Shared publicly  - 
‎"I’ve called on Congress to take the money we’re no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the other half to rebuild America." -President Obama in this week's address
José Pedro's profile photoana paula alberto caldeira's profile photoRick Clark's profile photojames reese's profile photo
LMFAO! Nice.. at this rate.. youll pay down the debt in 1000 years. ^_^ FEELS GOOD MAN! You could start by ZEROing out the budget instead of throwing pennies at it. Politics.. Gotta love the rhetoric.
huh? ... what money? ... your wars are debt ... what a crock !!!
yes, let's stop the war spending... but that money isn't supposed to be part of the budget in the first place at the levels it exists at... so you can't just cut it from defense and put it somewhere else and people are supposed to be like "oh great idea" it's all debt!
These are just hard times, it would be wrong to blame it all on Obama.
+Quel Middleton I know, if i make 1000 a month, and i spend 5000 a month, the best thing for me to do, would start by ZEROING the budget to 1000 a month. Then work on getting surplus. We are 15 TRILLION dollars in debt. By taking the few billion he is saving by taking a couple troops out of Iraq and re-stationing them in Afghanistan (my sister gets deployed in 4 days from Iraq to Afghanistan), its like literally paying pennies towards a debt of 10k+, yea its a nice gesture but in the end it doesnt really amount to shit but he can say he is doing something!!

What we could do, is cancel this bs war on terrorism, BUT that would kill one of USA's main export.. MUNITIONS! Then kill the war on drugs... also a complete failure, and start spending on real shovel ready jobs like his last stimulus promised. We could open more farms on government land growing food and creating jobs, and lowering the cost of food, which would also lower the deficit being payed out in entitlements. I mean their is a ton of other shit that could be done rather then play politics.
Eric li
Can help the bad country people?Exp PPC?
well let's see how many billions in a
the amount from the war is a pittance against the debt he has created.
+Brian Kilgore and why are you talking about sending people to college when im talking about spending money on war lol. Apples to oranges my good sir.
There needs to be MORE spending like the spending you are refering too, and less spending on trivial social issues like war on drugs.. and even less on "fight'n terra'ism"
Since we borrow the money we use to fund our current wars; how exactly do we use that to pay our debt?

Very cute.
im also not saying, we have to use govt land to plant crops, im just saying that would be more effective then paying entitlements.
+The White House How many meetings does it take to come up with one of these posts? How many people are we paying to do this job?
america culd spend their money on making a peaceful living ,
money culd almost bring a good life.............
A sitting President of the United States is actually suggesting using one credit card to pay off another as a debt reduction strategy.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
This would be a great idea if the wars had been funded in the first place. How do you to take half of a deficit commitment and use it to actually fund anything? It's like the double-negative fallacy. We're not never going to pay off the debt. Or are we? Hmm.
I love how the people who pay attention get it. and the people who just watch tv are like "YAY GOOD WE CAN PAY OUR STUFFZ NAO.. WUT IS DEFICIT?"
to bad you didn't submit a budget that did that! but of course its election time now......
+James Stilwell where do you think our deficit came from? Do you think you could cut enough spending from ANY budget to save anyone from a lack of revenue? Our economy is in shambles. You can't cut your way out of the deficit caused by the failure of our economy. It is not mathematically possible. What the President is suggesting, and I completely agree, is that if we do not invest some serious debt into repairing our economy, then it will not matter how much spending is cut. Without a functioning economy (and historical evidence shows conclusively that there is only one way to make that a reality) the debt grows, no matter how much spending you cut. The fact that you can't grasp the math, doesn't make it incorrect. Until you do grasp the math, maybe it would be wise to remove yourself from these dialogs.
+Drew Heyen Maybe you can help me with my math and explain to me just how moving deficit spending from one area to another reduces my debt? Use bottle caps in your analogy please as I am obviously too stupid to understand your economic wizardry.
+Christopher Franko When you cut your budget from $5000 to $1000, how many people do you lay off from their jobs? Zeroing the Federal budget either lays off tens of thousands of people or stops purchases of goods, whose producers lay off the people who would have made them. Those people stop paying taxes and start drawing Federal benefits, so revenue goes down. That makes the deficit and debt go up.
James Stilwell, Drew Heyden probably thinks that if the Government should grow even larger ...and Main Street needs to get the crumbs the government doles out!
We each have our own budget and we each attempt to spend less that we bring in...right? So when income is reduced the first thing we do is cut spending....right? Then we reassess our budget, make the necessary modifications and immplement....right? Why can't our so-called leadership do the same? Spending cuts are the result of receiving less money than planned and or spending beyond the confines of a reasonable one in their right mind would go out and max-out 20 credit cards to offset an income reduction. This notion is what has triggered the national debt and put the rest of us average citizens in the position of being liable for it all....some leadership. We certainly must do a better job vetting our choices for elected elected officials who actually submit a reasonable budget based on income and not "if-come."
Is it really "paying" down the debt, or is it just adding less debt?
+Stephen Moore Because trying to cut your way out of a deficit caused by a recession puts you into a death-spiral of ever-lower revenues, followed by more cuts. Eventually, you end in a depression with no way out. That is how we would become Greece. Doesn't anyone understand economics?
+James Stilwell Spending 5 bottlecaps on military action, outside of the US, has little to no effect on the repair of the economy (based on historical evidence), while spending bottlecaps on economic infrastructures, DOES help the economy (again, based on historic evidence). Thus taking 5 bottlecaps from "defense" and placing it into any of a host of possible infrastructure budgets helps to improve the economy, thus increasing revenue from income tax, as well as promoting economic health and flow, in a general sense.

+Bonnie Lu No, but I do think that someone who can not copy the correct spelling of a name, right above their post, probably lacks the basic cognitive or supernatural skills to divine my thoughts or motivations.
I think I get it. I split the 5 bottle caps I borrowed from china to pay for the wars and use 2.5 pay for domestic spending, and returning 2.5 to china, thus freeing 2.5 to spend somewhere else. Applying the math of the Affordable Care Act, it's a reduction of 7.5 bottle caps. Simple!
+Drew Heyen If they're 5 bottle caps we don't have, and the stated goal is 'reducing our deficit of bottle caps'; we're still at -5 bottle caps.
+Drew Heyen You've dazzled us with your ability to determine our entire political outlook and our relative intelligence level from a few words.

Dazzle us with your math.
nice talk. it makes sence
Let me get this straight. Half the money we never had to fund the war we'll now not have to put towards paying down our debt? Sweet. Everything is fixed. Obama's got it all figured out....guess we can all relax, bust out the champagne and sing a chorus of "Happy Days Are Here Again!".....
I'm going to open a can of old worms. It all started after Nixon left office, company left the US, people lost jobs, and we have been going down hill ever scenes. Can you understand what I'm saying. Don't get mad, it just something I wanted to but out there.
+Dennis Griess Much as I try to avoid mixing "business" with "personal" in these sorts of discussions... That is hilarious.
+James Stilwell Reducing the deficit in a crippled economy is the stupidest possible goal.

No, you don't get it. You don't get it at all.
Wait, didn't the President call for applying half the war savings to reducing the deficit? +Drew Heyen
+Drew Heyen you're oversimplifying .. reducing the deficit by itself is a good thing, if it can be done intelligently ..
Mr. President,

Take the money we are not spending on war and apply it to the principal balances of all student loans in our land.
+Drew Heyen Whether we should or should not reduce the deficit is another issue entirely ...

The President is stating that he plans to reduce the debt, and then he states that he will do it by the aforementioned magical debt shuffling strategy.

How are you not insulted that your government is counting on the fact that you aren't able to do arithmetic?
+Bonnie Lu Although +Drew Heyen has implied that you can't spell, I did notice you spelled my name correctly. If you want to highlight someone's name here in Google+, you lead it with a "+". Your spelling is fine, thank you. Someone needs to read a little more carefully before they attack other people personally.
People say the government should balance its budget like a household or business. Well, the government isn't a household or business, but never mind that. Let's take my household.

Twenty years ago I took out a loan 4 times my annual income to buy a house. Horrors! I had "mortgaged my future" (to coin a phrase). Like our government, I was hopelessly in debt and bankrupt right? No, because I also had an asset on the books worth more than the mortgage. Our government's weird accounting system doesn't count assets, but mine does.

Twelve years later, I had a personal recession. I lost my job. My wife's part-time income didn't cover groceries, much less the house payment or the tuition for the school my son needed. By the logic of the deficit hawks on this list, I should have immediately cut my spending to match my income to avoid looming bankruptcy...right?

Well, I didn't. I kept paying my mortgage and other bills by using credit cards, and a home equity line of credit. HORRORS! I was sinking ever farther into a morass of debt!

A few months later, I got another job, and spent a few years paying down the money I had borrowed. My son graduated, I still have my house and a sterling credit rating, a mortgage that is 1.5 times my annual income and no other debt. I'm really glad I didn't listen to the deficit hawks.
+Jim McMaster When you incur debt, you're selling your future labor.

When the government incurs debt, they're selling all of our future labor.

Those are two fundamentally different situations.
There's a word for people whose entire life's productivity has been bought and sold without their consent....

That word is "Slaves" of debt with borrowed money??
+James Stilwell But, James, we did consent. It's a thing called "elections" in something called a "representative democracy." I didn't vote for George W. Bush, who caused most of the current deficit and debt. I still consented by being a citizen and participating in the election.
Exactly +Jim McMaster . This false equivalency of comparing government to a business or family is flawed at it's base, but it appeals to those who simply don't know about economics. It's a simple comparison that seems logical to many. I think you explained it as well as one could using that comparison.
Fortunately government benefits when people are at work, and rebuilding America will put more people to work, who will be paying taxes. The alternative is for the government to lay off thousands, creating a huge drop in government income a huge burden on the unemployment system, and all those thousands of people will stop going out to dinner, stop shopping for clothes, stop buying gas, and stop going to movies. Literally the fastest way to new recession is for the government to cut jobs, when our primary problem right now is unemployment.
+Sean Bradshaw Exactly how is a "layoff of government workers" going to cause a drop in government revenue?

Are you actually implying that government workers pay more in taxes than they earn in wages?
President Obama is doing a fantastic job of digging us out of the worst Republican financial disaster since the Hoover great depression of the 30's. These disasters always take a long time to recover from. The main problem in both cases is that banks were allowed to gamble with depositors money. Americans now need to move their money to credits unions because banks are still gambling with their money. Ultimately we need tax reform along the lines of Bowles Simpson. President Obama was willing to do that last year but Republicans walked away from the deal. We don't want to go back to Republican policies that got us into this mess.
my great greetings to the president Obama. It is a perfect idea I will be very happy if he call on Congress to take the money that America has paid to strike war in Sudan (rebels in Darfur ) and Sudan- Southern Sudan government war !! we are looking forward to seeing peace in our region and that will not take place unless U.S.A AND ITS ALLIANCES STOP A NEGATIVE INTERVENTION IN OUR AFRICAN COUNTRIES ...PLEASE STOP YOUR CONSPIRES LET US BUILD OUR AFRICAN COUNTRIES !!! WHY PEOPLE DIED FOR YOUR BENEFITS AND INTERESTS ????
+James Stilwell It causes a drop in revenue because the laid-off worker no longer pays income and payroll taxes until she gets another job. It reduces costs by her salary, but increases costs as she draws unemployment, medicaid, food assistance, etc. What I am saying is, the government does not save the entire salary. Since 2008, government at all levels, mostly in Republican-dominated states, has cut over 600,000 workers. This is part of the high unemployment rate the Republicans use to bash Obama.
+Jim McMaster The government workers who would be laid off by budget cuts pay income and payroll taxes from their government paychecks.

I must be stupid.
+James Stilwell When those workers stop paying income tax, they start pulling unemployment, and they stop spending discretionary money, there's a ripple effect across entire industries. Imagine all the places you stop going when you are jobless, and imagine how many hourly workers will lose income because some huge government office just across the street shut down. What this country doesn't need right now is another 400k workers unemployed, that's what the Ryan budget proposes. That's Econ 101, not ideology. It's science, not politics.
+s.bradford colson Would those goods and services they produce have the same value (to you) if they were produced by the private sector? By corporations competing in the marketplace?
+James Stilwell I didn't say that, and I agree they stop paying taxes from their government paycheck. All I am saying is that when you lay off a government worker, the government does not save the entire amount of that paycheck.
Find a company that is hiring, and you can find a huge pool of workers to take those jobs. And despite Job Creators having the biggest pool of wealth in this country ever, you don't see unemployment at it's lowest do you?
+s.bradford colson you left out an important fact (cool, I can bold words too). Those federal jobs are "created" with tax revenue, meaning they took money from elsewhere in the market.

Remember, government doesn't create jobs. At best they simply move them.
+Jeffrey Hamby The current deficit is a product of taxing and spending decisions made in previous and current administrations. Recognizing that is not a "blame game."
+s.bradford colson They're are thousands of private child and family development services in the United States... They're often called "churches". Many private, non-religious organizations are capable of providing these services without forced contributions.
+Sean Bradshaw I don't think you quite understand the purpose of expansionary fiscal policy. Namely, to increase GDP. If money is spent in a sector that does not produce anything, i.e. the military, there would be no net gain.
+Jim McMaster patently untrue. A portion of the current deficit is, but the larger portion of it is due to the current administrations own decisions.
The top 1% in this country have the biggest share of wealth ever, but apparently they aren't creating jobs. If they were, we'd be in the strongest era of prosperity ever. Ironically history shows that the wealthy don't create jobs, innovators create jobs, and schools create innovators. Once innovators are wealthy, they even stop creating new jobs and hence new industries and markets pop up from the youth and downtrodden to compete and drive out the wealthy. History is always right.
+Dennis Griess applying funds to deficit reduction is not the same as devoting all purpose and intent to reduction of the deficit. I understand that Obama is the President of the United States, not the President of the Democrats, and has to operate within that framework, however I know, based on the history of this nation, that the money in question would be MUCH BETTER SPENT towards developmental infrastructure programs.

+David Durham I am NOT oversimplifying the issue. We have been down this road several times, and results have never changed.
Most jobs are not created by the 1%. Top 25%, probably, but not the wealthiest 1%.
You obviously believe that, but I never will. You can't convince me that your examples can't be done privately, because it's not true.
+Drew Heyen The President is not suggesting we apply funds to deficit reduction; he's suggesting we apply deficit to deficit reduction.
+Jeffrey Hamby We will just have to agree to disagree then, but I do want to pose some questions. The Bush tax cuts don't reduce current revenue? Interest on the debt accrued by previous administrations don't count as spending in the current budget?

Certainly, the current deficit is large, but that is mostly due to the recession. The counter-cyclical spending mechanisms set up since the 1940s automatically ratchet up spending as revenues drop to stimulate the economy. That is the primary purpose of unemployment benefits. If we had more people employed, tax revenues would go up and spending down.
+s.bradford colson Child molestation and rape are documented at a higher rate in state run group homes and facilities than in any cult.
+s.bradford colson once again you've nailed it. Molestation and rape are indeed a product of private enterprise, and never exist within the confines of government programs.
+Jim McMaster yes, and they prolong recessions. Show me a recession that predates the fed and our current monetary policy that lasted longer than two years.
Whether churches and private charities are "good" at charity or not, what they do they do without the benefit of force.
+s.bradford colson you're kidding, does google not work where you are?

Many churches, tons of corporations donate to the World Food Program, McDonald's, Starbucks, Target, Wal Mart, Pepsi, Tyson, countless grocery stores, the list goes on and on...
And they donate at the national and local levels.
Does that means the United States will also ruturn part of China's debt?
+s.bradford colson People get to choose a new church or private charity; choosing a new government is far more difficult.

I believe you have to really stretch to refute the numbers of child victimization in church settings vs state care.
+s.bradford colson I'm not religious but I can see that churches are indeed great at charity. The majority of homeless shelters are church funded, and you don't have to be religious to go.

You're simply making up statements to support your viewpoint.
That's hardly a dent in the catholic church's revenue, yet you use the word "most."
But I see you ignored the facts on corporate food donations.
+s.bradford colson The current "pitch" is 'give us your money or we'll put you in jail'. Doesn't take much to beat that.

If I give a hungry person a sandwich, I've done charity.
If I give a hungry person a sandwich because his friend has a gun pointed at me, I've been robbed.

Which approach do you favor?
+Jim McMaster panic of 1797, 3 years, due to overspending by government, depression of 1807, 3 years, due to embargo passed by congress, 1815 depression,6 years, due to inflation caused by overspending on war, 1839 depression, 4 years, caused by deflation due to overspending (first one not attributable to government action), panic of 1873, 5 years, caused by coinage act of 1873, 1882 recession was actually a price depression.

The article says the great depression only lasted 4 years which is incorrect, even Krugman admits it lasted until the end of ww2, the 1971-5 depression is mysteriously noted as 1973-5, and the current one us ongoing, though it's noted in the article as having ended in 2009.
I stand corrected. One lasted one year longer than my two years comment that wasn't a direct result of government action.

Three have happened since 1913 that have lasted considerably longer than two years.
+s.bradford colson My "alternative model" is choice. That is a value statement, so it can't really be debated rationally with someone who doesn't agree on the relative value of individual freedom; however, I think it is important that both sides of that issue state their position honestly.
+Jeffrey Hamby If you take the commonly-accepted definition of "recession", we have not been in one since the summer of 2009, since growth has been positive (albeit slow) since then. If you want to make up your own definition, please tell me what it is so I can debate it.
+Jeffrey Hamby Conservatives love to point out the New Deal didn't end the Great Depression, and that it took WWII. I agree, but what was the war but government stimulus on a massive scale?
Actually I'm not a conservative, and I believe lack if competition (due to the rest of the world being reduced to rubble) got us out of the depression.

The great depression saw six quarterly upticks that signaled a false positive in economic recovery. And GDP propped up by tax dollars is not a true representation of our economic output.
+Jeffrey Hamby The destruction of the rest of the industrialized world helped, but the end of the Great Depression, as commonly defined, was 1937, well before that happened. After that was a period of slow recovery that ramped up as we started making war goods for England. Once we drafted (i.e. gave government jobs to) hundreds of thousands of men and the war plants started hiring everybody else, the economy took off. I still don't get your point. GDP is GDP, whether it is propped up by tax dollars or not.
+Jim McMaster If GDP is our sole measure of success as a country, would we be better off putting economists in charge of all sectors of our economy as long as it grows our GDP?
I guess what we need here is a "New Economic Policy".
+Greg Smith Incorrect. It is economists telling the government that if we do not get the economy functioning again, then cutting the budget will not pay off the deficit, ever, at all, period. They are correct.

Assume you have a corporation that is floundering, and in debt, and for whatever imaginary reason, bankruptcy is just not an available option. What do you do? Do you start cutting spending? Will cutting spending save the company? You're already in debt. Will hurting your ability to do business somehow pay off that debt?
+Jim McMaster recent history should remind you that falsely inflated business has a tendency to crash.
+James Stilwell No, GDP is not the sole measure. I am interested in improving the general welfare of the citizenry. Jobs and income are a big part of that, and something the manic deficit hawks would certainly destroy if they got their way. This discussion was about deficit and debt, and growing the GDP is the biggest component of that. If you want to talk about other things, start another discussion.

Whether or not your apparently libertarian sensibilities are offended does not greatly concern me.
+Jim McMaster What is stopping you, as an individual, from doing your own personal best to improve the general welfare of those around you without the intervention of government?
+Jim McMaster GDP shouldn't be the largest component of deficit and debt. A government should count on actual income, not what some people refer to as ifcome.
I think some in our government think GDP must stand for Government's Discretionary Promise, meaning that's what they hope they can offer to those who are looking to support their lifestyle with other people's money.
+James Stilwell I do. Last year I contributed a good fraction of my income to charity. I also did a lot of volunteer work for the Red Cross and Boy Scouts. I haven't volunteered as much the past few years because of health issues I hope are nearly resolved.

I just recognize that some problems are too big to be resolved solely by individuals. And "promote the general welfare" is part of the function of our government. You can read it right in the Constitution.
+Jeffrey Hamby It seems you are under the impression that the terms depression and recession are synonymous. This would be inaccurate.
+Jeffrey Hamby Sorry, but I can't interpret your last comment. As long as our government relies on taxing economic activity for revenue, the level of that activity (represented by GDP) is inescapably the largest component of revenue, deficit and debt.
I think there's a huge difference between "promoting" general welfare and "providing" it or even "promising" it.

Offering incentives to encourage charitable giving promotes the general welfare.

Confiscating the money of producers to cover inactivity--whether malicious, ignorant, or involuntary--is something altogether different.
Unmoderated threads are awesome.

I guess I'm not any smarter than I was when I started reading because I still don't know how using one can use debt to pay debt.

The lengths people will go to in order to defend statements like this from +The White House display shades of Stockholm Syndrome.
Charlie Brown flashback: "Blah blah blah,,,blah-bla, blah-bla-bla..."
The Republicans had at least 8 years to gain a humungous debt (after being handed a Strong Economy & a Surplus.
Therefore, Democrats should be given 8 years to reverse the Debt and get Job Creation back on track.
But it might take at least another 2 years until a time during which the Repubs will be Booted from Congress and the Senate, giving a clear majority in both houses. Then things WILL get done, like they did during Obama's first 2 years (when he saved US from going completely "tits up"). But as long as it only takes 1 Senator to Filibuster without giving reasons (even over a Clear Majority of 50 + 1 ... you know.. like DEMOCRACY !) and when Bigot Governors can no longer keep saying NO to everything (even when their own constituents want them to work for their living), then US will prosper again; more taxes will be collected because more people are working, and ultimately "help" pay down the debt; and the rest of the world will follow in US's success.
I can't believe I just wasted my time reading this thread. If someone thinks they can do better, they should run for office.
Blame Bush for all of this. Both of them.
Richard...they is OBOMBer and the other is Romney
+Kim Aguirre it isn't just the Bushes. The entire conservative movement has created this mess. The idea that Laissez-faire is awesome, even though history shows us, so clearly, that it isn't.
Mik M
This guy is such an ass......
+s.bradford colson When +The White House claims that 'we can reduce our debt by using the money we're spending on war (which no one here has disputed is debt financed) to pay down our debt', one of two things is true:

a) They are unable to perform basic math.
b) They are able to do math and choose to make bogus statements like this anyway.

Which is it? Do we want people who do a) or b) in charge of "civil governance"?
+James Stilwell I agree, it is crystal clear that someone in this conversation doesn't understand, but it isn't who you think. (I'll give you a hint, his name rhymes with "Lames Kilwell".)
+Drew Heyen +s.bradford colson I don't understand your thinking, that is a fact.

Why don't you elaborate some more? I think it is important for those "on the fence" to see exactly how the most vocal proponents of +The White House actually think and debate.

Please expound; help bring me around to your way of thinking.
+James Stilwell

"Please expound; help bring me around to your way of thinking."

Oh James. I'm no fool. In order to do that, you would have to be at all, in any way, willing to understand. That would go against your cult indoctrination, and it is clear you are not going to willingly allow that.
Man, if you are going to recite fallacies, at least understand them, and use them correctly. Where did I suggest that your understanding relates to you not correctly fitting into some category. I said you are indoctrinated, though I'm starting to believe that isn't true, and that you just aren't that bright.
Dear friends! This is the true path of progress! The new economic foundation will give the country a fast start! And believe me!We see a new America in the world! It will happen! because President Barack Obama cares about the future for decades to come! Thank you! Victor!
+Drew Heyen You said I'd have to fit into the category of 'people who are willing to understand' and you implied that I'm a 'member of a cult' (meaning I don't fit into the category of 'people who are not cult members').

I've been called worse than stupid.


Still waiting for an answer: Can +The White House not count, or are they depending on the fact that you can't?
+Drew Heyen Why don't you expand on your philosophy some more. I feel I'm on the verge of Understanding.

I'll even get back to work and stop posting. I'm reading though, so bang away.
Getting people back to work, yes, with government stimulus is the best way to reduce the deficit. Yes, I am saying spending more money will reduce the deficit through greater tax revenues. Since the Republicans claim all new spending must be "paid for", this gives them a fig leaf to hide behind if they want to cooperate.

Stimulus spending must not be paid for. If it is, it doesn't stimulate.
I love how +Jim McMaster tries to reason with people and doesn't call people he doesn't agree with names. Sir, you are a gentleman.

I see your point that by paying for stimulus it doesn't stimulate. Pardon the crude allusion to follow, but my thinking is that stimulus that doesn't come from an external source is some kind of financial masturbation. Short term simulation that fails to produce legitimate, productive offspring.

Maybe the current administration's philosophy is that borrowing is sufficiently external. I don't quite buy that line.
+Jerod Weeks Sigh...didn't you read the rest of the thread? Cutting your way to prosperity in a bad economy doesn't work. It generates a death spiral into depression. Look at Spain, Greece and Ireland, then tell me how well it works. I typed lots of arguments above. I don't feel like typing them again for your benefit.
+Dennis Griess But if you don't pay for the stimulus with tax increases or spending cuts, where does the money come from except borrowing it.

I actually think tax increases that can be paid for by draining money sitting in savings accounts would be a good idea. Yes, that means tax increases on the "job creators" who aren't creating jobs.
My capital is all tied up in getting my kids up to the task of carrying their own weight (meaning giving them good extracurricular activities at school and supporting them through college because FAFSA says I should have over %40K to contribute per year).

Other than my charitable contributions and my investments, which are in the same places as the all the unions and pension funds, I'm tapped out. But I'm in a tax bracket that's high enough that all the overspray soaks me, too.
+Jim McMaster from creating more money, which does nothing but devalue what you'd managed to save.

And Spain, Greece, and Ireland were in trouble long before any cuts were made. In Greece cuts were a condition if getting badly needed loans cover their overspending. 
+Jim McMaster "Greece, Ireland, Spain" all tried cuts after they were imposed upon them by external creditors. The primary problem in Greece is that their economy absolutely depended on jobs and benefits provided by the government which went above and beyond the populations ability to pay for them through any level of taxation.

In the case of Greece, their present situation is a result of attempting to use stimulus measures to boost the economy into paying for previous stimulus measures.
+Jim McMaster What many 'deficit hawks' are proposing is that we break that cycle ourselves.

Slamming on the brakes in your car can send it out of control and cause an accident.

Applying the same brakes gently and with some forethought can prevent the same accident.
+Jerod Weeks Wasteful spending is bad, but it isn't the cause of our deficit. Go ahead and scream at the GSA, but what they spent is tiny in the grand scheme. Yes, we should find and eliminate waste and reallocate the spending to things like roads and schools. But large-scale cuts cost jobs for someone and reduce revenues.
+Jeffrey Hamby +James Stilwell Yes, Greece, Spain and Ireland were in trouble before the cuts, but the cuts have made their problems worse. Instead of building confidence that would lead lenders to cut their borrowing rates, the lenders increased those rates. Meanwhile, their people are suffering a lot worse than ours. The deficit hawks want to put us right where those countries are now, and I think that is a bad idea.
+James Stilwell But the Ryan budget does slam on the brakes. Even worse, it doesn't do it to decrease the deficit. It does it to pay for more tax cuts for the wealthy.
+Jim McMaster My position is that the stimulus programs they put in place prior to their present crises are the root cause of their problems.

Perhaps the Ryan budget does (I haven't read it so I don't know) but any measure which feeds the cycle of governmental dependence exacerbates the problem and makes the ultimate solution that much more painful.
+James Stilwell We'll just have to agree to disagree. The biggest problem those countries have is they are tied to the Euro, and the bankers are imposing crushing austerity when they are already in a depression. They are in the death spiral your preferred course of action risks putting us into.

I am not arguing the current level of deficit and debt is sustainable over the long term. The government should run a deficit when the economy is bad. The crime was in not running a surplus when times were better. Bush was left with a surplus, and squandered it on tax cuts. Then he spent a lot more. When the bad times hit, we were already running huge deficits.

We absolutely need to get the budget into balance. That means tax increases on everyone and spending cuts. Right now is not the time to do it.
I think we're all agreed you can take a line of credit to help bridge a crisis, but I hope we also agree that you don't go buy a fancy estate requiring hundreds of staff immediately after you've lost your main source of income.

All borrowing is not the same. Although all borrowing encumbers and obligates you, all borrowing is not responsible. I don't lend money to my kids when they don't take reasonable care of their spending. I would hope as citizens we take the same care of what we lend to our leaders.
Hoover raised the top marginal tax rate to 63%. We should follow his example. Personally, I'd be most comfortable with the top marginal rate for the top 0.01% being 90%, but I'm doubtful that will get anywhere. Revenue first.
Mr mcmaster most people would but Republicans will not allow that to happen right away they make $ every year with the loopholes they can take advantage of right now. If mitt Romney is elected they would deal the process atleast for 2 years and since their plan is to shut government down. They will justify that we don't need to spend therefore we shouldnt be taxed. Cut Medicaid. Cut funding to health care. Cut funding to schools. Destroy the postal service. All to safeguard the rich.
I will not be satisfied until we have Glass–Steagall and The Securities Act of 1933 back in place, and we are charging a PROGRESSIVE tax rate on all income. If that bothers ANYONE, they need to seriously consider that what I have just described is our nations golden age. A period when our economy was ROCK SOLID. If you don't want that, then get out. Seriously, just get out. You do not belong here. This is not the nation for you. Somalia is your dreamland.
+Drew Heyen destruction of our arable lands and pollution, segregation, high tariffs, slow media allowing politicians to hide every pork project...Can't have some and not all.

Your perspective seems a bit myopic.

1933 was the one of the worst years during the great depression and Very few countries around the world were not affected and because of the Great Depression many leaders came to power who may not have done in normal times, a good example of this is the rise of Hitler in Germany where unemployment was high and following their defeat in World War I German morale was at an all time low. Back in the thirties each country did their own thing including increasing interest rates, Implementing Import Tariffs, leaving the Gold Standard. Because of lack of a world wide coherent strategy many feel the Great Depression lasted longer than it should have done.
+Drew Heyen while I generally agree with you, you're radically over-simplifying to the point of rendering your comments somewhat moot. You can't talk solely about restrictions on financial institutions and taxation and assert that we should return to the state we were in during a particularly prosperous time. You must look at all of the conditions during that time and determine if those parameters still make sense. For example, taxation started to be less than progressive in the 1980s when we changed the way capital gains tax rates were assessed. Certainly, in the 1950s and 1990s we had an economic boom, but it's unreasonable to say that either we should go back to the 1950s-era taxation in order to recapture those glory days or to retain the changes of the 1980s in order to recapture the glory days of the 1990s.

Instead, we should look at the state of our economy and determine in what way progressive or non-progressive taxation will most benefit us. For example, if you have 100,000 dollars of capital gains income and 20,000 dollars of normal income, how should you be taxed? Should it be the same as if you had 100,000 dollars of normal income? What if you had no normal income and 120,000 of capital gains? What if you'd had no normal income for 5 years and no capital gains income for the same period and then suddenly had 120,000 dollars of capital gains income on the sixth year?
Mr heyen . I absolutely agree with you. Its what made America great not free enterprise it was the government built the infrastructure through taxes that where fair but the rich have become greedy and want to take and take. We need to reinvests. We need Obama 2012.
Yup we try to be proper. Lol Obama 2012.
+Dennis Griess Your reply makes no sense. Why can we not put those two bills in place without returning us to other governmental failing, which are completely unrelated to those bills? That makes no sense. I'm not suggesting we set the wayback machine to 1933. I am suggesting that we need to put those two Acts back in place, as our nation was better when they were, and worse when the were not. If those two acts had never been removed, all evidence says that we would never have seen a recession, in the last 50 years. Particularly the most recent problem we are fighting through.

As for my statement concerning taxation, I said a progr4essive taxation on ALL PERSONAL INCOME. Now it is my belief that "capital gains" does far more harm, than good, to our economy, and SHOULD be taxed more heavily, however I would certainly settle for it being AT LEAST taxed equally. The vast majority of "Capital Gains" income, is from speculative investment, which does not help anyone but the speculative investor in any way. It CERTAINLY does not recirculate said investment.
Very true Mr heyen. But alas that will cut into profit for the rich and as they say is socialization. The fact remains we are fighting to return this country to prosperity while others are fighting to retain their piece of the pie. We need loyalty to the people to the country. Obama forward 2012.
I have nothing against the rich. I have no problem with our economy being distributed unevenly. I don't like that our economy does not actually reward "social contribution", but rather rewards "abuse", however that isn't even my concern. My concern is that there be "Balance", in our economy. You have "more" money than most? Good for you. That should not allow you to increase your fortune, exponentially, which it currently does. There are very few ways to stop that factor, and one of the best and most realistic ones is a progressive tax structure.
+James Stilwell Not to resurrect the earlier debate, but to clarify. I believe what +Jim McMaster was inferring to, but didn't specifically name, was fiscal multipliers. In the most simple form, an expenditure spent in the right place at the right time can increase the GDP by many multiples of the base investemnt. There is a really good paper that came out last fall by a couple of professors at Berkeley specifically regarding fiscal multipliers in recession and expansion, if you're interested.
+Bryan Edwards I like a good zombie thread. :)
I am well aware of what +Jim McMaster is referring to vis a vis fiscal multipliers. That is primarily studied as a "Keynesian" concept. I honestly don't know enough about Keynesian economics to debate their particulars (though Keynes was dead right in predicting the failure of Versailles).

What I don't know is how you run a country on that economic theory (even if it is a valid theory) without infringing upon our individual freedoms.
+Bryan Edwards History is more my thing than Economics and I know, looking back, that I'd rather be broke than subject to the kind of arbitrary state authority necessary to run a Republic as a "managed" economy.
It is logically impossible to not infringe on individual freedoms. Many freedoms are mutually exclusive, you MUST infringe one or the other. A fine example is murder. Either you infringe a person's freedom to commit murder, OR you infringe one or more person's freedom to live. That is an extreme example, but based on my experiences with this audience, you either do over kill, or you don't bother. Conservatives/Libertarians are THICK.
The cost of war is nothing to the bailout, well just the first bailout, that does not include the other ones
+Bryan Edwards +James Stilwell Sure, there are multiplier effects (, but I didn't feel the need to bring them up. I am not an expert in economics, but have studied a bit under very good people. Keynesians do believe in the effect and, as you probably have figured out, I believe Keynes had a lot of the right ideas.

When anyone spends his paycheck, he gives the money to someone else who will spend part of it again, and so on. When you buy something, the seller has to buy more stock, which generates another paycheck for workers at the supplier. Eventually the cycle dies out as more of the money is saved.

This is why tax cuts and rebates are the least effective format of stimulus. Much of it goes to wealthier people who just put it into the bank. Unemployment benefits and food stamps almost all get spent immediately, so have a higher multiplier effect on GDP.

None of this has anything to do with a managed economy or loss of freedom. It's just the way GDP accounting works.
Mr Vaughn. The bail outs where necessary to avoid an even greater depression that would have plunged the country into total downturn. Mr mcmaster. Point is that since bush Jr spent his 2 terms trying to cut taxes and deregulate everything that didn't work. The rich got richer and didn't reinvest in the country in fact most used their tax cuts and reinvested in china,Ireland,mexico . Just to name a few. So your idea that we should return to the same failed system by electing mitt Romney well that's nonsense. Fool me once and I will fool again. Bushism.
+Drew Heyen My point makes perfect sense. You alluded to the golden age (by the way, that part--that GOLD is currency--of 1933 economy I like). You are given to hyperbolic language and grand blame, but you can't seem to take the shock in your own direction.

You are an interesting character. I would enjoy your comments a lot more if you didn't call people thick and other much less pleasant names.

I'm glad there are people who will still get in the batting cage with you despite your wild pitches.

A more valid point from you would have been: "Let's undo the undoing of the Glass-Steagall act that took place under President Clinton." Then you would have been pointing to something that sounded more reasonable and less obtuse.
+Dennis Griess Seriously? My strategy is not valid because I didn't point a finger at someone on the left? Is it because you are afraid I meant some other "Glass-Steagall act"? Is it because you don't like the Securities Act of 1933? If the "Gold" in golden age is the essential element, then how do you explain the Great Depression, and the other economic crashes prior to 1933? You are grasping. I am curious, at what.
+Drew Heyen You are thrashing, man. Did I say anything about the left? Clinton ain't on the left my friend. You are all about diversion and not about conversation.

The great depression had nothing to do with the gold standard and you know it. Speculation with nothing to back it up on margin has nothing to do with the underlying currency.
Mr mcmaster here is a true story you would appreciate. 2 gentlemen both white, both in their prime. They meet at the gym everyday. One guy is rich and financial secure. We will call him bob. Second guy is a retired civil servant we will call him paul. So they talk almost everyday and they know about each others life cars,business life style. So just last week Mr Bob comes to the gym and during conversation he begins bashing president Obama. This guy Obama is destroying the country socialist. Mr Paul says in response what do you mean his a socialist? Mr bob he is trying to tax the rich and give to the poor. Mr Paul now agitated and very upset. Listen Mr bob you have over 10 properties you collect rent and invest your money but you also find loopholes to avoid paying taxes. I have a pension fixed income I pay taxes I live well and I absolutely agree with president Obama its not fair the rich like you have been taking us for a ride. I pay not only cause I have to but I want to contribute to this great nation that I have been privileged to live and work for all my life. We need to pay for 2 wars that kept us safe yes they were illegitimate but they have to be paid. I will vote for Obama I don't want to be the only one contributing to our success. Needless to say Mr bob was surprised he thought that since Mr Paul met him at the gym everyday and was retired he would share his sentiment only to realize that he live in his own reality. Mr bob is like mitt Romney doesn't have a clue about regular people. Next day they meet again and Mr bob says hope your not too upset with me about yesterday. Mr Paul nope its k. Today we can talk religion. Hahaha. Obama forward 2012.
+Dennis Griess I'm not thrashing at the reality of the economic situations at hand, I am thrashing at your point. You need to get to it. You seem to think I have gotten something wrong, and you seem to think pointing out things that I failed to say, that I actually said, will show me what that thing I have gotten wrong is.

Yes, I know that the great depression had nothing to do with the Gold Standard, which is why I MADE THAT POINT! WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY!?!?!? Why are you arguing with me, by agreeing with me?
Mr mcmaster if you are wondering how this story is true and not a ploy; well Mr Paul is my father in law.
wow i like the story........ at first i didnt like obama but i had no reason....... now i can see that he is trying to help us i appreachiate it and dont think that he is trying to destroy the economie.
Keep up the good work, excellent plan.

Education in the developing world is free, we need policies like these
to better educate the People.
Education is the silver bullet. It is the solution to all national problems.
but your never going to get it with the government education its all revisionist history its a joke
OK, three issues with your reply: 1)Commas? Kan Haz? 2)The "Government", by which I assume you mean "Federal", actually has little to do with education, as a whole. 3)"All revisionist history"? What are you calling "revisionist history"? I agree that revisionist history is a popular conservative past time, right now, but could you be more specific?
The kind of government education which allows people to defend this:

‎"I’ve called on Congress to take the money we’re no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the other half to rebuild America." -President

Is an obvious failure.

It amazes me that we get supporters of the President who will come here and spout economic theories (whether they are correct or not) and refuse to address the quote which is the topic of this thread.

War spending is included in our total debt.
You can't take "half of it" and use it to pay itself down.

Why are you avoiding the obvious failure of logic or failure to tell the truth which is going on here?
+James Stilwell because you are the only semantic DICK here, who doesn't understand what he means, and the ONLY reason you don't understand is because you have DECIDED not to.
+Drew Heyen Calling someone a "DICK" (in all caps, no less) instead of addressing the issue at hand only serves to prove my point.
I insist on holding my leaders to what they say, not what I think they might mean.
Agreed Mr heyen. President Obama was voted in to do just that end the wars and use to rebuild the economy to return to the number one nation in everything other than an army. We are moving in the right direction. Its a shame Democrats do all the work then Republicans take the ball and fumble it and lose the game. Keep it with the right team. Obama forward 2012. Another decade of greatness is at hand with one more term president Obama will bring the country back and we will be in surplus rather than what the Republicans want a deficit. Obama 2012.
+James Stilwell However calling someone a "DICK" (in all caps, no less) WHILE addressing the issue at hand, because it is accurate, proves my point. You are a semantic dick, who is trying to use wordplay to make a mountain out of a molehill. You are the only person here, who is pretending to not understand the wording, and you are doing it for no better reason than to be a "DICK" (in all caps no less). Now, were I calling you a "DICK" (in all caps, no less), for the purpose of trying to discredit what you are saying, that would then be an Ad Hominem Fallacy, however, this is the reverse, where I am calling you a "DICK" (in all caps, no less) as the syllogism of my statement. QED ~You are a semantic DICK.
+Drew Heyen I don't think I could have made my point better. Your country owes you a debt sir. :)
Until I see these things start happening It is all idealistic flim flam...
Mr nikov what are you waiting to see. He has done a lot of what he has promised. 2 wars are over. Osama is dead. stock market is up 60% from bush jr 's failed government. Job growth 26 straight months. 4.2 million jobs created in the private sector. Things are getting done while you walk around in the desert.
In order to /rebuild America/ it would have to first be destroyed. I don't think we're quite there, but maybe that's in the 'todo list'
Add a comment...