Progressive proposal creates surplus 19 years before Ryan budget manages to

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Kauai, Apr 17, 2011.

  1. Kauai macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    #1
    Original ThinkProgress article. Links directly to both proposals are included.

    It's about time the Progressive movement sets the facts straight; fiscal responsibility is a liberal trait. The only President to create a surplus since the disastrous (fiscally) Reagan administration was Bill Clinton. Reagan on the other hand created more debt than every President preceding him combined while Bush number two created the largest deficit in our nations history. Democrats really need to stop letting Republican set the tone of this debate.
     
  2. itcheroni macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2005
    Location:
    CA
    #2
    Don't you mean Obama created the largest deficit in our nation's history? I know you meant, hitherto, Bush had the largest deficit in history, but if you believe in what you're saying, there's no need to embellish.
     
  3. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #3
    And I'd support him doing it again...same for Bush supporting TARP. Bring us back from the edge, there a time for the government to have deficit spending, the stock market diving is one of those times.

    On the other hand cutting tax, with a special focus on the rich and starting wars without plans to pay for it while our deficit sky rockets is something the GOP has a monopoly on the past 30 years.

    The GOP's claim for fiscal responsibility is a joke.
     
  4. itcheroni macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2005
    Location:
    CA
    #4
    I don't support tax payers bailing out the stock market or wall street. I would prefer to let the free market handle that. Every one needs to understand that no one will bail them out. If you thought you were going to be bailed out, you would put all your money in the highest yielding investments, which would also be the most risky, which could lead to another crisis.

    It's so ironic how liberals defend the bailout and tarp. It is simply not true that there would have been armageddon if large banks failed. It was rhetoric to sell the masses onto the idea. It's pretty sad when the poor and middle class defends the rich stealing from them.
     
  5. CaptMurdock macrumors 6502a

    CaptMurdock

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Location:
    The Evildrome Boozerama
    #5
    Yeah, 'cause that only happened with the bank bailout and TARP. :rolleyes: Your tendency towards Broad Generalization is only outmatched for your genius in being Just Plain Wrong.
     
  6. AP_piano295 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    #6
    Do you think it's only wallstreet and the banks that would have eaten ****** if they went under?

    More or less every American is in some way invested in those institutions, I don't even want to think about how many retirement funds would have disappeared if that money hadn't been spent.

    EDIT: And last time I checked Obama's presidency isn't over yet lets see how things go over the next few years before we determine how much he raised the deficit...
     
  7. bagelche, Apr 18, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2011

    bagelche macrumors 6502

    bagelche

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Location:
    Western Mass.
    #7
    There is no such thing as the "free market" -- it simply does not exist. We can discuss how markets are regulated and what mechanisms exist for market "correction", but a market unencumbered by regulation or external forces simply doesn't exist.

    I think you'll find that most liberals and nearly all progressives (to segment the center-left a bit) opposed the Wall St. bailouts--in large part for the very reason you oppose it. The left still vigorously opposes the Wall St. bailout which was an enormous (and ongoing) transfer of wealth from the general public (the working class) to the rich and super-rich.
     
  8. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #8
    BS. The 2009 fiscal deficit was the largest in history. That budget was passed in October, 2008. Guess who.

    Oh, and GWB's budgets magically forgot to include war spending that President Obama added so that his numbers weren't artificial.

    There are estimated deficits for 2011, but considering the actual budget contains all those spending cuts that the Republicans threatened government shutdown over, how could it be bigger than the last Bush II budget? If it is, then maybe the tea party should challenge all those Republicans who promised what they obviously failed to deliver.
     
  9. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #9
    I'm not sure how useful "the largest deficit in history" is except as a rhetorical flourish. Of course, it's the largest deficit ever in terms of dollars because costs, incomes, and our global reach have changed dramatically since our first days.
    What's more indicative is our deficit to GDP.

    I don't think it's irony, liberals defend the bailout and TARP because we believe that had the banks failed the economic fallout would have been much more costly and detrimental to the society at large.

    Interesting though that giving banks and Wall Street money is "stealing". I thought giving the one percenters tax breaks would help create investments and jobs. Giving the banks money to remain solvent is, however, stealing?

    That said, I think the Fed's maneuvers have gone from keeping the economy afloat to all all-you-can-eat buffet for the entitled class and that's infuriating.
    The initial TARP system should have been limited and targeted to keeping banks solvent and lending, with specific requirements to do so while be able to pass the government's 'stress tests.'
    Of course, the Recovery and Reinvestment Act should have been about infrastructure, rather than a pork barrel of 'shovel ready' projects. The point wasn't to just start laying concrete, it was to lay down concrete for stuff we needed.
    Both programs have failed in their larger duty because both Republicans and Democrats let grubby hands in the cookie jar, neither party should escape blame for this debacle, not even for sudden awakeners to fiscal responsibility—those people should go first.
     
  10. itcheroni macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2005
    Location:
    CA
    #10
    Yes. Please point out whatever inconsistency you see.
     
  11. itcheroni macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2005
    Location:
    CA
    #11
    You can use free market in a different sense. There's always the free market, no matter how many regulations you have. It's like gravity, it's still there whether you believe in it or not. The free market is just collective human action. It's how we would all act in a given circumstance. I use it in this sense when I say we should let the free market work.
     
  12. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #12
    You understand I'm not making this comment to be difficult, I'm trying to understand how these two things do or do not interrelate. Obviously, we all have our inconsistencies, but this seems like a real disconnect.
     
  13. OutThere macrumors 603

    OutThere

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Location:
    NYC
    #13
    I certainly don't want the collective human action of the 'free market' to be responsible for arresting an unstable economy's descent into failure. Humans are too easily scared and irrational, and will only think of their individual survival, often at the expense of the survival of the system.
     
  14. Joshuarocks, Apr 19, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2011

    Joshuarocks macrumors 6502

    Joshuarocks

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2011
    Location:
    Somewhere in Cyberspace
    #14
    The system has been flawed from the beginning of its inception.. Its only a matter of time before the whole thing collapses.. and with gas going sky high, food going up - a huge depression is coming and will be 1000's of times worse than the so called "past recession" which btw, ISN'T OVER. Those who are foolish to say the recession is over are the most stupidest in the world.. This is just the beginning of something terrible on the way..
     
  15. itcheroni macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2005
    Location:
    CA
    #15
    I wasn't being sarcastic. It is completely consistent. I believe the inconsistency is that you believe tax cuts = government spending. This would mean that anything the government doesn't take from us is an expense to the government.

    So, for the sake of simplicity, let's just check for inconsistency here:
    Tax cuts, regardless of who or what, is good.
    Taxing, regardless of who or what (in this case, taxing the middle class to bail out the large banks), is bad.

    So please point out where I've been inconsistent because I don't see it.
     
  16. itcheroni macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2005
    Location:
    CA
    #16
    Can you provide an example?
     
  17. OutThere macrumors 603

    OutThere

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Location:
    NYC
    #17
    The self-perpetuating panic that drives a bank run, for one.
     
  18. mcrain, Apr 19, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2011

    mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #18
    You are not just inconsistent, you are wrong - tax cuts are bad and tax increases are good when you have a debt/deficit. You are ONLY semi-correct if, and ONLY if, you impose a hypothetical which does not exist.

    If, and ONLY if, the government is operating at zero debt / deficit, then, and only then, would a reduction in taxes =/= a government expense.

    On the other hand, where you are operating at a deficit, with a debt, then when you cut taxes, you are adding to that deficit, which increases the debt. Guess what, that causes the government to owe not only your tax cut, but the compounding damage of interest.

    In other words, your tax cut of $1 costs the government an indefinite number of years worth of interest on that $1. So, next time you push for a tax cut, be sure to explain to me how not only the $800 Billion dollars we have to borrow is going to get paid back, but also the interest you just passed on to my kids and grandkids.

    Un-American doesn't even begin to touch the concept. Seriously, the damage we are doing to our kids and grandkids is despicable, and the people who keep pushing this should be ashamed of themselves.

    Care to try again.
     
  19. itcheroni macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2005
    Location:
    CA
    #19
    No thanks. You're just going to miss the point again.
     
  20. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #20
    Swing and a miss. I guess I'm hopelessly unable to grasp the concept.
     
  21. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #21
    In what world does the free market just randomly generate 8 trillion dollars (approximate demand lost to recession) to offset a recession? The free market is part of the recession, how can something that drives the problem fix it? External pressure (ex. government spending) is needed to make up for the loss.

    That is of course if you don't want the whole boom/bust cycle of capitalism to run its course, which in this case has severe consequences for the population.
     
  22. freeny macrumors 68020

    freeny

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Location:
    Location: Location:
    #22
    Please don't generalize, I know very few liberals who supported the wall street bailouts, actually, I don't know any who supported it.

    Also, how many jobs have been created sinse the Bush tax cuts were enacted? I'll wait...
     
  23. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #23
    Keep waiting, jobs were shipped overseas in vast numbers, and we all know how many jobs were lost at the end of his presidency and into the beginning of President Obama's.

    More info. Politifact About 6.5 Million jobs lost in last 6 months of GWB and first 6 months of BHO.

    AP on unemployment dropping in 34 states, and 38 states hiring more workers in March.
     
  24. Pachang macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    #24
    Why are bank runs irrational?
    The reason people are rationally scared is becuause the banks dont have their money. And guess what? Whenever there is a bank run they don't. You could argue that if they didn't all come at once the bank would be fine, but the same thing is true for bernie madoff's ponzy scheme.

    If you look at where all recessions have come from in history, they all start in the financial sector. Guess which sector of the economy is the most regulated least free market?

    I would rely on the free market to fix it because back when there was no central bank and government didn't bail out banks to the same extent, there were never severe recessions that lasted for years. The free market was able to fix it throughout the 19th century why not now? The worst crashes happened and are happening in the 20/21st century when there has been much less free market.
     
  25. ender land macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    #25
    Oh please, you don't think things are different in terms of how the economy works 200 years later?
     

Share This Page