Rob's House Posted October 25, 2010 Posted October 25, 2010 http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/debt-has-increased-5-trillion-speaker-pe
Gary M Posted October 25, 2010 Posted October 25, 2010 Geeze I wonder who could they blame for this? Oh thats's right It's all Bush's fault
TPS Posted October 25, 2010 Posted October 25, 2010 http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/debt-has-increased-5-trillion-speaker-pe So it has nothing to do with that "Great Recession" thingy? I can't stand the woman, but this is just a petty partisan attack. Even Bush attempted to stimulate the economy with a tax rebate in 2008--before the collapse of Lehman.
Magox Posted October 25, 2010 Posted October 25, 2010 Even Bush attempted to stimulate the economy with a tax rebate in 2008--before the collapse of Lehman. Which is yet another reason why I never considered him to be a true fiscal conservative. The worst was the disastrous medicare prescription entitlement. Talk about a budget buster. Of course in the Health Insurance bill, liberals increased the size of this entitlment by closing the medicare prescription "donut hole".
Rob's House Posted October 25, 2010 Author Posted October 25, 2010 (edited) So it has nothing to do with that "Great Recession" thingy? I can't stand the woman, but this is just a petty partisan attack. Even Bush attempted to stimulate the economy with a tax rebate in 2008--before the collapse of Lehman. I would contend that expansionist monetary policy and deficit spending like we've seen over the last few years has a lot to do with the recession of 2008 becoming the "Great Recession". And how is it a partisan attack? When she took over as Speaker of the House (where spending bills originate) she promised no new deficit spending. $5 trillion later it looks like she was just kidding. She didn't say, no new deficit spending unless we hit a bump in the road and someone suggests massive deficits are the way to handle debt. Edited October 25, 2010 by Rob's House
Gary M Posted October 25, 2010 Posted October 25, 2010 I would contend that expansionist monetary policy and deficit spending like we've seen over the last few years has a lot to do with the recession of 2008 becoming the "Great Recession". And how is it a partisan attack? When she took over as Speaker of the House (where spending bills originate) she promised no new deficit spending. $5 trillion later it looks like she was just kidding. She didn't say, no new deficit spending unless we hit a bump in the road and someone suggests massive deficits are the way to handle debt. "Oh hey wait, that was just a campaign promise, you didn't really think I meant it"
BB27 Posted October 25, 2010 Posted October 25, 2010 So it has nothing to do with that "Great Recession" thingy? I can't stand the woman, but this is just a petty partisan attack. Even Bush attempted to stimulate the economy with a tax rebate in 2008--before the collapse of Lehman. You're comparing a tax rebate with 5 trillion in additional debt? Wow.
pBills Posted October 25, 2010 Posted October 25, 2010 You're comparing a tax rebate with 5 trillion in additional debt? Wow. Wasn't the stimulus plan created by the Bush Administration? I love the republican ideas... oh wait.
BB27 Posted October 25, 2010 Posted October 25, 2010 Wasn't the stimulus plan created by the Bush Administration? I love the republican ideas... oh wait. I didn't support that one, which did nothing, and I don't support any of the other ones. Spending more money is not the answer. Less spending, less taxes is the only way to climb out of this mess.
pBills Posted October 25, 2010 Posted October 25, 2010 Less taxes. You realize that sooner or later taxes will have to be raised right?
Chef Jim Posted October 25, 2010 Posted October 25, 2010 Less taxes. You realize that sooner or later taxes will have to be raised right? Sure if spending doesn't go down.
BB27 Posted October 25, 2010 Posted October 25, 2010 (edited) Less taxes. You realize that sooner or later taxes will have to be raised right? First cut spending, and a lot of it. Why do you think they automatically have to be raised? Fiscal responsibility is the only way. Don't spend money you don't have. Don't use credit. Is it really that hard? Raising taxes right now will destroy any hope of ending the current economic crisis. Edited October 25, 2010 by BB27
Rob's House Posted October 25, 2010 Author Posted October 25, 2010 Wasn't the stimulus plan created by the Bush Administration? I love the republican ideas... oh wait. Seems like Dems are big fans of Bush policies these days. Every time your political heroes step in it your go to is "Bush did it first". Not that this has anything at all to do with Pelosi making a bs promise and wiping her ass with it.
TPS Posted October 25, 2010 Posted October 25, 2010 I would contend that expansionist monetary policy and deficit spending like we've seen over the last few years has a lot to do with the recession of 2008 becoming the "Great Recession". And how is it a partisan attack? When she took over as Speaker of the House (where spending bills originate) she promised no new deficit spending. $5 trillion later it looks like she was just kidding. She didn't say, no new deficit spending unless we hit a bump in the road and someone suggests massive deficits are the way to handle debt. I would disagree with your first statement. This could have been worse than the Great Depression. Monetary and Fiscal Policies went to levels never before seen to prevent things from worsening. To compare, the Volcker/Reagan recession was engineered by the FED using high interest rates to wring out inflation, and the official unemployment rate hit about 10.5%. For the current recession, official unemployment never went over 10%. So in the former case, they let unemployment go, and in the latter they tried (almost) everythying possible to prevent it from spiralling out of control. Had the FED and federal government not done those actions, the bottom would've been at minimum twice as deep. So, yes, it's partisan to hold her to what she said when faced with the worst crisis in 80 years. And it was a little more than a "bump in the road." You're comparing a tax rebate with 5 trillion in additional debt? Wow. No you dolt. I'm trying to explain that it's idiotic to hold someone to something when we experience the worst crisis in 80 years. The Bush example was used to make the point that even the republicans realized something had to be done as early as spring of 2008. And, as someone pointed out, Bush then passed the TARP bill adding $700 billion to the deficit. But you are so myo(pic)-partisan-centric that you accept some right-wing talking point without thinking it through. Once again, I don't give a crap about Pelosi, and it will be a blessing if she loses her majority.
pBills Posted October 25, 2010 Posted October 25, 2010 Sure if spending doesn't go down. Spending going down is a given. How do you expect to pay for the debt we currently have? Lower everyone's taxes and pray?
GG Posted October 25, 2010 Posted October 25, 2010 No you dolt. I'm trying to explain that it's idiotic to hold someone to something when we experience the worst crisis in 80 years. The Bush example was used to make the point that even the republicans realized something had to be done as early as spring of 2008. And, as someone pointed out, Bush then passed the TARP bill adding $700 billion to the deficit. But you are so myo(pic)-partisan-centric that you accept some right-wing talking point without thinking it through. Once again, I don't give a crap about Pelosi, and it will be a blessing if she loses her majority. But that's also am incorrect analogy. TARP was an emergency measure to temporarily stabilize the financial system. The actual outlays were much less than the $700bn, with a portion going to TALF. Most of the TARP has been repaid (at a profit) and there's a shot of coming out even on the AIG bailout. Only Fan/Fred funding seems to be permanent. So it's unfair to look at TARP & ARRA in the same way, as TARP did not permanently increase the deficit and actually accomplished what its proponents said it would.
BB27 Posted October 25, 2010 Posted October 25, 2010 No you dolt. I'm trying to explain that it's idiotic to hold someone to something when we experience the worst crisis in 80 years. The Bush example was used to make the point that even the republicans realized something had to be done as early as spring of 2008. And, as someone pointed out, Bush then passed the TARP bill adding $700 billion to the deficit. But you are so myo(pic)-partisan-centric that you accept some right-wing talking point without thinking it through. Once again, I don't give a crap about Pelosi, and it will be a blessing if she loses her majority. So, you support the "spend our way out of debt" philosophy? I can't see how "experiencing the worst crisis in 80 years" can be solved by spending 5 trillion more dollars. I think you might actually be the dolt. Talk about supporting a talking point without thinking it through.
TPS Posted October 25, 2010 Posted October 25, 2010 But that's also am incorrect analogy. TARP was an emergency measure to temporarily stabilize the financial system. The actual outlays were much less than the $700bn, with a portion going to TALF. Most of the TARP has been repaid (at a profit) and there's a shot of coming out even on the AIG bailout. Only Fan/Fred funding seems to be permanent. So it's unfair to look at TARP & ARRA in the same way, as TARP did not permanently increase the deficit and actually accomplished what its proponents said it would. Sure, after-the-fact. The point is that it impacted the 2008 and 2009 budget years. And yes they are touting the money spent where they've recovered it, but not much cheerleading about ALL of the bailouts (more than just F&F).
TPS Posted October 25, 2010 Posted October 25, 2010 (edited) So, you support the "spend our way out of debt" philosophy? I can't see how "experiencing the worst crisis in 80 years" can be solved by spending 5 trillion more dollars. I think you might actually be the dolt. Talk about supporting a talking point without thinking it through. It wasn't $5 trillion more in spending. The debt is a consequence of increased spending and falling revenues. In the first year you guys mention--2007, the deficit fell from $250 billion (2006) to $160 bil. in 2007. Then, as the crisis widened, in Bush's last year, it went up to $460 billion. Both sides of the aisle pushed for stimulus and Bush got it both times. Obama continued the stimulus in 2009 and this year. The point, if the economy had continued to expand (from the housing bubble) instead of collapsing, there might have been a surplus eventually (GG's bet would've paid off). However, the crisis caused higher deficits not only from increased spending, but also significantly lower revenues due to higher unemployment. You mistake a deficit with spending only. So, yes, I do support deficit stimulus under these severe circumstances because the alternative would've been 20% unemployment in addition to significant debt accumulation. That is, tax revenues would have fallen significantly more and spending would've gone up automatically to support increased unempolyment benefits at that level. Btw, thanks for that original link. That's a handy tool. Edited October 25, 2010 by TPS
Recommended Posts