Not many Americans are willing to sacrifice for their kids (grandkids) nowadays. The “Me generation” is running the show. Sorry Ramirez, your warning is falling on deaf ears.
Yah lets go back to Reagan – he said that Government was the problem, so he made it bigger.
He said he was a economic conservatives so he TRIPPLED the National Debt.
As I keep pointing out, the Conservatives who say they are concerned ab out the National Debt – Lie!
They don’t care about the National Debt (even though it is a real problem, created by both the GOP & DEMS) all they care about is using it to bash Obama and the DEMS. The GOP will do nothing about the Nationa Debt except (as they did under Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2) to make it higher and borrow more money.
Once (if) the GOP get back into power the Conservatives will shut up and go home.
Sure. Deficits are a problem when the other guy is running them. The US is lucky the GOP was voted out of office, so they remembered what fiscal responsibility is - but will they still remember it whenever they get in power again?
I don’t think so. Sorry, guys, but I don’t buy this “Obama is spending like crazy’ stuff - whoever was in the office would do the same. The right takes a big deal about deficits, but I’m not seeing a serious proposal, only anecdotes about how project X (never in the Senator/Representative’s home state) wastes 1 million, or 2 millions. Nice, but we’re talking billions here.
The biggest draws on the budget are Medicare, SocSec and Defense. The GOP hasn’t really tried to cut the first two back, and for good reason - by and large, they are quite popular. Most people actually like them. Heck, at one time when the healthcare reform looked like it might involve some cuts in the existing system, the GOP rallied to its defense. Medicare! Remember this: http://tinyurl.com/r9omrm ?
Defense, obviously, the GOP is very big on. The closest anyone on the right comes to criticizing THAT is VA spending (I’m not kidding - Heritage every now and then mentions the rising VA spending when they discuss the Obama deficits).
So no, I don’t see the proponents of fiscal discipline cutting significant programs either. The other option is to raise revenue, but apart from the “flat tax will raise revenues” mythos, there’s nothing. Certainly no plans to raise taxes (which is part of how Clinton balanced the budget) or even eliminate the tax breaks from both the Bush and Obama cuts. No, no, let’s not spend more - let’s get less. How could we not balance budgets that way?
By the way, the support for tax cuts, in the current economic climate, is baffling. You’d think that at least the tax cuts might come under some flak from the fiscally responsible pundits. How much do you think those are costing per year, guys? How about a few hundred billions of dollars.
You’d think that would be something all those deficit-minded people care about, but no, supposedly they are good for the budget (even though in the 90’s a net increase in taxes wasn’t half bad either). CBO might not be so sure, mind you, but that’s not often mentioned. Heck, most economists (including ones not often considered liberals, like Mankiw) don’t consider them a net gain. But hey, it gets better. Here’s something from http://tinyurl.com/lwjhqj .
” We then asked the conservative Heritage Institute about the Bush tax cuts. Brian Riedl analyzes the federal budget for the group.
He said Krugman’s $1.8 trillion number only considers the government’s lost revenue, and doesn’t account for the economic activity that lower taxes generate. He said the number was “defensible, but an overstatement.” He estimates there would be a stimulative effect from tax cuts that could shave about 25 percent off that tally. Still, he said, Krugman is in the right ballpark for a static score of uncollected revenues.
“I can’t believe I’m actually saying one of Krugman’s numbers is defensible,” he added. ”
So, I suppose all those deficit-minded people will be the first to call for the abolishment of an expensive economic measure with dubious effect? Or maybe that the deficit is not the first priority for a US economy hurting from high unemployment?
Yesterday the news quietly reported that the government since the stimulus has hired 453,000 new employees at a average cost of 100k a year each. About double the going rate in the private sector.
I don’t know about anybody else but I have about all the government I can stand right now.
cfimeiatpap almost 14 years ago
And we are not even into the third quarter yet………….
WarBush almost 14 years ago
Uncle Remus would SO be proud of Ramirez.
mommieburger almost 14 years ago
Not many Americans are willing to sacrifice for their kids (grandkids) nowadays. The “Me generation” is running the show. Sorry Ramirez, your warning is falling on deaf ears.
Jaedabee Premium Member almost 14 years ago
I think we’re not seeing the big picture here. Obama went to each one of those babies’ mama’s and forced them to have an abortion.
It was for BP’s experimental “Baby shot.” Not surprisingly, the attempt failed.
rareeac8 almost 14 years ago
O’bama’s world is in outer space
rareeac8 almost 14 years ago
O’bama’s world is outer space. He won’t be happy till were all living in the 14th century
Dtroutma almost 14 years ago
Thank you sooooo much- “Reaganomics”. Dat tar baby no stick to the Teflon Pres.
kennethcwarren64 almost 14 years ago
Yah lets go back to Reagan – he said that Government was the problem, so he made it bigger.
He said he was a economic conservatives so he TRIPPLED the National Debt.
As I keep pointing out, the Conservatives who say they are concerned ab out the National Debt – Lie!
They don’t care about the National Debt (even though it is a real problem, created by both the GOP & DEMS) all they care about is using it to bash Obama and the DEMS. The GOP will do nothing about the Nationa Debt except (as they did under Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2) to make it higher and borrow more money.
Once (if) the GOP get back into power the Conservatives will shut up and go home.
4uk4ata almost 14 years ago
Sure. Deficits are a problem when the other guy is running them. The US is lucky the GOP was voted out of office, so they remembered what fiscal responsibility is - but will they still remember it whenever they get in power again?
I don’t think so. Sorry, guys, but I don’t buy this “Obama is spending like crazy’ stuff - whoever was in the office would do the same. The right takes a big deal about deficits, but I’m not seeing a serious proposal, only anecdotes about how project X (never in the Senator/Representative’s home state) wastes 1 million, or 2 millions. Nice, but we’re talking billions here.
The biggest draws on the budget are Medicare, SocSec and Defense. The GOP hasn’t really tried to cut the first two back, and for good reason - by and large, they are quite popular. Most people actually like them. Heck, at one time when the healthcare reform looked like it might involve some cuts in the existing system, the GOP rallied to its defense. Medicare! Remember this: http://tinyurl.com/r9omrm ?
Defense, obviously, the GOP is very big on. The closest anyone on the right comes to criticizing THAT is VA spending (I’m not kidding - Heritage every now and then mentions the rising VA spending when they discuss the Obama deficits).
So no, I don’t see the proponents of fiscal discipline cutting significant programs either. The other option is to raise revenue, but apart from the “flat tax will raise revenues” mythos, there’s nothing. Certainly no plans to raise taxes (which is part of how Clinton balanced the budget) or even eliminate the tax breaks from both the Bush and Obama cuts. No, no, let’s not spend more - let’s get less. How could we not balance budgets that way?
4uk4ata almost 14 years ago
By the way, the support for tax cuts, in the current economic climate, is baffling. You’d think that at least the tax cuts might come under some flak from the fiscally responsible pundits. How much do you think those are costing per year, guys? How about a few hundred billions of dollars.
You’d think that would be something all those deficit-minded people care about, but no, supposedly they are good for the budget (even though in the 90’s a net increase in taxes wasn’t half bad either). CBO might not be so sure, mind you, but that’s not often mentioned. Heck, most economists (including ones not often considered liberals, like Mankiw) don’t consider them a net gain. But hey, it gets better. Here’s something from http://tinyurl.com/lwjhqj .
” We then asked the conservative Heritage Institute about the Bush tax cuts. Brian Riedl analyzes the federal budget for the group.
He said Krugman’s $1.8 trillion number only considers the government’s lost revenue, and doesn’t account for the economic activity that lower taxes generate. He said the number was “defensible, but an overstatement.” He estimates there would be a stimulative effect from tax cuts that could shave about 25 percent off that tally. Still, he said, Krugman is in the right ballpark for a static score of uncollected revenues.
“I can’t believe I’m actually saying one of Krugman’s numbers is defensible,” he added. ”
So, I suppose all those deficit-minded people will be the first to call for the abolishment of an expensive economic measure with dubious effect? Or maybe that the deficit is not the first priority for a US economy hurting from high unemployment?
locoboilerguy almost 14 years ago
Yesterday the news quietly reported that the government since the stimulus has hired 453,000 new employees at a average cost of 100k a year each. About double the going rate in the private sector.
I don’t know about anybody else but I have about all the government I can stand right now.
4uk4ata almost 14 years ago
@ Loco: interesting, normally the government is not renowned for high wages. Have a link?
WarBush almost 14 years ago
And…what do you see Radish? Besides a really bad metaphor?
ChukLitl Premium Member almost 14 years ago
Saddle the babies with enough debt to pay to educate them enough so they can figure out how to pay off the debt.
Who’s making money off the interest on the national debt that doesn’t want it paid off?