SnyderShrugged Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 We should have done what you said when it was actually preemptive. 2000-2007 or so. '08 was probably too late. Yes, we had a budget surplus in 2000, we pissed it away in '01-present. I agree we should have KEPT our finances in order for those 7 years. We didn't. That doesnt mean we balance our checkbook this moment. It means you have to figure out a long term solution to getting our house back in order. The first step is to get the economy going. Then, when its going, you balance up your books. But if we balanced our books first, like Greece and Spain did, then we'd be just like them. Or just like ourselves in the '20's. yep, we should have, absolutely and no one listened to the wise fellows who said so. (recall we are KOOKS?) And again, who is saying that a full balancing of the books via Greece style austerity is mandatory now? I'm certain we have been saying better to start now on a smaller scale to avoid the big hit. The problem is, none of ya'll big spenders on either side of the aisle is willing to stop spending. Not even willing to reduce the anticipated spending increases let alone actually reducing the real dollars spent next year vs this one. Until this is addressed, your desire to "get the economy going" is a keynesian pipedream that has shown to be a failed approach time and time again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 yep, we should have, absolutely and no one listened to the wise fellows who said so. (recall we are KOOKS?)And again, who is saying that a full balancing of the books via Greece style austerity is mandatory now? I'm certain we have been saying better to start now on a smaller scale to avoid the big hit. The problem is, none of ya'll big spenders on either side of the aisle is willing to stop spending. Not even willing to reduce the anticipated spending increases let alone actually reducing the real dollars spent next year vs this one. Until this is addressed, your desire to "get the economy going" is a keynesian pipedream that has shown to be a failed approach time and time again. The economy is going better now than it was. The stimulus did work. It did. We are growing at a slow but steady pace now and the spending we did, in fact, helped. I guess Al Gore was one of those "kooks" that no one was listening to because when he ran for President in 2000, he said we should keep building a surplus as a "rainy day fund" for when/if something went bad. And it simply wasn't the time to cut spending from 2008-now. In fact, I'm not sure cutting spending now would be a good thing. But that's beyond my economic understanding. I just hear that the economy may still be too weak to cut spending at this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 The economy is going better now than it was. The stimulus did work. It did. We are growing at a slow but steady pace now and the spending we did, in fact, helped. I guess Al Gore was one of those "kooks" that no one was listening to because when he ran for President in 2000, he said we should keep building a surplus as a "rainy day fund" for when/if something went bad. And it simply wasn't the time to cut spending from 2008-now. In fact, I'm not sure cutting spending now would be a good thing. But that's beyond my economic understanding. I just hear that the economy may still be too weak to cut spending at this time. I dont think the final verdict on whether or not the stimulus "worked" is in yet. In the short term, maybe. In the long term...lots more to prove. Just the "fiscal cliff" approaching alone tells us it likely didnt. If Gore was saying that we should have dramatically reduced spending back in 2000 because he saw this disaster approaching like other unmentioned members of congress did, then my hat is definitely off to him and I wish he was listened to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 I dont think the final verdict on whether or not the stimulus "worked" is in yet. In the short term, maybe. In the long term...lots more to prove.Just the "fiscal cliff" approaching alone tells us it likely didnt. If Gore was saying that we should have dramatically reduced spending back in 2000 because he saw this disaster approaching like other unmentioned members of congress did, then my hat is definitely off to him and I wish he was listened to. The stimulus had nothing to do with the fiscal cliff. Nothing at all. You can't blame the stimulus for the "fiscal cliff." That was a deal brokered over the debt ceiling because the House was using leverage and thought they'd have a new president next year. And yes, here's Al Gore saying he'd pay off the debt by 2012 and maintain a "rainy day fund." We decided to cut taxes and not pay for two wars instead: http://articles.nydailynews.com/2000-09-06/news/18152516_1_al-gore-senior-gore-adviser-rainy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.