Why we want stimulus now and worry about deficits later

[thereisnospoon]

It does not matter who can get the contract. If the government creates a enough of additional demand (by spending enough), then the companies will hire enough workers to satisfy that demand. And those new workers will start spending as well, creating jobs in small business and everywhere else.

And we have more than enough shovel-ready projects, from building more f-22s to hiring back the laid-off teachers.

Government spending DRAINS money from the economy.

That is only true if you are clueless idiot whose missed the past 100 years of history

And another drive by Obamabot poster hurls an insult. Dismissed.

 

[thereisnospoon]

There is absoutely nothing in the Constitution that mandates how much we have to spend on defense.

And nothing you said refutes my point.

Dude.....Shut it.
Preamble





We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The authority given the federal government to provide for the common defense is broad.
Your argument is specious.

And where in that is the amount mandated?

Stop it. You are spewing nonsense.
Now you get to be trapped in the corner.
How would you fund national defense.
And please spare me the crap about "well I wouldn't grt involved in ( fill in the blank).
If you are going to have a narrow "as long as it does not cross my front lawn" view of US interests, there is no use discussing this with you.
I conclude that no matter what, you'd as soon strip the military save rock bottom essential funding and transfer it over to social spending. After all, social spending is what keeps democrats in office.

 

[Oddball]

No its not what you said at all. You think government spending will solve all of this. It is only a small minority of companies which can get a government contract.

It does not matter who can get the contract. If the government creates a enough of additional demand (by spending enough), then the companies will hire enough workers to satisfy that demand. And those new workers will start spending as well, creating jobs in small business and everywhere else.

And we have more than enough shovel-ready projects, from building more f-22s to hiring back the laid-off teachers.

I have a question..How ( in your own words) does government create more demand?
And don't answer with " by spending more money"...That is not an answer.
BTW, the federal government HAS NO MONEY TO SPEND...
The first thing that the federal government must do is stop ALL automatic yearly budget increases. Next, it must end baseline budgeting.
Oh...The aircraft? The Obama admin just cancelled orders for the majority of the F-35 fighter.
Ottawa's F-35 price-tag could skyrocket if Washington scraps purchase - The Globe and Mail
Here is a tragic story. This is how your precious federal government bureaucrats along with do nothing development engineers at these defense contractors do their "work"...
Kind of makes one sick to read this shit.
Defense Review - F-22 Raptor Program Cancellation: Will we learn from it?
So please, don't give us this nonsense about "only if the government could raise taxes to spend money on this and that to get the economy rolling"....
"We're the federal government. Please just gives us one more chance. We promise not to screw the pooch THIS time".
Like the overly tipsy customer at the local gin mill who says "one more please" , our response to that is "sorry ,you're cut off".

You forgot the money pit known as the V-22 Osprey.

 

[ilia25]

By borrowing the idle cash in the private sector (idle means the owners neither want to spend it, nor invest it), and use it to place orders for f-22s and hire teachers.

And then, when the owners do want to spend or invest it, the government will have to damage the economy and raise taxes to repay the owners. Great idea!

First, rising tax rates may not be necessary -- the growing economy will make the debt irrelevant, just as it made WWII debt irrelevant long time ago (we never paid it off).

Second, a fast growing economy will need to be cooled down anyway. It can be achieved by the Fed rising the rates, but if we have a temporary tax rate hike (until we have a reduction in debt), the Fed would simply postpone its rise -- no "damage" to the economy either.

Just what do these economy fairies look like? Obama and the Dems have been telling us for years now, we need to raise taxes. Now you come along and suggest it isn't needed?

You are very confused. Rising taxes is not necessary to pay for a one-off stimulus. But we also have structural deficits, meaning we have them even when the economy is booming -- and that can only be fixed by rising taxes.

We have never had this much debt EVER. The economy simply cannot absorb it all, as much as you sprinkle fairy dust.

We did after WWII. UK had much worse debt in 60s and Japan's debt is twice as big relative to its economy -- and yet Japan borrows at a lower interest than us. Which means you really have no idea what the economy can or cannot absorb.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It does not matter who can get the contract. If the government creates a enough of additional demand (by spending enough), then the companies will hire enough workers to satisfy that demand. And those new workers will start spending as well, creating jobs in small business and everywhere else.

And we have more than enough shovel-ready projects, from building more f-22s to hiring back the laid-off teachers.

I have a question..How ( in your own words) does government create more demand?
And don't answer with " by spending more money"...That is not an answer.
BTW, the federal government HAS NO MONEY TO SPEND...
The first thing that the federal government must do is stop ALL automatic yearly budget increases. Next, it must end baseline budgeting.
Oh...The aircraft? The Obama admin just cancelled orders for the majority of the F-35 fighter.
Ottawa's F-35 price-tag could skyrocket if Washington scraps purchase - The Globe and Mail
Here is a tragic story. This is how your precious federal government bureaucrats along with do nothing development engineers at these defense contractors do their "work"...
Kind of makes one sick to read this shit.
Defense Review - F-22 Raptor Program Cancellation: Will we learn from it?
So please, don't give us this nonsense about "only if the government could raise taxes to spend money on this and that to get the economy rolling"....
"We're the federal government. Please just gives us one more chance. We promise not to screw the pooch THIS time".
Like the overly tipsy customer at the local gin mill who says "one more please" , our response to that is "sorry ,you're cut off".

You forgot the money pit known as the V-22 Osprey.

The aircraft that treated test pilots like crash test dummies.

 

[saveliberty]

First, rising tax rates may not be necessary -- the growing economy will make the debt irrelevant, just as it made WWII debt irrelevant long time ago (we never paid it off).

Second, a fast growing economy will need to be cooled down anyway. It can be achieved by the Fed rising the rates, but if we have a temporary tax rate hike (until we have a reduction in debt), the Fed would simply postpone its rise -- no "damage" to the economy either.

Just what do these economy fairies look like? Obama and the Dems have been telling us for years now, we need to raise taxes. Now you come along and suggest it isn't needed?

You are very confused. Rising taxes is not necessary to pay for a one-off stimulus. But we also have structural deficits, meaning we have them even when the economy is booming -- and that can only be fixed by rising taxes.

We have never had this much debt EVER. The economy simply cannot absorb it all, as much as you sprinkle fairy dust.

We did after WWII. UK had much worse debt in 60s and Japan's debt is twice as big relative to its economy -- and yet Japan borrows at a lower interest than us. Which means you really have no idea what the economy can or cannot absorb.

I already showed the relative scale of the problems in both time frames. You lose. Also, Japan holds most all of its own debt (88%). We have over twice as much held by foreigners. That plays into the equation.

 

[Cammmpbell]

ilia's shotgun approach to government spending is terrible. Just throw money all over and it will fix everything. Spend money on fighter aircraft that have been cancelled? Rehire laid off teachers? Why? So we can give the schools more money next year to pay for the teacher they can't afford? But remember, ilia says this is just "temporary".

One thing we know for sure. Any Republican worth their salt would rather take one up the arse than to cut a dime from the defense budget. We have hand held robots and remote controlled planes over Pakistan being flown from Denver and sniper's rifles so big that they have to be hauled to the site. We spend billions on planes which never get into the air and amphibious vehicles which sink while being tested. Dwight Eisenhower warned about this shit over 50 years ago and our politicians ignored his words of wisdom and screwed it up anyway.

Well Crampedcell, you'd have to ask a Republican I guess. I'm a conservative. Personally cutting defense spending is a good idea. How much is the debate with me. Btw, your collegue was suggesting MORE defense spending.

My colleague

I don't know who you're talking to but with the Bush war of choice over and the one in Afghanistan winding down I doubt that you mean Obama.

 

[Skull Pilot]

By borrowing the idle cash in the private sector (idle means the owners neither want to spend it, nor invest it), and use it to place orders for f-22s and hire teachers.



I tell you what should make you sick -- the fact that we have millions of willing and able workers that are sitting idle in misery for years. And the fact that we can make them employed and getting better living by ordering more F-22s (which are damn good planes, BTW).

That is what should make you sick.

By borrowing the idle cash in the private sector (idle means the owners neither want to spend it, nor invest it), and use it to place orders for f-22s and hire teachers.

And then, when the owners do want to spend or invest it, the government will have to damage the economy and raise taxes to repay the owners. Great idea!

First, rising tax rates may not be necessary -- the growing economy will make the debt irrelevant, just as it made WWII debt irrelevant long time ago (we never paid it off).

Second, a fast growing economy will need to be cooled down anyway. It can be achieved by the Fed rising the rates, but if we have a temporary tax rate hike (until we have a reduction in debt), the Fed would simply postpone its rise -- no "damage" to the economy either.

16 trillion dollars (and climbing) is never going to be irrelevant.

And there is no such thing as a temporary tax. In fact the gas tax was supposed to be "temporary"

So in government speak temporary means one second less than infinity.

 

[Cammmpbell]

By borrowing the idle cash in the private sector (idle means the owners neither want to spend it, nor invest it), and use it to place orders for f-22s and hire teachers.

And then, when the owners do want to spend or invest it, the government will have to damage the economy and raise taxes to repay the owners. Great idea!

First, rising tax rates may not be necessary -- the growing economy will make the debt irrelevant, just as it made WWII debt irrelevant long time ago (we never paid it off).

Second, a fast growing economy will need to be cooled down anyway. It can be achieved by the Fed rising the rates, but if we have a temporary tax rate hike (until we have a reduction in debt), the Fed would simply postpone its rise -- no "damage" to the economy either.

16 trillion dollars (and climbing) is never going to be irrelevant.

And there is no such thing as a temporary tax. In fact the gas tax was supposed to be "temporary"

So in government speak temporary means one second less than infinity.

Reagan and the Bushes ran up the national debt by $9 trillion. They left Obama with an annual interest payment, which unlike the debt has to be paid or we go into default, of $450,000,000,000 his first year....more now. I suggest you knock about a trillion and a half off of Obama's debt and add it to the Reagan-Bushes.

 

[Skull Pilot]

First, rising tax rates may not be necessary -- the growing economy will make the debt irrelevant, just as it made WWII debt irrelevant long time ago (we never paid it off).

Second, a fast growing economy will need to be cooled down anyway. It can be achieved by the Fed rising the rates, but if we have a temporary tax rate hike (until we have a reduction in debt), the Fed would simply postpone its rise -- no "damage" to the economy either.

16 trillion dollars (and climbing) is never going to be irrelevant.

And there is no such thing as a temporary tax. In fact the gas tax was supposed to be "temporary"

So in government speak temporary means one second less than infinity.

Reagan and the Bushes ran up the national debt by $9 trillion. They left Obama with an annual interest payment, which unlike the debt has to be paid or we go into default, of $450,000,000,000 his first year....more now. I suggest you knock about a trillion and a half off of Obama's debt and add it to the Reagan-Bushes.

Hey little sheep, I don't remember assigning blame to anyone.

The fact that you need to blame a politician for the debt reveals your ovine partisanship.

The reality is that 16 trillion dollars, and I don't care which ******* corrupt power hungry sleazy motherfucking politician ran it up, is not now and never will be "irrelevant"

Why don't you grow the **** up and start thinking for yourself instead of following the ******* flock?

 

[skookerasbil]

The last stimulus was $1 trillion and it failed.

It did not fail, it stopped the economy from sliding deeper into recession.

But nobody thinks that except the far left internet OCD's............

 

[Cammmpbell]

16 trillion dollars (and climbing) is never going to be irrelevant.

And there is no such thing as a temporary tax. In fact the gas tax was supposed to be "temporary"

So in government speak temporary means one second less than infinity.

Reagan and the Bushes ran up the national debt by $9 trillion. They left Obama with an annual interest payment, which unlike the debt has to be paid or we go into default, of $450,000,000,000 his first year....more now. I suggest you knock about a trillion and a half off of Obama's debt and add it to the Reagan-Bushes.

Hey little sheep, I don't remember assigning blame to anyone.

The fact that you need to blame a politician for the debt reveals your ovine partisanship.

The reality is that 16 trillion dollars, and I don't care which ******* corrupt power hungry sleazy motherfucking politician ran it up, is not now and never will be "irrelevant"

Why don't you grow the **** up and start thinking for yourself instead of following the ******* flock?

Well....you're ignoring the interest. In George W,. Bush's first cabinet meeting Cheney said, "The Debt Doesn't Matter...Reagan Proved That" That's bullshit!!

Total U S Debt


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38(Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

 

[Skull Pilot]

Reagan and the Bushes ran up the national debt by $9 trillion. They left Obama with an annual interest payment, which unlike the debt has to be paid or we go into default, of $450,000,000,000 his first year....more now. I suggest you knock about a trillion and a half off of Obama's debt and add it to the Reagan-Bushes.

Hey little sheep, I don't remember assigning blame to anyone.

The fact that you need to blame a politician for the debt reveals your ovine partisanship.

The reality is that 16 trillion dollars, and I don't care which ******* corrupt power hungry sleazy motherfucking politician ran it up, is not now and never will be "irrelevant"

Why don't you grow the **** up and start thinking for yourself instead of following the ******* flock?

Well....you're ignoring the interest. In George W,. Bush's first cabinet meeting Cheney said, "The Debt Doesn't Matter...Reagan Proved That" That's bullshit!!

Total U S Debt


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38(Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

When will you start focusing on the problem and stop living in the past and playing the blame game?

16 trillion dollars and the interest on that debt is not now and never will be irrelevant.

I don't give a flying **** what any politician says.

 

[thereisnospoon]

First, rising tax rates may not be necessary -- the growing economy will make the debt irrelevant, just as it made WWII debt irrelevant long time ago (we never paid it off).

Second, a fast growing economy will need to be cooled down anyway. It can be achieved by the Fed rising the rates, but if we have a temporary tax rate hike (until we have a reduction in debt), the Fed would simply postpone its rise -- no "damage" to the economy either.

16 trillion dollars (and climbing) is never going to be irrelevant.

And there is no such thing as a temporary tax. In fact the gas tax was supposed to be "temporary"

So in government speak temporary means one second less than infinity.

Reagan and the Bushes ran up the national debt by $9 trillion. They left Obama with an annual interest payment, which unlike the debt has to be paid or we go into default, of $450,000,000,000 his first year....more now. I suggest you knock about a trillion and a half off of Obama's debt and add it to the Reagan-Bushes.

"Reagan and Bush" is no longer an acceptable response. Try something else.
You and others on your side have been stating all along that you believe deficit spending will boost the economy.
So.....Why is it you run away from the issue and blame previous admin's for what Obama has done?. If you really believe deficit spending is good for the country ,you should stand up and be proud to say Obama spent trillions.
So which is it?

 

[saveliberty]

It does not matter who can get the contract. If the government creates a enough of additional demand (by spending enough), then the companies will hire enough workers to satisfy that demand. And those new workers will start spending as well, creating jobs in small business and everywhere else.

And we have more than enough shovel-ready projects, from building more f-22s to hiring back the laid-off teachers.

I have a question..How ( in your own words) does government create more demand?

By borrowing the idle cash in the private sector (idle means the owners neither want to spend it, nor invest it), and use it to place orders for f-22s and hire teachers.

Defense Review - F-22 Raptor Program Cancellation: Will we learn from it?

I tell you what should make you sick -- the fact that we have millions of willing and able workers that are sitting idle in misery for years. And the fact that we can make them employed and getting better living by ordering more F-22s (which are damn good planes, BTW).

That is what should make you sick.

The program was canncelled years ago dipwad.

 

[skookerasbil]

Keynesian economics is gay..........only applicable if the national security of the US is at grave and imminent risk. Otherwise...........an utter epic failure. Ask the Japanese how awesome it is!!

This stimulus spending shit..........after another 9 months, its gonna be mothballed for at least two generations if not forever. But even now..........future generations are totally fucked and its not even debatable. Only far left k00ks think it'll be awesome to use mega-inflation to bring the debt under control.

$10 for a gallon of milk and $6 for a loaf of bread.


Awesome!!

 

[saveliberty]

I wonder how far ilia has the credit cards run up at home?

 

[Cammmpbell]

16 trillion dollars (and climbing) is never going to be irrelevant.

And there is no such thing as a temporary tax. In fact the gas tax was supposed to be "temporary"

So in government speak temporary means one second less than infinity.

Reagan and the Bushes ran up the national debt by $9 trillion. They left Obama with an annual interest payment, which unlike the debt has to be paid or we go into default, of $450,000,000,000 his first year....more now. I suggest you knock about a trillion and a half off of Obama's debt and add it to the Reagan-Bushes.

"Reagan and Bush" is no longer an acceptable response. Try something else.
You and others on your side have been stating all along that you believe deficit spending will boost the economy.
So.....Why is it you run away from the issue and blame previous admin's for what Obama has done?. If you really believe deficit spending is good for the country ,you should stand up and be proud to say Obama spent trillions.
So which is it?

Oh but it is. They were the first ones in 232 years to cut taxes for the wealthy and borrow trillions from foreign banks. By god I know. I was here. The Republican partty used to cry at the thought of debt. Now all they do is blame those who did the best they could to prevent it. Bill Clinton raised taxes and began to correct the problem...then along came George.

 

[editec]

AUSTERITY will bring us further decline in economic activity but NO real solution to the deficit.

National debt/GDP is the is problem.

It's time to change the social contract, folks.

It's time to acknowedge that the supply side economic policies we have put into place are nothing more than socialism masqerading as free-market capitalism.

 

[Skull Pilot]

AUSTERITY will bring us further decline in economic activity but NO real solution to the deficit.

National debt/GDP is the is problem.

It's time to change the social contract, folks.

It's time to acknowedge that the supply side economic policies we have put into place are nothing more than socialism masqerading as free-market capitalism.

And the demand side Keynes model is just as bad.

Maybe the government should worry more about its Constitutionally mandated responsibilities and let the people decide via their actions the direction of the economy.