Why Are Politicians Not Increasing Spending?

[eflatminor]

Revisionist history is never a lesson! The economy took off in the 1960s because of LBJ's increased spending on the Vietnam War. Keynes wins again.

Complete and utter bullshit. If government spending spurs the economy, why is the economy not ROCKING today, following the biggest spending spree in the history of the world? Facts are a tricky thing, I understand.

Probably the same reason the economy is not ROCKING today following the Bush tax cutting spree. Not the right tax cuts and not the right spending.

A typical Progressive response - If only WE were in charge, everything would be grand...because we have magic beans. Pathetic. Tax rates...what a red herring! You realize that we could not possibly tax our way out of this kind of spending, right? Tax revenues as a percentage of GDP vary little over time, even with marginal rates as high as 90%! Further, with our recent spending spree, we couldn't tax enough to cover it even if we CONFISCATED ALL WEALTH from the richest Americans. We bring in $2 trillion in tax revenue, we spend $3 trillion. Spending is the problem, not revenue.

 

[edthecynic]

Complete and utter bullshit. If government spending spurs the economy, why is the economy not ROCKING today, following the biggest spending spree in the history of the world? Facts are a tricky thing, I understand.

Probably the same reason the economy is not ROCKING today following the Bush tax cutting spree. Not the right tax cuts and not the right spending.

A typical Progressive response - If only WE were in charge, everything would be grand...because we have magic beans. Pathetic. Tax rates...what a red herring! You realize that we could not possibly tax our way out of this kind of spending, right? Tax revenues as a percentage of GDP vary little over time, even with marginal rates as high as 90%! Further, with our recent spending spree, we couldn't tax enough to cover it even if we CONFISCATED ALL WEALTH from the richest Americans. We bring in $2 trillion in tax revenue, we spend $3 trillion. Spending is the problem, not revenue.

Typical mindless parroting of CON$ervative propaganda. The problem with CON$ is they are too stupid to know how ridiculous the Crapaganda they mindlessly parrot is!!! The top 1% have 40% of the 53.1 trillion in total wealth. That's over 21 trillion, more than enough to pay off the total debt and throw a nice party afterwards.

I'm not saying we should do that, just pointing out how stupid someone has to be to parrot the highlighted part in your post!

 

[Charles_Main]

It was the money spent during WWII that paved the way for the economic growth after the war. The bombs and uniforms got blown up and thrown away. The money stayed.

War creates prosperity, eh? Think about what you've suggested here. Think hard about it. We've been at war for over ten years now in Afghanistan. We've got undeclared wars going across the North Africa and the Middle East. We've got over 900 permanent bases around the world. With all that spending, no wonder the economy is in such wonderful shape.

You know, the reason the USSR was so successful was due to their war expenditures. It's true!

It was a little Different in WWII. when we lost a plane or a Tank in WWII it cost thousands of Dollars to replace. In war today if and when we rarely lose a Tank or Plane it costs hundreds of Millions to Replace.

Losing 1 plane today is like losing 100 in WWII.

 

[Charles_Main]

Probably the same reason the economy is not ROCKING today following the Bush tax cutting spree. Not the right tax cuts and not the right spending.

A typical Progressive response - If only WE were in charge, everything would be grand...because we have magic beans. Pathetic. Tax rates...what a red herring! You realize that we could not possibly tax our way out of this kind of spending, right? Tax revenues as a percentage of GDP vary little over time, even with marginal rates as high as 90%! Further, with our recent spending spree, we couldn't tax enough to cover it even if we CONFISCATED ALL WEALTH from the richest Americans. We bring in $2 trillion in tax revenue, we spend $3 trillion. Spending is the problem, not revenue.

Typical mindless parroting of CON$ervative propaganda. The problem with CON$ is they are too stupid to know how ridiculous the Crapaganda they mindlessly parrot is!!! The top 1% have 40% of the 53.1 trillion in total wealth. That's over 21 trillion, more than enough to pay off the total debt and throw a nice party afterwards.

I'm not saying we should do that, just pointing out how stupid someone has to be to parrot the highlighted part in your post!

And exactly where in the Constitution do we get the power to confiscate their Money? Not their income, their money they have already earned and paid income taxes on? Because that is the only way we could pay off the Debt, would be to take their Wealth, not their Incomes. Wealth that took the Rich Hundreds of Years to accumulate. We could take it all once and pay off the Debt, and then what? Our Economy would be toast because we just took all the money out of it.

That's your answer? lol

 

[BakshisMouse]

A typical Progressive response - If only WE were in charge, everything would be grand...because we have magic beans. Pathetic. Tax rates...what a red herring! You realize that we could not possibly tax our way out of this kind of spending, right? Tax revenues as a percentage of GDP vary little over time, even with marginal rates as high as 90%! Further, with our recent spending spree, we couldn't tax enough to cover it even if we CONFISCATED ALL WEALTH from the richest Americans. We bring in $2 trillion in tax revenue, we spend $3 trillion. Spending is the problem, not revenue.

Typical mindless parroting of CON$ervative propaganda. The problem with CON$ is they are too stupid to know how ridiculous the Crapaganda they mindlessly parrot is!!! The top 1% have 40% of the 53.1 trillion in total wealth. That's over 21 trillion, more than enough to pay off the total debt and throw a nice party afterwards.

I'm not saying we should do that, just pointing out how stupid someone has to be to parrot the highlighted part in your post!

And exactly where in the Constitution do we get the power to confiscate their Money? Not their income, their money they have already earned and paid income taxes on? Because that is the only way we could pay off the Debt, would be to take their Wealth, not their Incomes. Wealth that took the Rich Hundreds of Years to accumulate. We could take it all once and pay off the Debt, and then what? Our Economy would be toast because we just took all the money out of it.

That's your answer? lol

The national debt actually doesn't need to be payed back in full, ever really. It's not like debt an individual accumulates through purchases.

 

[edthecynic]

A typical Progressive response - If only WE were in charge, everything would be grand...because we have magic beans. Pathetic. Tax rates...what a red herring! You realize that we could not possibly tax our way out of this kind of spending, right? Tax revenues as a percentage of GDP vary little over time, even with marginal rates as high as 90%! Further, with our recent spending spree, we couldn't tax enough to cover it even if we CONFISCATED ALL WEALTH from the richest Americans. We bring in $2 trillion in tax revenue, we spend $3 trillion. Spending is the problem, not revenue.

Typical mindless parroting of CON$ervative propaganda. The problem with CON$ is they are too stupid to know how ridiculous the Crapaganda they mindlessly parrot is!!! The top 1% have 40% of the 53.1 trillion in total wealth. That's over 21 trillion, more than enough to pay off the total debt and throw a nice party afterwards.

I'm not saying we should do that, just pointing out how stupid someone has to be to parrot the highlighted part in your post!

And exactly where in the Constitution do we get the power to confiscate their Money? Not their income, their money they have already earned and paid income taxes on? Because that is the only way we could pay off the Debt, would be to take their Wealth, not their Incomes. Wealth that took the Rich Hundreds of Years to accumulate. We could take it all once and pay off the Debt, and then what? Our Economy would be toast because we just took all the money out of it.

That's your answer? lol

 

[code1211]

Read these two stories:

Wonkbook: On debt, the conventional wisdom vs. the markets - The Washington Post

America Is Not Exceptional - NYTimes.com

As much as the politicians in Washington are telling us that doom is imminent if spending is not gutted, the risk of holding US bonds is very low:

A country that is about to default would have extremely high interest rates, and yields for its bonds would be through the roof.

Our national debt, the hawks like to point out, is $15.1 trillion. Believe it or not, that is actually manageable, especially considered as a percentage of GDP. Could it be that some politicians and pundits are exploiting this number just to advance their political goals. Make the electorate think that the reason that unemployment is 9% is those nasty welfare recipients.

Why shouldn't we try to spend our way out of this? Yes, the stimulus package passed a few years ago was ineffective, but could it be because the original one was too small and poorly designed?

To those of you who say this is totally off base: what do you think that our real interest rate is telling us about our economy?

It's telling us that everyone is scared to death that the end is near and they don't want to get any further into debt.

TheFailed Stimulus was plenty big, but it was not designed to stimulate the economy. It was designed to feather the nests of those who stole it from us. It did exactly what it was designed to do.

No stimulus this time around and the union hanger ons who had their jobs propped up for the extra year are now out of work.

Why don't we do it again?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

The lying, thieving, more crooked than a dog's leg politicians are looking for any excuse and any method to steal more tax dollars. We need to turn off the spigot.

I'm at the point where Ron Paul is stating to look good. Sure, he's crazy, but he'll cut the spending. I think he would veto spending bills and just let the country grind to a halt rather than approve the lunacy we have right now.

It couldn't be any worse than it's been with the Enlightened One.

 

[code1211]

Bonds get paid first no matter what. Our debt is one of the safest investments on the face of the earth.

The professional people who downgraded America's repayment ability do not agree with you.

That so called downgrade had no effect whatsoever on the people and countries who eagerly line up to buy our bonds.

It's our bonds or bonds from Greece.

Nollo contendre.

 

[frazzledgear]

Read these two stories:

Wonkbook: On debt, the conventional wisdom vs. the markets - The Washington Post

America Is Not Exceptional - NYTimes.com

As much as the politicians in Washington are telling us that doom is imminent if spending is not gutted, the risk of holding US bonds is very low:

A country that is about to default would have extremely high interest rates, and yields for its bonds would be through the roof.

Our national debt, the hawks like to point out, is $15.1 trillion. Believe it or not, that is actually manageable, especially considered as a percentage of GDP. Could it be that some politicians and pundits are exploiting this number just to advance their political goals. Make the electorate think that the reason that unemployment is 9% is those nasty welfare recipients.

Why shouldn't we try to spend our way out of this? Yes, the stimulus package passed a few years ago was ineffective, but could it be because the original one was too small and poorly designed?

To those of you who say this is totally off base: what do you think that our real interest rate is telling us about our economy?

Only in liberal land is $15 trillion considered"manageable". No big deal if we owe half of all the world's currency and more than all the world's currency in another 4 years. Everyday occurrence. Have that paid off by Tuesday no doubt. We borrow 40 cents of every dollar our career politician run government spends and liberals want to pretend we can do this in perpetuity. No possible downside to that house of cards as people like you want people to believe that is actually normal. It isn't. The US went from being the world's largest creditor nation to going full steam on the path to being the world's largest debtor nation. With all the loss of power and influence it implies. And which I believe was the goal of liberals all along.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Typical mindless parroting of CON$ervative propaganda. The problem with CON$ is they are too stupid to know how ridiculous the Crapaganda they mindlessly parrot is!!! The top 1% have 40% of the 53.1 trillion in total wealth. That's over 21 trillion, more than enough to pay off the total debt and throw a nice party afterwards.

I'm not saying we should do that, just pointing out how stupid someone has to be to parrot the highlighted part in your post!

And exactly where in the Constitution do we get the power to confiscate their Money? Not their income, their money they have already earned and paid income taxes on? Because that is the only way we could pay off the Debt, would be to take their Wealth, not their Incomes. Wealth that took the Rich Hundreds of Years to accumulate. We could take it all once and pay off the Debt, and then what? Our Economy would be toast because we just took all the money out of it.

That's your answer? lol

The national debt actually doesn't need to be payed back in full, ever really. It's not like debt an individual accumulates through purchases.

So, when a liberal talks about the debt that Reagan/Bush/Bush (But not Clinton or Obama, of course) foisted on their great-grandkids, they're lying?

 

[BakshisMouse]

And exactly where in the Constitution do we get the power to confiscate their Money? Not their income, their money they have already earned and paid income taxes on? Because that is the only way we could pay off the Debt, would be to take their Wealth, not their Incomes. Wealth that took the Rich Hundreds of Years to accumulate. We could take it all once and pay off the Debt, and then what? Our Economy would be toast because we just took all the money out of it.

That's your answer? lol

The national debt actually doesn't need to be payed back in full, ever really. It's not like debt an individual accumulates through purchases.

So, when a liberal talks about the debt that Reagan/Bush/Bush (But not Clinton or Obama, of course) foisted on their great-grandkids, they're lying?

That liberal would not understand what a national debt is. That liberal might want to read this encyclopedia article on government debt:

Government Debt and Deficits by John J. Seater

And possibly this blog post by Paul Krugman:

Debt Is (Mostly) Money We Owe to Ourselves by Paul Krugman

Specifically this part of the Krugman post:

But these are problems of distribution and incentives, not the burden of debt as is commonly understood. And as Dean says, talking about leaving a burden to our children is especially nonsensical; what we are leaving behind is promises that some of our children will pay money to other children, which is a very different kettle of fish.

 

[eflatminor]

Probably the same reason the economy is not ROCKING today following the Bush tax cutting spree. Not the right tax cuts and not the right spending.

A typical Progressive response - If only WE were in charge, everything would be grand...because we have magic beans. Pathetic. Tax rates...what a red herring! You realize that we could not possibly tax our way out of this kind of spending, right? Tax revenues as a percentage of GDP vary little over time, even with marginal rates as high as 90%! Further, with our recent spending spree, we couldn't tax enough to cover it even if we CONFISCATED ALL WEALTH from the richest Americans. We bring in $2 trillion in tax revenue, we spend $3 trillion. Spending is the problem, not revenue.

Typical mindless parroting of CON$ervative propaganda. The problem with CON$ is they are too stupid to know how ridiculous the Crapaganda they mindlessly parrot is!!! The top 1% have 40% of the 53.1 trillion in total wealth. That's over 21 trillion, more than enough to pay off the total debt and throw a nice party afterwards.

I'm not saying we should do that, just pointing out how stupid someone has to be to parrot the highlighted part in your post!

Hey, another lefty throwing a tantrum and calling people names. I'm shocked. Progressives are usually so logical and well reasoned.

In any case, where did I say the top 1%? I did not. You did. I don't consider someone earning just over $300,000 in income to be "the richest Americans" and that's about what it takes to be in the top 1% of INCOME EARNERS.

The wealthiest I was referring to are America's billionaires. The grand total of the combined net worth of every single one of America’s billionaires is roughly $1.3 trillion. The 2011 deficit alone is at least $1.6 trillion. So, if the government were to simply confiscate the entire net worth of all of America’s billionaires, we’d still be $300 billion short of making up this year’s deficit...and that's before we even get to dealing with the $15+ (soon to be $16) trillion long term debt. That's about 15 times the entire net worth of all of the country’s billionaires, combined.

 

[eflatminor]

Typical mindless parroting of CON$ervative propaganda. The problem with CON$ is they are too stupid to know how ridiculous the Crapaganda they mindlessly parrot is!!! The top 1% have 40% of the 53.1 trillion in total wealth. That's over 21 trillion, more than enough to pay off the total debt and throw a nice party afterwards.

I'm not saying we should do that, just pointing out how stupid someone has to be to parrot the highlighted part in your post!

And exactly where in the Constitution do we get the power to confiscate their Money? Not their income, their money they have already earned and paid income taxes on? Because that is the only way we could pay off the Debt, would be to take their Wealth, not their Incomes. Wealth that took the Rich Hundreds of Years to accumulate. We could take it all once and pay off the Debt, and then what? Our Economy would be toast because we just took all the money out of it.

That's your answer? lol

When all else fails, call your opponent a nasty name and take your ball and go home. Ah, the school yard mentality of the Left. Gotta love it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

When all else fails, call your opponent a nasty name and take your ball and go home. Ah, the school yard mentality of the Left. Gotta love it.

That's what happens when you run out of talking points.

 

[eflatminor]

When all else fails, call your opponent a nasty name and take your ball and go home. Ah, the school yard mentality of the Left. Gotta love it.

That's what happens when you run out of talking points.

According to Merrriam Webster, a Talking Point is something that lends support to an argument.

When one's talking points are based in logic and reason (as opposed to emotionally-based arguments), one never runs out of talking points.

Thank you for the enlightening input.

 

[edthecynic]

A typical Progressive response - If only WE were in charge, everything would be grand...because we have magic beans. Pathetic. Tax rates...what a red herring! You realize that we could not possibly tax our way out of this kind of spending, right? Tax revenues as a percentage of GDP vary little over time, even with marginal rates as high as 90%! Further, with our recent spending spree, we couldn't tax enough to cover it even if we CONFISCATED ALL WEALTH from the richest Americans. We bring in $2 trillion in tax revenue, we spend $3 trillion. Spending is the problem, not revenue.

Typical mindless parroting of CON$ervative propaganda. The problem with CON$ is they are too stupid to know how ridiculous the Crapaganda they mindlessly parrot is!!! The top 1% have 40% of the 53.1 trillion in total wealth. That's over 21 trillion, more than enough to pay off the total debt and throw a nice party afterwards.

I'm not saying we should do that, just pointing out how stupid someone has to be to parrot the highlighted part in your post!

Hey, another lefty throwing a tantrum and calling people names. I'm shocked. Progressives are usually so logical and well reasoned.

In any case, where did I say the top 1%? I did not. You did. I don't consider someone earning just over $300,000 in income to be "the richest Americans" and that's about what it takes to be in the top 1% of INCOME EARNERS.

The wealthiest I was referring to are America's billionaires. The grand total of the combined net worth of every single one of America’s billionaires is roughly $1.3 trillion. The 2011 deficit alone is at least $1.6 trillion. So, if the government were to simply confiscate the entire net worth of all of America’s billionaires, we’d still be $300 billion short of making up this year’s deficit...and that's before we even get to dealing with the $15+ (soon to be $16) trillion long term debt. That's about 15 times the entire net worth of all of the country’s billionaires, combined.

First of all, you said "RICHEST" Americans and not billionaires, as if someone with $999 million is not rich.
Second the top 1% I used is the top 1% of wealth, not income. The top 1% of income have over 70% of the wealth.

But thank you for backtracking from the CON$ervative propaganda that you mindlessly parroted.

 

[eflatminor]

...the CON$ervative propaganda that you mindlessly parroted.

I'm a Libertarian...but thanks for playing anyway.

 

[eflatminor]

None of this changes the fact we have a spending, not a revenue problem. Just saying.

 

[BakshisMouse]

None of this changes the fact we have a spending, not a revenue problem. Just saying.

And the problem is not enough spending. Just saying.

 

[eflatminor]

None of this changes the fact we have a spending, not a revenue problem. Just saying.

And the problem is not enough spending. Just saying.

Yes, we understand that's what you're saying. Despite all evidence to the contrary. Despite history demonstrating how overspending has collapsed society after society. Despite seeing what's going in big spending countries in Europe right now. Despite all logic and reason, you think we should spend more. We got it.

How about this? Spend your own fucking money as you see fit and leave ours alone.