Well no, he did not have to do what he did to stabilize the economy. Other countries employed different strategies and are much better off for it. Nobody thinks that Republicans don't spend... they think Obama is much worse. TARP?? LOL Bush passed it, & Obama was staunchly behind it. Were he not, he could have chosen not to spend the money. Of course, he did spend the money and the vast majority of it has already been paid back.He had to spend in order to stabilize the crap economy that Bush left him. You think Republicans don't spend? Are you forgetting the 2 wars, the Medicare drug plan, and the Bush tax cuts for the rich, none of which were paid for? ANd who passed TARP? Here's a hint, it wasn't Obama. Maybe you should just quit at this point. You lose.
So Obama isn't holding the country in any financial hostage game? It's just the Republicans here? These faux cuts over 10 years amount again to pissing in the ocean.
so SS will be paid, he lied about this.
Interest on debt obligations will be paid first. Not sure if there is even a legal requirement that the others be paid - maybe the military.I'll keep asking, perhaps someone will tackle this question.....
Given all the revenue the government collects each month, who will be paid before the seniors, veterans, and military?
Anyone?
That's the Keynsian theory... actual research has shown the opposite. That meaningful and permanent cuts can have a stimulative effect on the economy. If deficit reduction is to occur in a down economy, spending cuts are the single best approach.No. Cutting spending during this stage of the recovery is some kind of sick joke. You see, once the labor market slack begins to tighten up, the deficit will naturally contract without any new legislation. But as the labor market currently stands, fiscal consolidation will go dollar for dollar in terms of output (GDP) reductions i.e. you cut spending by $500 billion, and GDP falls by that same amount. Therefore, it is critical that the debt ceiling be raised ASAP. Otherwise the bond market will begin to play a different tune.
No. Cutting spending during this stage of the recovery is some kind of sick joke. You see, once the labor market slack begins to tighten up, the deficit will naturally contract without any new legislation. But as the labor market currently stands, fiscal consolidation will go dollar for dollar in terms of output (GDP) reductions i.e. you cut spending by $500 billion, and GDP falls by that same amount. Therefore, it is critical that the debt ceiling be raised ASAP. Otherwise the bond market will begin to play a different tune.
Just because the trust fund will receive the interest payments/repayments for the scheduled debt that is owed, there is no guarantee that S.S. recipients will receive 100% of their scheduled payments. If it goes this way, something like 70% of the nominal payments would most likely be the result.
That's the Keynsian theory... actual research has shown the opposite.
That meaningful and permanent cuts can have a stimulative effect on the economy. If deficit reduction is to occur in a down economy, spending cuts are the single best approach.
If you government is responsible for unemployment, you must want them to hire people. Just saying . . . . :coffeepap
So we should choke hold folks, and small businesses with spending and tax increases with non producing government jobs to get us out of a recession? I may not have the financial background you do, but this doesn't make much sense to me.
You mean that study cpwill has been trying to pass off? :lamo It in no way reflects our current situation. Keynesian theory is what has been used by every administration since 1945. Even the Volker move in the early 1980's is textbook Keynesian prescription to inflation!
The federal government's financial condition deteriorated rapidly last year, far beyond the $1.5 trillion in new debt taken on to finance the budget deficit, a USA TODAY analysis shows.
The government added $5.3 trillion in new financial obligations in 2010, largely for retirement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. That brings to a record $61.6 trillion the total of financial promises not paid for.
Medicare alone took on $1.8 trillion in new liabilities, more than the record deficit prompting heated debate between Congress and the White House over lifting the debt ceiling.
Social Security added $1.4 trillion in obligations, partly reflecting longer life expectancies. Federal and military retirement programs added more to the financial hole, too.
To a keynsian, deficit reduction is an economy killer. Perhaps that's what explains Obama's unwillingness to strike a deal (despite the rhetoric) or why some of his spending cuts go into effect in 2035.It is with this evidence, that I think it is apparent that Obama believes in Keynsian Theory. He wants to raise the debt ceiling so he can spend more, starting the cycle of the dollar through the economy, and his mind, will strengthen the cur
Actually no, no I don't Government employees produce nothing. I'd rather the government lower taxes on my business so I can hire more folks to continue to improve and sell my product.
\
It's very easy to understand. In the absence of real growth and normalized lending, government spending is buoying the market. Cut it by 44%, and out comes the rug from under the market's feet. What Goldenboy is saying, in simple terms, is that once people are actually all working again, the deficit will recede naturally, as GSEs and such will slowly become redundant.
So we should choke hold folks, and small businesses with spending and tax increases with non producing government jobs to get us out of a recession? I may not have the financial background you do, but this doesn't make much sense to me.
So on august 2nd, folks will get about 70% if no deal is passed?
But we have the examples of TARP, the Stimulus, QE1 and 2 which are all examples of this thinking and unemployment has went up.
Which study was that? I've read numerous studies, all of which specifically address the current situation.The one that comes to mind came out of Harvard. Is that the same as cpwill's?You mean that study cpwill has been trying to pass off? :lamo It in no way reflects our current situation. Keynesian theory is what has been used by every administration since 1945. Even the Volker move in the early 1980's is textbook Keynes
It's very easy to understand. In the absence of real growth and normalized lending, government spending is buoying the market. Cut it by 44%, and out comes the rug from under the market's feet. What Goldenboy is saying, in simple terms, is that once people are actually all working again, the deficit will recede naturally, as GSEs and such will slowly become redundant.
...of course, I'd still rather the debt ceiling not be raised and pay the penalty. But only because I have far less faith in the federal government's ability to meaningfully reduce deficits in the long term.
...eh. It's also textbook monetarist.
Sorta depends on "which" Keynesianism you mean.
But if you don't raise the debt ceiling and the US defaults, interest rates will rise on the existing debt - thus RAISING the debt by leaps and bounds.
...eh. It's also textbook monetarist.
Sorta depends on "which" Keynesianism you mean.
I realize that -- but those are individual programs, with mixed results. We're talking about an across the board, 44% cut in government spending, period....which, in times of poor economic growth, takes on some importance.
I'd also like to reiterate that I would prefer the debt ceiling not raised, for the reasons I mentioned above. I acknowledge that the cut in spending will shock the economy. But that seems almost preferable to the long-term alternative, providing the government doesn't get its stuff together.
The difference between mine and Goldenboy's opinion is that he believes the government is savvy enough to raise the debt ceiling now, and begin legitimate long-term uninterrupted austerity in 2012 or some such thing. I don't share his faith, and would rather burn the whole house down immediately
'
Still, if the government actually does what he says it will do, I would be satisfied.
But if you don't raise the debt ceiling and the US defaults, interest rates will rise on the existing debt - thus RAISING the debt by leaps and bounds.
Raising the interest rate? Yes.
Make it a little harder to pay back the debt? I guess.
By leaps and bounds? No.
As it stands, interest payments represent a pretty small part of receipts. There'd have to be a truly massive global US bond dump for it to be a big problem....and there won't be.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?