lowering of spending? 100 million over 10 years? LOL!

It used to be that conservatives were followers of Edmund Burke. Now they are the liquidationists Hoover lamented. First, you need to read and really comprehend the truth the OP is stating. The major cause of an increase in debt is the fiscal crisis, lose of revenues, all caused by the worst recession since 1929. The best approach is to grow our economy, the GDP that debt and deficits are measured against.

If conservatives were physicians, their treatment for malnutrition would be blood letting.

Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke

 

[apple0154]

Strawman, I am saying that the BBA presented, and very close to passed, had provisions for the "bad times" so that programs could continue and it is only your absolute and total arrogance based in flat ignorance that you would presume to tell anybody from another nation how it should be run. At the very least you should educate yourself on what you are talking about before spouting off when trying to tell people from another nation what they should be doing.

I'll tell you one more time. I have very good friends in the US. Some have illnesses so I know how the medical system is run, at least in their cases, so it has nothing to do with arrogance anymore than saying someone is arrogant when concerned about hungry children in other countries. And, yes, my friend, many US citizens do lack sufficient food while trying to pay for their medication because the idiot Bush, along with not including negotiating drug prices in the Pill Bill, spent money on war instead of medical care. If you want to talk about arrogance which group of people not only express concern for others but show their concern by invading the countries in question? Your head, Sir, is in a very dark place, to put it gently.

As for having provisions for the "bad times" tell me another joke. The Repubs knew the economy was either going to go down or was going down before the general population realized it and the Repubs knew jobs were disappearing, meaning people would lose their medical coverage, and what did they try to do? They tried to persuade the people to choose private pension plans. They tried to devise some way to reduce people's contributions to SS and, thus, their entitlement. Do I need to spell it out for you? The Repubs knew tough times were coming so they were busy thinking of ways to throw as many people under the bus as possible before it became general knowledge. They knew more people would be depending on the government so they wanted to dump them before it happened.

That's why they were adamantly against any government medical plan. The Repubs knew more and more people would be losing their coverage/jobs. Do you think the unemployment extension would have happened under a Balanced Budget?

Look at what's going on in Congress. If one thinks the Repubs are trying to slice and dice social programs now just imagine if they had a Balanced Budget rule/law to back them up. A Balanced Budget Amendment is suicide for the people when there are sociopaths (a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience) like the typical Republican/Tea bagger in government. The Rumsfelds who believe war is an affordable option when people can't even afford their medication.

Then there's the level playing field argument. We never hear the end of how China and other countries use child labor or force employees to work long hours or....how can the US compete with countries that don't have labor laws or social programs? Let's turn that argument around and ask how countries that do have social programs like government medical and government subsidized child care and government subsidized prescription coverage and numerous other citizen benefits are supposed to compete with the US?

Are you out of your mind or do you just not give a damn about others? It's got to be one or the other. And that's why Obama shoved ObamaCare down their throats or up their butts because he knew as sure as the sun comes up social programs would be attacked. To the chagin of the Right Wing Nutters (thanks for that word, Bijou) the majority of the population realized who was their best leader on Nov 6th. Regardless of the sluggish economy and all the Repub promises of glorious times ahead if they can just run the country the people voted for Obama.

Maybe the proles aren't as dumb as the Repubs think. Watching Rove reminded me of Greenspan at the hearings. Greenspan finally realized his view of life, his philosophy as he put it, was "faulty", all screwed up. Maybe one day Rove and the rest of the Righties will have an epiphany. Maybe once medical care and food and shelter and other life's necessities are firmly cemented in law we can talk about a balanced budget. Until then the current priorities make such a thing nothing more than a suicide pact with the citizens.

When talking about social programs governments have consistently said they couldn't afford them. Not just the US government but other governments, as well. I've heard that said for the last half century! In the last 50 years there's never been a time when governments got ahead of the curve, financially speaking? Affordability has absolutely nothing to do with social programs and Obama knew that. The money is there. It's simply a matter of how it's allocated and social programs have to be anchored in law and custom before any balanced budget deal is struck.

You’re trying to sell your bullsh!t to the wrong fella here just like the Repubs tried selling theirs to the general population during the election. The Repubs will fold on taxes and Obama will, once again, mop the floor with them. The people have awakened and rather than going over a cliff Obama is leading the nation over the mountain to a better life dragging the dead weight Repubs with him.

Have a good day, Sir. It’s siesta time for Apple. Time to drift off to sleep knowing a better world waits just over the summit.

 

[Damocles]

I'll tell you one more time. I have very good friends in the US. Some have illnesses so I know how the medical system is run, at least in their cases, so it has nothing to do with arrogance anymore than saying someone is arrogant when concerned about hungry children in other countries. And, yes, my friend, many US citizens do lack sufficient food while trying to pay for their medication because the idiot Bush, along with not including negotiating drug prices in the Pill Bill, spent money on war instead of medical care. If you want to talk about arrogance which group of people not only express concern for others but show their concern by invading the countries in question? Your head, Sir, is in a very dark place, to put it gently.

As for having provisions for the "bad times" tell me another joke. The Repubs knew the economy was either going to go down or was going down before the general population realized it and the Repubs knew jobs were disappearing, meaning people would lose their medical coverage, and what did they try to do? They tried to persuade the people to choose private pension plans. They tried to devise some way to reduce people's contributions to SS and, thus, their entitlement. Do I need to spell it out for you? The Repubs knew tough times were coming so they were busy thinking of ways to throw as many people under the bus as possible before it became general knowledge. They knew more people would be depending on the government so they wanted to dump them before it happened.

That's why they were adamantly against any government medical plan. The Repubs knew more and more people would be losing their coverage/jobs. Do you think the unemployment extension would have happened under a Balanced Budget?

Look at what's going on in Congress. If one thinks the Repubs are trying to slice and dice social programs now just imagine if they had a Balanced Budget rule/law to back them up. A Balanced Budget Amendment is suicide for the people when there are sociopaths (a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience) like the typical Republican/Tea bagger in government. The Rumsfelds who believe war is an affordable option when people can't even afford their medication.

Then there's the level playing field argument. We never hear the end of how China and other countries use child labor or force employees to work long hours or....how can the US compete with countries that don't have labor laws or social programs? Let's turn that argument around and ask how countries that do have social programs like government medical and government subsidized child care and government subsidized prescription coverage and numerous other citizen benefits are supposed to compete with the US?

Are you out of your mind or do you just not give a damn about others? It's got to be one or the other. And that's why Obama shoved ObamaCare down their throats or up their butts because he knew as sure as the sun comes up social programs would be attacked. To the chagin of the Right Wing Nutters (thanks for that word, Bijou) the majority of the population realized who was their best leader on Nov 6th. Regardless of the sluggish economy and all the Repub promises of glorious times ahead if they can just run the country the people voted for Obama.

Maybe the proles aren't as dumb as the Repubs think. Watching Rove reminded me of Greenspan at the hearings. Greenspan finally realized his view of life, his philosophy as he put it, was "faulty", all screwed up. Maybe one day Rove and the rest of the Righties will have an epiphany. Maybe once medical care and food and shelter and other life's necessities are firmly cemented in law we can talk about a balanced budget. Until then the current priorities make such a thing nothing more than a suicide pact with the citizens.

When talking about social programs governments have consistently said they couldn't afford them. Not just the US government but other governments, as well. I've heard that said for the last half century! In the last 50 years there's never been a time when governments got ahead of the curve, financially speaking? Affordability has absolutely nothing to do with social programs and Obama knew that. The money is there. It's simply a matter of how it's allocated and social programs have to be anchored in law and custom before any balanced budget deal is struck.

You’re trying to sell your bullsh!t to the wrong fella here just like the Repubs tried selling theirs to the general population during the election. The Repubs will fold on taxes and Obama will, once again, mop the floor with them. The people have awakened and rather than going over a cliff Obama is leading the nation over the mountain to a better life dragging the dead weight Repubs with him.

Have a good day, Sir. It’s siesta time for Apple. Time to drift off to sleep knowing a better world waits just over the summit.

An attempt to overwhelm with a wall of text the simple fact that you spouted off in ignorance. You simply didn't know that the BBA allowed for the bad times and decided to simply project what you wanted it to be. This is just a cat burying the turd in the sand. Ignorant people should not attempt to tell people in other nations what should be done in the world according to them... especially those who think that the US is arrogant.

Literally none of this addresses your stupidity about the BBA, which is the conversation we are having.

Let's talk about a man who said it was irresponsible and unpatriotic to spend 400 Billion extra per year who spends 1.2 Trillion extra per year and his followers who think that tripling stupidity is the fix for stupidity and while they are doing it think they are taking the moral high ground later.

 

[apple0154]

An attempt to overwhelm with a wall of text the simple fact that you spouted off in ignorance. You simply didn't know that the BBA allowed for the bad times and decided to simply project what you wanted it to be. This is just a cat burying the turd in the sand. Ignorant people should not attempt to tell people in other nations what should be done in the world according to them... especially those who think that the US is arrogant.

Obviously a wall of text wasn’t enough to enable you to understand. Do you require two?

Talking about the BBA I know the Repubs well enough to have asked you, “Do you think the unemployment extension would have happened under a Balanced Budget?” I notice you didn’t answer that.

Regarding arrogance let’s be clear. Some Americans are arrogant, specifically the Repubs who believe they have the God-given right to change other nation’s culture unless you have a different definition of arrogance.

Literally none of this addresses your stupidity about the BBA, which is the conversation we are having.

Again, your failure to understand is glaring. We already know the Repub position regarding “spend here/cut the equivalent elsewhere” philosophy and we know the cuts are aimed at entitlement programs. Entitlement programs, programs that help the average person. So, again, do you think the unemployment extension would have passed? And if so, what other program to help the poor would have been cut?

The budget is all accounted for and more. So, if the UI extension would go over budget, unbalance the budget, then something would have had to be cut and we all know where Repubs cut. If this is not simple enough for you to understand you’ll have to get someone else to explain it to you.

Let's talk about a man who said it was irresponsible and unpatriotic to spend 400 Billion extra per year who spends 1.2 Trillion extra per year and his followers who think that tripling stupidity is the fix for stupidity and while they are doing it think they are taking the moral high ground later.

Yes, let’s talk about that. Let’s talk about what can only be described as idiotic for a leader of a country offering to pay for medication for the citizens (Pill Bill) and then specifically deny the government the right to negotiate prices. Does it get any more absurd?

Well, yes, actually it does. The leader of a country aware of an impending financial fiasco and aware the government would be left holding the bag and rather than strenuously warning the citizens they go on TV chatting about their favorite war or wars, as the case may be.

Then, after finally throwing the bum out of office, the incoming President has a plan that will not only ensure almost everyone has medical coverage but will save money. A scheme? A pipe dream? No, a plan that has been proven in dozens of countries worldwide. A plan that in over 50 years or, in some cases, almost one hundred years has never failed in any country in which it has been implemented. And what did the Repubs do? After sponsoring a plan (Pill Bill) that has resulted in outrageous costs they fought tooth and nail against a medical plan that is guaranteed to save money. A plan that has never lost money in any country in the past but does have a reasonable start-up cost that would be quickly recouped and continue to generate savings ad infinitum.

Now, you tell me what would have happened to ObamaCare if there was a BBA in effect.

The only ignorance here is you believing people will buy your crap. Then there’s wars which I’m sure had a special exclusion as war is not always something a country can budget for ahead of time but, in the end, the resulting costs are taken into consideration when preparing future budgets. The bill has to be paid. And we saw the Repubs use that tactic, didn’t we?

Remember those infamous words, “War was an option we could afford.” Yep, 10+ years of money flushed down the toilet but no money for health care. The perfect plan. Run up the budget with war, cap it, then say, “Sorry. No money available for health care unless we cut SS or welfare or some other social program.” It’s the perfect plan. One side runs up the budget with war. The other side gets elected and pays down the debt to make room for social programs. Then the first side gets elected and runs up the budget. Then the other side………..on and on it goes with social programs never seeing the light of day.

Well, Obama put a quick end to that nonsense. ObamaCare was going through, wars and budgets be damned! Now, when some pompous jackass gets the idea war is an affordable option they’ll have something to think about.

Have I made a small crack in that shell of your ignorance and let in a ray of sunshine? Gawd, I hope so.

 

[Annie]

...Well, Obama put a quick end to that nonsense. ObamaCare was going through, wars and budgets be damned! Now, when some pompous jackass gets the idea war is an affordable option they’ll have something to think about.

Have I made a small crack in that shell of your ignorance and let in a ray of sunshine? Gawd, I hope so.

One must thank you for your direct response to a 'winning election,' they do have consequences. In this case, we're all f***** and happily. Truth is, it's unsustainable. Look that word up.

 

[apple0154]

One must thank you for your direct response to a 'winning election,' they do have consequences. In this case, we're all f***** and happily. Truth is, it's unsustainable. Look that word up.

It's not unsustainable, Annie.

Talking about looking something up look up the countries that do have a medical plan. Large and small, geographically speaking. Large and small, in a populous sense. Rich and poor. Differing languages, religions and cultures. The countries couldn't be more diverse, yet, each one tailored a government plan.

I can't understand people saying the US can not develop a plan when dozens of other countries have done so. The money flowing through the US medical system is greater per person and in total than any other country so money can't be the reason. It can't be due to a lack of technology either.

It has been universally shown to save money and satisfy the citizens. There isn't any reason to oppose it other than greed/selfishness and, of course, the outrageous lies that have been spread about it.

 

[Haiku]

It's not unsustainable, Annie.

Talking about looking something up look up the countries that do have a medical plan. Large and small, geographically speaking. Large and small, in a populous sense. Rich and poor. Differing languages, religions and cultures. The countries couldn't be more diverse, yet, each one tailored a government plan.

I can't understand people saying the US can not develop a plan when dozens of other countries have done so. The money flowing through the US medical system is greater per person and in total than any other country so money can't be the reason. It can't be due to a lack of technology either.

It has been universally shown to save money and satisfy the citizens. There isn't any reason to oppose it other than greed/selfishness and, of course, the outrageous lies that have been spread about it.

Don't forget you're talking to Republican'ts....just say NO kinda peeps that have little or no imagination. They are bought and paid for and their owners don't want to lose their gravy train with single payer or healthcare reform. That's where it's at. They'll also tell you that trickle down economics work...go figure.

 

[cawacko]

Don't forget you're talking to Republican'ts....just say NO kinda peeps that have little or no imagination. They are bought and paid for and their owners don't want to lose their gravy train with single payer or healthcare reform. That's where it's at. They'll also tell you that trickle down economics work...go figure.

If Republicans could actually say no we wouldn't have a $16 trillion national debt.