I'm sure the liberal Deficit hawks will be all over thisFollow

The liberal answer.

Discuss what?There's your answer. The economy sucks, the government is trying to help keep people & businesses afloat even while it's taking in less money and that drives up the deficit.

I mean, if I was talking about how awesome the economy is and how Obama has sheparded the nation to its greatest economic heights and victories, I could see wondering why the deficit was so large. Here, the answer seems pretty self-evident.

Edited, May 11th 2009 4:18pm by Jophiel

Ya gotta spend money to make money.

Elinda,



Actually the Dems go with the mantra "you have to print money to make money".

So now Obama buying the private sector is W's fault.

Without question. If he'd wanted to prevent it, perhaps he shouldn't have 1) Delegated authority over regulation of banking to morons who had a personal financial interest in doing nothing. or 2) Spewed big bags of cash with no strings attached to banks when, as anyone not educated in Economics by Rush Limbaugh knew would happen, the house of cards collapsed. It's not at all as if it were surprising in any way.

And the GOP answer to everything is still "Lower taxes!"

But only on the wealthiest 5%. Because Pubbies loves their overlords, yes, yes, they does.

Ah. The "blame Bush" approach. Talk about "entirely predictable".

What exact policies did Bush enact which caused the economy to run into the ground? What options did he have to avoid it?




Oh. I don't know. How about *not* massively increasing social spending unrelated to the current economic situation? How about *not* pushing massive payback spending for a host of political organizations who helped the dems regain power into spending programs sold to the public as relief/stimulus? How about not pushing spending on those things even outside of said relief/stimulus packages?

Really. Is a sluggish economy the right time to go on a spending spree? I don't think so. There are many alternatives. The most obvious is to not increase government spending at a time when revenues are already low. Just a suggestion...

Edited, May 11th 2009 5:13pm by gbaji

Ah. The "blame Bush" approach. Talk about "entirely predictable".


Indeed. It is entirely predictable that I'll use the best available data to arrive at logically sound conclusions. You know what else was predictable? The economy not being able to sustain 40 to 1 leverage that required every investment bank to secure overnight loans on the commercial paper market to be solvent the next day.


What exact policies did Bush enact which caused the economy to run into the ground? What options did he have to avoid it?

Go back and read my posts from the last eight years.


Oh. I don't know. How about *not* massively increasing social spending unrelated to the current economic situation?

Document that this occurring please, with the attendant dollar amounts, then compare it to Medicare Part B and demonstrate how it is more significant.


How about *not* pushing massive payback spending for a host of political organizations who helped the dems regain power into spending programs sold to the public as relief/stimulus?

This is 1)LUDICROUSLY small change. 2) The spoils of winning the election. If you'd like to suggest that the next time the pendulum swings back to fear and ignorance that funding for "faith based" initiatives or the like isn't increased, please do.


How about not pushing spending on those things even outside of said relief/stimulus packages?


You know what I notice your post is lacking? Specificity. You know what I notice your post doesn't do? Offer alternatives to anything, because it doesn't present anything. Present an actual spending amount that you'd like to see cut and justify why, then sum off all the money saved by your alternative and demonstrate it has any meaning whatsoever.


Really. Is a sluggish economy the right time to go on a spending spree?

Yes. It's essentially universally believed that it' the only thing that might spur consumer confidence, which is critical to minimizing downturns and returning to a growth cycle. I say "might" because there's an arguable case that it will do nothing. What there isn't is an arguable case that doing anything else will spur consumer confidence. So pick one of these tenable positions:

1) Stimulus spending has a greater than zero chance of increasing consumer confidence and restoring the growth cycle more quickly than otherwise.

Or:

2) Stimulus spending has no chance of increasing consumer confidence, and since there is nothing that can possibly shorten the downturn, we'd be wise not to go into greater debt trying which might in the long run lead to less overall growth over time.



I don't think so. There are many alternatives. The most obvious is to not increase government spending at a time when revenues are already low. Just a suggestion...

Interesting theory. Don't increase spending when revenues are low. Spending like tax cuts? You can see where this is going, right?

Apart from what Smash said, in the long run, social spending (i.e. a more extensive social security system) stabilises the economy. Stability is the less risky route.

One could say, "Is a sluggish economy the right time for laissez-faire?" Do you honestly think that?

No, we have to lower taxes. That'll generate more revenue.

In fact, if my calculations are correct, we should drop taxes to -3%, thus guaranteeing that we receive infinite tax revenue for the government. Someone get me my phone.



Edited, May 11th 2009 7:53pm by Jophiel

Taking the wrong action out of some need to "just do something", is a mistake

Doing nothing out of an ignorant paralysis, is far far more prevalent and usually leads to worse outcomes. This isn't a household budget, this is an experiment in mass psychology. Consumer confidence has a massive impact on a large scale economic system's outcomes. It's not the only factor, obviously, but it can't be ignored. If the net gain of spending 1/8th of is a significant increase in consumer confidence, it's money well spent.