The Guardian Unlimited: The Deficit Hawks: When Did They Stop Being Wrong About the Economy?

[JMS]

I think the problem is the folks on both sides of the argument don't agree on the fundamental reality of where the country is.

Which is what specifically?

• role of the government
  
• the problems we face as a nation today
  
• the root cause of those problems
  
• the solutions to those problems
  
• the consequences of their polices
  
• history
  
• morality
  
• vocabulary
  

What do they agree on? The Republicans are saying we are in a debt crisis and don't focus on the deficit which they created.. The Democrats believe we are in a deficit crisis, while the national debt is sustainable if the deficit could be handled.

Republicans believe the solution to our debt crisis is to slash federal revenues to allow the private industry to become more productive. Democrats point to decades of use of this ideology noting it is a formula for increased deficits, debt, and fiscal irresponsibility.

The Republicans want to increase the defense budget to keep America strong and our friends secure. The Democrats note the United States already outspends the next 18 greatest nations combined in defense spending (most of those 18 being strong US allies, all have permanent most favored trading status with the US). . Believing significant savings could be hand from modestly trimming the defense budget which nearly tripled while the Republicans were in the white house from 2000-2008. ( over and above war spending). Bush senor trimmed defense spending by 10% a year for four straight years.... Most Dems believe the defense budget could take a one time 10% cut without affecting national security posture.

The Republicans don't want to invest in infrastructure rather advocating cutting back across the board on discretionary spending to deal with what they deem an unsustainable debt crisis. The Democrats want to increase infrastructure spending noting that while private investment dollars are sidelined due to the poor economy; infrastructure spending is a great way to spark the economy and get value to the tax payer while supporting our fragile GDP.

The Republicans believe in absence of all historical record that the government can't do anything right. The Democrats believe the government has played and continues to play an important role in many phases of the economy and both domestic and international policy making.

The Republicans claim, rather self servingly after loosing the White House that the debt is the greatest challenge facing the nation. The Democrats believe, as the Republicans believed when they were in the White House that the weak economy is the more pressing concern.

Democrats believe in informing themselves as to the issue by reading respected newspapers, journals, and magazines... Republicans believe such sources are not reliable and rather depend on Fox News and word of mouth or blog entries to inform them of what's occurring in the world and nation.

Republicans believe Democrats are liberals... And Liberal is at the same time synonymous with weakness, hates America, appeasing, un-American, and communist; which is how they describe our president. I think most democrats would see themselves as centrists even moderate conservatives which is where Obama falls. but they realize all five of our greatest presidents liberals or more left leaning than liberal... ( Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, T.Roosevelt, FD Roosevelt). Liberal being synonymous with socialist which is the moderate left leaning position, while conservative is the moderate right leaning position on the political spectrum.

[ABQCOWBOY]

• role of the government
  
• the problems we face as a nation today
  
• the root cause of those problems
  
• the solutions to those problems
  
• the consequences of their polices
  
• history
  
• morality
  
• vocabulary
  

What do they agree on? The Republicans are saying we are in a debt crisis and don't focus on the deficit which they created.. The Democrats believe we are in a deficit crisis, while the national debt is sustainable if the deficit could be handled.

Republicans believe the solution to our debt crisis is to slash federal revenues to allow the private industry to become more productive. Democrats point to decades of use of this ideology noting it is a formula for increased deficits, debt, and fiscal irresponsibility.

The Republicans want to increase the defense budget to keep America strong and our friends secure. The Democrats note the United States already outspends the next 18 greatest nations combined in defense spending (most of those 18 being strong US allies, all have permanent most favored trading status with the US). . Believing significant savings could be hand from modestly trimming the defense budget which nearly tripled while the Republicans were in the white house from 2000-2008. ( over and above war spending). Bush senor trimmed defense spending by 10% a year for four straight years.... Most Dems believe the defense budget could take a one time 10% cut without affecting national security posture.

The Republicans don't want to invest in infrastructure rather advocating cutting back across the board on discretionary spending to deal with what they deem an unsustainable debt crisis. The Democrats want to increase infrastructure spending noting that while private investment dollars are sidelined due to the poor economy; infrastructure spending is a great way to spark the economy and get value to the tax payer while supporting our fragile GDP.

The Republicans believe in absence of all historical record that the government can't do anything right. The Democrats believe the government has played and continues to play an important role in many phases of the economy and both domestic and international policy making.

The Republicans claim, rather self servingly after loosing the White House that the debt is the greatest challenge facing the nation. The Democrats believe, as the Republicans believed when they were in the White House that the weak economy is the more pressing concern.

Democrats believe in informing themselves as to the issue by reading respected newspapers, journals, and magazines... Republicans believe such sources are not reliable and rather depend on Fox News and word of mouth or blog entries to inform them of what's occurring in the world and nation.

Republicans believe Democrats are liberals... And Liberal is at the same time synonymous with weakness, hates America, appeasing, un-American, and communist; which is how they describe our president. I think most democrats would see themselves as centrists even moderate conservatives which is where Obama falls. but they realize all five of our greatest presidents liberals or more left leaning than liberal... ( Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, T.Roosevelt, FD Roosevelt). Liberal being synonymous with socialist which is the moderate left leaning position, while conservative is the moderate right leaning position on the political spectrum.

Republicans would read this and say that this is a very skewed abstract of what Republicans are. I'm certain that all you say here, in general, is very close to what the Left sees as the Republican platform.

I think the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

[Jumbo]

I don't really care what you call it, austere or otherwise. Common sense says that you cannot outspend revenue year after and year and ultimately survive.

How is that good for an economy in the long term? Its just a mortgage that will never be paid back.

Call me crazy (or austere if you prefer), but I like what the bible says here (big surprise right?) - The wicked borrows but does not pay back - Psalm 37:21

The first time you posted my thought was "good thing your religion usually provides for its clergy's financial needs by the parishioners giving you their money, and then there's the bonus of our government giving it a free ride", and then this time I thought "gee, I hope he's not going to try to make this his extra-circular Christian minister sermon forum by frequently doing "bible stuff" in the non-religious threads." But then I remembered you're a good egg.

[DjTj]

I don't really care what you call it, austere or otherwise. Common sense says that you cannot outspend revenue year after and year and ultimately survive.

How is that good for an economy in the long term? Its just a mortgage that will never be paid back.

Call me crazy (or austere if you prefer), but I like what the bible says here (big surprise right?) - The wicked borrows but does not pay back - Psalm 37:21

You can't think of government money in the same way as personal finances because it's not the same. "Common sense" is not the same for your personal money and a common pool of money in the treasury or other organizations.

For your own personal finances, you need to save money because some day you may not be able to (or want to) work anymore, and you will have to live off of your savings. So you want to eventually pay off your mortgage and your debts to accumulate assets.

But the government is never going to retire and live off of its savings. The government is not a person. Maybe back when we lived under the rule of kings and dictators, the government wanted to accumulate savings so that the royal family could retire and live comfortably, but there is no longer and "retirement" that the government is planning for. So there is no reason for the government to save any money.

And actually, we want the government to spend as much money as possible, because it's OUR money. If I send $10,000 in tax money to the government, I want them to spend it on something that benefits the country. I don't want them to just deposit it into an account and do nothing with the money. I am paying taxes to support the country, and I want that money to be used right now, while I am living in the country and enjoying the benefits of being an American. If Americans are struggling to find jobs, then tax money should be used right now to help grow the economy. If Americans are worried about their safety, then tax money should be used right now on national defense. If the government is going to take our money right now, we want to see a benefit from that as soon as possible. There can be long term projects, of course, but it doesn't make sense for us to give money to the government that will just sit ins some account.

If you want to look to the Bible, I would consider what Jesus said about giving in Luke 12:33: “Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." The role of the government is really to give.

It probably makes more sense to think about government finances like you would a church. It doesn't make sense for a church to save up a lot of money unless it's for some particular purpose. Money that a church collects in tithes is used to support the poor or to give to missions. Sometimes a church might need to save up for a larger building or a big project, but generally the money that a church collects should all be spent to glorify God. A church is a corporate body, and it doesn't need to save for retirement. A church can take out a mortgage and there is no hurry to pay it back. The church is not going to retire one day and live off of its savings, it will always collect tithes, and it should always be putting those tithes to good purpose. Churches should not exist to make a profit or accumulate savings, and neither should the government.

[JMS]

Republicans would read this and say that this is a very skewed abstract of what Republicans are. I'm certain that all you say here, in general, is very close to what the Left sees as the Republican platform.

I think the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

There is no left in US political system effectively. The "left" is a significant out of favor minority in the Democratic party. Which describes another difference between the parties. They disagree on definitions of what Liberal and Conservative mean.

The democrats path to the Presidency followed by Jimmy Cater, Bill Clinton and President Obama involves pushing to the center on all issues and trusting more Americans are in the center than on the fringes. This strategy is designed to attract moderates and assemble a politcal majority by effectively supporting the peoples existing ideas. This road map to power has effectively destroyed the once dominant Liberal core of the democratic party and lead to a series of moderate right leaning democratic presidents ( all labelled socialist or communists by their contemporary Republicans). Thus our nation hasn't elected a liberal to the Presidency since LBJ.

The Republican path to the Presidency followed by Ronald Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Junior involves pushing to the right on all issues trusting more Americans are on the right. Energize the base and that base will elect you. Moderates and centrists are ignored. the philosophy calls for moving the ideology of the country to the right.. challenging the electorate and leading them to many of your positions..

I would be interested in understanding one or two specific descriptions from post #76 of Republican positions you would disagree with.. Or as you say... Republicans would disagree with.

[PeterMP]

I don't really care what you call it, austere or otherwise. Common sense says that you cannot outspend revenue year after and year and ultimately survive.

How is that good for an economy in the long term? Its just a mortgage that will never be paid back.

Call me crazy (or austere if you prefer), but I like what the bible says here (big surprise right?) - The wicked borrows but does not pay back - Psalm 37:21

In the context of what DjTj said about the government not saving, I think there is some sense to what you are saying.

We can't continue to increase the defeciet. And as I said in the OP, every economists I've read that has commented on it pretty much admits that there is some drag on our economy from the deficeit.

However, that doesn't mean the time to start worrying about that is when unemployment is 9%.

Does it?

[JMS]

I don't really care what you call it, austere or otherwise. Common sense says that you cannot outspend revenue year after and year and ultimately survive.

Over the last 80 years do you know how many times the Fed's have balanced a budget? maybe 8 times ( once every ten years on average).... So what you are saying is just historically not accurate. The issue isn't outspending revenue, it's a mix of how much you outspend revenue by, what you spend on, and how much interest you are paying .

In the last 84 years we've passed a balanced budget 8 times... 46, 48, 51, 56, 57, 60, 99, 01

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist01z1.xls

How is that good for an economy in the long term?

Over that 80 years we have become the greatest and most prosperous economic power probable in the history of the world. No country on earth would not exchange their economy for our economy today...So again.. you should reconsider this position.

Call me crazy (or austere if you prefer), but I like what the bible says here (big surprise right?) - The wicked borrows but does not pay back - Psalm 37:21

Hell man we pay our debt every year.. What does the bible say about paying off your entire debt over 100 - 100+ years rather than 2 years... Oh and how did biblical economists assist Christian Byzantium Rome in collapsing economically due to gross economic mismanagement?

---------- Post added January-31st-2013 at 01:27 PM ----------

In the context of what DjTj said about the government not saving, I think there is some sense to what you are saying.

We can't continue to increase the defeciet.

Yes the deficit is a problem and will potentially lead to a debt crisis within a decade if not addressed.

But Zguy28 was talking about outspending revenue generally, which is basically advocated by all modern economic philosophies.

He's talking about a return to the Hoover Administrations fiscal polices, isn't he?.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Republicans would read this and say that this is a very skewed abstract of what Republicans are. I'm certain that all you say here, in general, is very close to what the Left sees as the Republican platform.

I think the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

Can you expound on what you think is skewed there. I could be wrong, but that sure sounded like any given republican's platform.

Maybe there's a difference between a registered republican and a republican in office?

[mcsluggo]

He lost me at "austerity...in the US."

Does this guy not know that we haven't had a budget in 4 years, meaning spending keeps going up, and that the sequester hasn't hit yet?

Blaming our economy on austerity is like blaming the Lakers' terrible season on Phil Jackson.

there are usually three levels of governent affecting each individual, local, state and federal

local and state governemnts have MASSIVELY retracted since the onset of the crisis...

[Duckus]

I am still waiting for that hyper inflation conservative economists and pundits were frantically declaring was just around the corner.

. . . . 4+ years later, still waiting.

[ABQCOWBOY]

There is no left in US political system effectively. The "left" is a significant out of favor minority in the Democratic party. Which describes another difference between the parties. They disagree on definitions of what Liberal and Conservative mean.

The democrats path to the Presidency followed by Jimmy Cater, Bill Clinton and President Obama involves pushing to the center on all issues and trusting more Americans are in the center than on the fringes. This strategy is designed to attract moderates and assemble a politcal majority by effectively supporting the peoples existing ideas. This road map to power has effectively destroyed the once dominant Liberal core of the democratic party and lead to a series of moderate right leaning democratic presidents ( all labelled socialist or communists by their contemporary Republicans). Thus our nation hasn't elected a liberal to the Presidency since LBJ.

The Republican path to the Presidency followed by Ronald Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Junior involves pushing to the right on all issues trusting more Americans are on the right. Energize the base and that base will elect you. Moderates and centrists are ignored. the philosophy calls for moving the ideology of the country to the right.. challenging the electorate and leading them to many of your positions..

I would be interested in understanding one or two specific descriptions from post #76 of Republican positions you would disagree with.. Or as you say... Republicans would disagree with.

If you would rather the term Democrat, that is OK with me. I think that most, outside of the Democratic Party would view President Obama as Left but that is a matter of degrees I suppose. It's something that will not be agreed upon, I suspect.

I am not a Republican but I am a Conservative so at the risk of speaking on behalf of the Republicans, I am happy to try and answer your question. I can not guarantee that that the Republican Party would agree with me but I will try.

Republicans believe the solution to our debt crisis is to slash federal revenues to allow the private industry to become more productive. Democrats point to decades of use of this ideology noting it is a formula for increased deficits, debt, and fiscal irresponsibility.

I suspect that Republicans would view this as not all of the story, with regards to their stance. Republicans believe that a combination of increased taxation or perhaps more to the point, a revised tax code, together with spending controls and spending cuts are the answer. I don't believe they simply think that slashing spending is the answer in it's entirety.

The Republicans want to increase the defense budget to keep America strong and our friends secure. The Democrats note the United States already outspends the next 18 greatest nations combined in defense spending (most of those 18 being strong US allies, all have permanent most favored trading status with the US). . Believing significant savings could be hand from modestly trimming the defense budget which nearly tripled while the Republicans were in the white house from 2000-2008. ( over and above war spending). Bush senor trimmed defense spending by 10% a year for four straight years.... Most Dems believe the defense budget could take a one time 10% cut without affecting national security posture.

I suspect that Republicans don't just want to increase defense budgets as a rule. I suspect that they would rather see them cut as a product of the end of War in the Middle East. I don't think that they would agree that their platform is to simply increase Defense Budgets as a matter of course on a annual basis. I would also point out that Republicans would also make the case that they are not the only party that is in the business of increasing spending on the Defense Side. Both sides vote to do this with regularity. It is more of a "What's Good For Me" approach IMO. Certain Legislators vote for things that will help their own constituency in most cases.

The Republicans don't want to invest in infrastructure rather advocating cutting back across the board on discretionary spending to deal with what they deem an unsustainable debt crisis. The Democrats want to increase infrastructure spending noting that while private investment dollars are sidelined due to the poor economy; infrastructure spending is a great way to spark the economy and get value to the tax payer while supporting our fragile GDP.

I suspect that Republicans are not against investing in infrastructure. I suspect that they are tired of seeing funds, which are supposed to be used for infrastructure, be diverted to something else. I also suspect that they would rather see this be a State Issue as opposed to a Federal one. I am certain that they do not like to see things like Federal Mandates that force these tax Dollars to be spent with only Union Companies. This is a bit of a slap in the face to them I would think. Most Republicans are not for Unions and to force this type of mandate on them is not only a bit insulting, it is counter productive to their own personal beliefs and it also undermines their political party.

The Republicans believe in absence of all historical record that the government can't do anything right. The Democrats believe the government has played and continues to play an important role in many phases of the economy and both domestic and international policy making

.

I think this is flat out wrong about Republicans. I don't think you can say that the Republican Party believes in absence of all historical record. That's propaganda. That would be like the Republican's saying all Democrats are long haired hippies with no jobs. That, of course, is not true. This kind of thing doesn't really help anything. I suspect that Republicans believe that Government Run Programs, Historically, do not show the same results as privately owned programs do. It has to do with a financial cost associated to Business that is not present in Federally Funded Programs.

The Republicans claim, rather self servingly after loosing the White House that the debt is the greatest challenge facing the nation. The Democrats believe, as the Republicans believed when they were in the White House that the weak economy is the more pressing concern.

I don't know if this is true or not. I would say that this is a very big concern for the Republicans but I don't know if it's the biggest. I would also say that this concern has been around for longer then the most recent election. I believe that Obama, in no small part, got elected the first time, because Republicans did not like the fact that GW spent too much. I don't believe it's self serving. I believe it's a stark contrast in each parties base. Don't get me wrong here, the political parties may not believe this, and there is ample proof that they do not IMO, but the base of the Party does IMO. Those two things are very different IMO. I would also say that it's not just the Republicans who see this as a serious threat. Other Nations also see this as a serious threat to the U.S. Banking sees this in the same light. So do certain parts of the Government. As example, The GAO report also has the same concern and so did Simpson/Bowles. I think it's a little disingenuous to paint it as just a Republican concern. However, I do stipulate that it is a clear delineation of the two bases on the whole.

Democrats believe in informing themselves as to the issue by reading respected newspapers, journals, and magazines... Republicans believe such sources are not reliable and rather depend on Fox News and word of mouth or blog entries to inform them of what's occurring in the world and nation.

The term "Respected" is the issue here. Republicans do not share the respect many Democrats have for certain media sources and Democrats do not share the respect for "Fox". That's too subjective and not really quantifiable IMO. Republicans do not just rely on Fox. There is enough information out there to support positions. I believe that Republicans would not agree with this characterization of themselves anymore then Democrats would agree that all of the Media is in the bag for the Democratic Party.

Republicans believe Democrats are liberals... And Liberal is at the same time synonymous with weakness, hates America, appeasing, un-American, and communist; which is how they describe our president. I think most democrats would see themselves as centrists even moderate conservatives which is where Obama falls. but they realize all five of our greatest presidents liberals or more left leaning than liberal... ( Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, T.Roosevelt, FD Roosevelt). Liberal being synonymous with socialist which is the moderate left leaning position, while conservative is the moderate right leaning position on the political spectrum.

Too much wrong here. On the surface, this may be accurate but there is no consensus on who the Greatest Five Presidents are. Nor can you claim that these Five were all Liberals. This is too self serving in it's position and I don't believe that it can be proven. Republicans, I'm certain, would not agree with any of this and that is understandable, based on the fact that it's an opinion based statement.

As I said, I am not 100% certain that these would be the positions of the Republican Party but I think that they would be pretty close.

JMO

[Tulane Skins Fan]

It was just a gigantic fight to get the republicans to include any new revenue in the latest deal. And that deal did not exactly get a lot of support in the House's GOP.

I don't understand how people can think Obama is "left." What policies has he instituted that are left, or socialist, or anything other than "left-leaning." If that's what you meant by "left," yes he's left of Allen West.

[JMS]

If you would rather the term Democrat, that is OK with me. I think that most, outside of the Democratic Party would view President Obama as Left but that is a matter of degrees I suppose. It's something that will not be agreed upon, I suspect.

Well again that is my central point. The two parties disagree on even the language to describe each other... terminology...

Republicans define terms like liberal, socialist, progressive as the equivalence of communism and Nazism... which is very odd since Communism and Nazism are at the opposite poles of the political spectrum. Republicans apply these labels to people who don't apply them to themselves, and since they disregard mainstream journalism, they pretty much rely on a collection talking heads to inform them of who is so tainted.

Democrats tend to use the dictionary more and read traditional forms of news media to inform their opinions.

Republicans would say Obama is a far left wing corrupting influence on our society because he supports a woman's right to choose and now evidently is going to support gun restrictions which have almost no chance of passing congress.

A Democrat would say Obama is a conservative, because he pretty much adopted, advocated for, and implemented historical solutions to existing problems with very little new or innovative ideas. There are exceptions like in the department of energy, but pretty much with regard to economic, foreign policy, healthcare, education, you name it Obama has taken the existing or moderate historical position... He reforms what he has, rather than attempting to create something new and better as FDR, Truman, and LBJ attempted.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Well again that is my central point. The two parties disagree on even the language to describe each other... terminology...

Republicans define terms like liberal, socialist, progressive as the equivalence of communism and Nazism... which is very odd since Communism and Nazism are at the opposite poles of the political spectrum. Republicans apply these labels to people who don't apply them to themselves, and since they disregard mainstream journalism, they pretty much rely on a collection talking heads to inform them of who is so tainted.

Democrats tend to use the dictionary more and read traditional forms of news media to inform their opinions.

Republicans would say Obama is a far left wing corrupting influence on our society because he supports a woman's right to choose and now evidently is going to support gun restrictions.

A Democrat would say Obama is a conservative, because he pretty much adopted, advocated for, and implemented historical solutions to existing policies with very little new or innovative ideas.

There are exceptions like in the department of energy, but pretty much with regard to economic, foreign policy, healthcare, education, you name it Obama has taken the existing or moderate historical position...

He reforms what he has, rather than attempting to create something new and better as FDR, Truman, and LBJ attempted.

I would not agree with much of this. I suspect that the Republicans would not either. No matter. At this point, I think you would probably have to invite a Republican to the conversation and ask them what their opinions of this are. I have already stated what I believe their opinions would be. I don't think we are going to solve anything by my rehashing of what I "Think" they would think.

[JMS]

I suspect that Republicans would view this as not all of the story, with regards to their stance. Republicans believe that a combination ofincreased taxation or perhaps more to the point, a revised tax code, together with spending controls and spending cuts are the answer. I don't believe they simply think that slashing spending is the answer in it's entirety.

How many Republican Congressmen and Senators signed Grover Norvequests pledge to never raise taxes?

1.......?

2.......?

Half.......?

75%.......?

:anon:

the "Taxpayer Protection Pledge", which prior to the November 2012 election was signed by 95% of all Republican Members of Congress and all but one of the candidates running for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist

But again the central position of the GOP regardless of what they say isn't to reduce the deficit, or the national debt from cutting government spending. As stated by their actions their central plan is to reduce federal revenue NOT INCREASE IT, maintain the deficit, continue to increase the debt as they believe the private sector will grow to offset the imbalance over time....

We know this because the party endorsed the Ryan budget, and that's what it did. It was neutral on the deficit over the next 20 years.... dramatically cut federal revenue, dramatically cut social programs... as referenced earlier in this thread.

---------- Post added January-31st-2013 at 03:14 PM ----------

It was just a gigantic fight to get the republicans to include any new revenue in the latest deal. And that deal did not exactly get a lot of support in the House's GOP.

I don't understand how people can think Obama is "left." What policies has he instituted that are left, or socialist, or anything other than "left-leaning." If that's what you meant by "left," yes he's left of Allen West.

I don't think beyond energy policy he's even left leaning... His signature healthcare bill was first proposed by the Conservative Heritage Foundation, and was first championed by Richard Nixon being defeated by liberals lead by Ted Kennedy in 1971. It is fundamentally a reform of our existing system, which is by definition conservative in nature.

But you are correct, as a moderate or even moderate conservative he is to the left of many in congress.

---------- Post added January-31st-2013 at 03:24 PM ----------

I suspect that Republicans don't just want to increase defense budgets as a rule.

Yes they do.... I mean if you believe the words coming out of their mouths they certainly call for dramatic defense increases... Or you just follow what they have done...

Romney called for 2 trillion in defense spending increases. Two trillion dollars over 10 years is what a 30% increase in defense spending over the next decade... which is still less than bush Jr. did because he increased defense spending by nearly 280% over 8 years...

Romney wants to increase defense spending by $2 trillion. But what will he use it for?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/10/22/romney-wants-to-increase-defense-spending-by-2-trillion-but-what-will-he-use-it-for/

[Zguy28]

The first time you posted my thought was "good thing your religion usually provides for its clergy's financial needs by the parishioners giving you their money, and then there's the bonus of our government giving it a free ride", and then this time I thought "gee, I hope he's not going to try to make this his extra-circular Christian minister sermon forum by frequently doing "bible stuff" in the non-religious threads." But then I remembered you're a good egg.

Hey, what can I say, I have a biblical worldview.

[ABQCOWBOY]

How many Republican Congressmen and Senators signed Grover Norvequests pledge to never raise taxes? 1? 2? Half?

75%?

:anon:

I don't know how many signed that but I do know that taxes were just raised and that could not have happened if Republicans had not voted for it.

What do you want me to say at this point, RIP Grover Norquist?

But again the central position of the GOP regardless of what they say isn't to reduce the deficit, or the national debt. As stated by their actions their central plan is to reduce federal revenue NOT INCREASE IT, maintain the deficit, continue to increase the debt as they believe the private sector will grow to offset the imbalance over time....

We know this because the party endorsed the Ryan budget, and that's exactly what it did. It was neutral on the deficit over the next 20 years.... dramatically cut federal revenue, dramatically cut social programs... as referenced earlier in this thread.

Well, how does this deviate from what I believed their position to be? I believe I said that they were for cost controls, spending cuts and increased revenues through revisions to the tax code. The revisions to that Tax Code, under Ryan's plan, would trigger increased revenues. Now, it would seem that you don't believe that restructuring the Tax Code would create more revenue, is that correct? I mean, if that is your belief, that's fine. You are entitled to it but there is no proof, at all, that restructuring the Tax Code would not result in higher revenues. In fact, I think that there is ample proof that they would.

---------- Post added January-31st-2013 at 03:14 PM ----------

I don't think beyond energy policy he's even left leaning... His signature healthcare bill was first proposed by the Conservative Heritage Foundation, and was first championed by Richard Nixon being defeated by liberals lead by Ted Kennedy. It is fundamentally a reform of our existing system, which is by definition conservative in nature.

But you are correct, as a moderate or even moderate conservative he is to the left of many in congress

It does not shock me that you do not view the President as Left leaning. The Bill that President Obama passed is nothing like the Bill introduced by the Nixon administration. I actually believe that Univrsal Healthcare was originally introduced in the Early 1900s. It would eventually take the form of things like Sick Pay, Sick Leave, Maternity Leave, Death Benefits and the like. It did not start out as such. It was originally proposed as a National Healthcare policy but that is where it actually started. It was not Nixon, if that is the contention, that started the idea. It was a progressive liberal idea.

However, and I think this is very important, time moves on and situations change. In the Nixon Era, this country was in a different financial situation. What we might have been able to consider then, economically, is vastly different now. I don't believe that the Republican Party has as much of an issue with healthcare for all Americans as they do being able to afford such a thing. That, IMO, is the crux of the issue for Republicans and they are not alone. Just this week, reports of Unions who want to opt out of Obamacare are surfacing. I don't think this is just a Republican issue. I think this will eventually scope the entire population. Lots of Democrats are not going to like this either IMO.

The point I'm trying to make is that we don't live in a vacuum. Things will change because circumstances change.

---------- Post added January-31st-2013 at 02:08 PM ----------

Yes they do.... I mean if you believe the words coming out of their mouths they certainly call for dramatic defense increases... Or you just follow what they have done...

Romney called for 2 trillion in defense spending increases. Two trillion dollars over 10 years is what a 30% increase in defense spending over the next decade... which is still less than bush Jr. did because he increased defense spending by nearly 280% over 8 years...

Romney didn't get elected and I have a hard time believing that Romney is the face of the Republican Party. In fact, I think the last election kinda proved that. I don't know if the numbers you present here are actual increases once you account for year to year inflation etc. Maybe they are, maybe they are not but as you said earlier, GHB decreased the Military over time and I would imagine that any President, from any party would decrease defense spending once the Wars were brought to a close. I don't think you can just say that the Republicans are for increasing defense period. That's just not a factual statement IMO. Besides, as I said earlier, it's not just the Republicans who are in the business of voting for defense increases. Democrats do it too and that is something that you don't even acknowledge. How can there be a sensible conversation of that single point isn't even acknowledged?

[Jumbo]

Hey, what can I say, I have a biblical worldview.

And proof one can be a good egg even carrying such a burden. :pfft:

I keed. You aren't heavy, you're my brother.

Unless that were to work against you in your circle, and then I'd disavow all relationship for your own good.

[JMS]

I don't know how many signed (Grover Norquest's pledge to NEVER raise Taxes) that but I do know that taxes were just raised and that could not have happened if Republicans had not voted for it.

:doh: I gave you the number 95% of republicans in congress signed it along with every Presidential Republican Candidate except 1. And dude, we went off the fiscal cliff, our credit rating was reduced for the first time in our history. The job growth has been brought to a scratchiness halt during these budgetary stand offs.. Wall Street and the Economy has been forced to endure years of fiscal uncertainty... and each time the GOP has driven us right up too, or a little beyond the of crisis to cause all this uncertainty... they cave in.... You can't go back then and say... hey see they really want to act responsible they gave in... they have the same desires as the Democrats.

What do you want me to say at this point, RIP Grover Norquist?

Well you could recognize the guys who signed a pledge NEVER to raise revenue, who created the Trillion dollar deficit, who are responsible for record increase in government spending... who have never ever ever advocated for a balanced or frankly responsible plan to reduce the deficit; aren't today a few month removed from the above indiscretions part of the solution or trusted to act counter to their stated and demonstrated intentions and pursue a balanced approach to fiscal reform.

Balanced approach is to hold spending constant or reduce it modestly, especially with the defense budget AND modestly increase revenue; then while you are holding costs constant over years the growth in economy takes care of the deficit..... This is what we did in the 1990's.

The republican plan is to dramatically cut social programs, dramatically and continuously over years increase defense programs, and dramatically cut revenue... The net effect is the Congressional budget office says won't reduce the deficit over the status quo for the next 20 years.

Well, how does this deviate from what I believed their position to be?

You equate the republican position and the democrat position while ignoring the cataclysmic clash of philosophies which are at the root of our fiscal problem.

You don't acknowledge the GOP doesn't advocate deficit reduction or reducing the debt. Their entire focus is on reducing government and reducing revenues and increasing spending in the face of massive overwhelming debt which will create even more debt and higher deficits. WHICH IS WHAT GOT US INTO THIS MESS!!!

• Reagan did it about tripling the national debt.
  
• Bush Jr did it inheriting a surplus, in his very first budget he went from a surplus to deficit.. Then cut revenue which became the largest discretionary contributor to the deficit.. all while dramatically increasing spending. Doubling our national debt.
  
• The Ryan Plan mirrors this same behavior doesn't reduce the monster deficit over the next 20 years, never balances the budget..
  
• The Romney Plan mirrored the Ryan plan, only it called from dramatically increasing the defense budget too. Even more spending
  

Romney didn't get elected and I have a hard time believing that Romney is the face of the Republican Party.

You have a hard time believing Romney's message was embraced by the GOP? Oh come on now you are just being silly... Romney flip flopped all over the canvas during the election... You are actually suggesting he flip flopped away from the GOP position? Besides the GOP both senate and congress endorsed the Ryan Plan which closely mirrored the Romney Plan...

[PeterMP]

Here's more by the same guy:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/08/us-deficit-obama-grow

"There is an astounding level of confusion surrounding the current US deficit. There are three irrefutable facts about the deficits:

First, the United States has large deficits because the collapse of the housing bubble sank the economy.

Second, if we had smaller deficits the main result would be slower growth and higher unemployment.

Third, large projected long-term deficits are the result of a broken health care system, not reckless government "entitlement" programs.

The first point can be easily shown by examining the Congressional Budget Office's projections from January 2008 (pdf), before it recognized the impact of the collapse of the housing bubble on the economy. The deficit in 2007 was just 1.2 percent of GDP. The deficit was projected to stay near 1.5 percent of GDP until well into the current decade, even if the Bush tax cuts did not expire. "

[Larry]

He's obviously a really biased socialist.