what is more important: reducing debt or stimulating the economy

We already know tax cuts are less effective with any increased risk in private sector markets. Our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror do not better ensure the domestic tranquility of markets in Commerce in our free States.

 

The CBO projects that the deficit reduction will turn negative in fiscal year 2015 and begin climbing once again unless we do something to cut spending, increase revenues or find some combination of the two.

Further, 'they' didn't cut anything that was not mandated to them...like the sequester.

 

Obama signed Obamacare into law because a Democratic house and senate voted for it. He would never have signed it if the GOP controlled either house because it was an entirely partisan issue.

Who controls Congress bears far more weight than who controls the White House. The White House is just far more sensationalized and popular.

 

Who knew that when conservatives claim the tax cuts drove the recovery in the 80s and the military build up defeated the SU they should really be giving credit to the Democrats. I always here them trying to give credit to Reagan for that. Next time I'll refer them to your post and you can straighten 'em out.

- - - Updated - - -

Then will need to cut spending, increase revenues or find some combination of the two.

Who mandated them? They did.

 

Reducing the size, expense and intrusiveness of government is more important. The debt is a symptom, not the disease.

 

and conservatives, like liberals, will tweak and hide facts when it's convenient to their 'cause.' No need for you to be a part of that.

 

Nor you.

 

How?

The government regulates your food, your water, diseases, pollution. It funds your roads. I don't find any of those intrusive. Scaling them back results in significant consequences for the population.

 

I didn't say we should get rid of government entirely. I said its size, expense and intrusiveness needs to be reduced. Contrary to what the fanboys & girls of Big Government tell us, the sky never falls when those cuts are actually made.

 

That's why we seldom get an agreement to reduce the debt. For most it is not the most important thing.

 

With just reason. Our debt "problem" isn't that crucial, historically speaking. It will cure itself once Republicans stop blocking the economy from recovering.

 

An economy recovering more along a historical pace would help, be wouldn't be sufficient to make up the shortfall. Employment recovering to close to a "full employment" situation would just add about 3 percentage points to the number employed. An equivalent increase in revenues would have increased revenues by about $85 billion last year, insufficient to close the deficit to the point of make any improvement in the debt situation.

 

Taxes will have to increase eventually.. but our deficit currently is much more sustainable than it was. Our Debt / GDP is stabilizing and may even drop.

 

If you understand the economy, it is derived by consumers consuming products and services provided by business. Kind of like you going to the store and buying some milk and bread. So it is curious to me how you believe 'Republicans' are blocking the economy? When you go to the store, do 'Republicans' block your path and prevent you from consuming your milk and bread? Do 'Republicans' block your path when you try to visit your favorite restaurant? If you called to purchase an airline ticket does a 'Republican' break into your phone call and prevent you from booking the ticket? When did the so-called recession end...how about June, 2009...about 4 years and 4 months ago...or do you believe the 'Republicans' are somehow involved? Also interesting is that your 'Republicans' who are supposedly the party representing business and commerce would take actions to block this economy...sounds counterintuitive doesn't it...

 

I'm sure tax revenues will increase, but not by a sufficient amount. Proportionate to GDP, tax revenues last year were still $500 billion lower than in 2000. We are not going to return to those levels while the bulk of the Bush tax cuts remain in effect.

- - - Updated - - -

You can't buy bread and milk without money. And with 11 million still unemployment, there are a whole lotta people who aren't buying as much bread and milk (and other goods and services) as they would because they don't have the money. 30 years of "trickle down" have helped to gut middle class incomes and Republican austerity has blocked efforts to get more of those people working and more income in their pockets.

 

Not only is austerity a ridiculous ploy during tough economic conditions, but then we have banks trying to keep rates up for loans and credit cards while their cost to loan is cheaper than ever. Had they passed on the incredible savings they received to the consumer, we probably would have seen many people and businesses actually wanting access to money rather than avoiding it because of its expense. Banks caused this mess and they continue to perpetuate it. Makes no sense unless their ultimate goal is property attainment via foreclosure.

Banks are a perfect example of why tax cuts for the rich do not work. Banks have the cheapest money they have ever had access to. Instead of passing on the savings into the economy they have padded their bottom line with it instead as profit. So we're seeing a highly successful financial market at a time when the consumer is getting zero benefit from the government rate cuts. Just like wealthy people who are given more money. They spend what they spend already, most of them not coming close to using a majority of their money to live on, so giving them more does nothing to create further spending. They don't operate their businesses on their own money. They use credit. So by giving them their own money back in the form of lower taxes we do nothing for jobs, we pad their personal wealth even more and we get to collect fewer tax dollars to run the country as a result. That's the trifecta of lose-lose-lose.

 

Pray tell, how does the Left suggest we stimulate the economy? You keep talking about it.

 

The most important thing is to stop focusing on making the 1% richer and supporting policies that redistributed more and more of the nation's income and wealth to this small group, and reverse the trend of the past 30 years and get the money back into the pockets of the middle class, who will spend it. In other words, reverse "trickle down".

There are many things the Govt can do to work towards this objective.

o Create Govt works programs getting more people working.

o Return to a more progressive tax structure that puts more of the tax burden on the 1% and less on working people. Increase the top tax rate. Eliminate the special low privileged tax rate for investment income and tax it the same as earned income. Increase the estate tax. Cut the FICA tax rate and and make SS taxes applicable to all income levels and sources. Eliminate tax breaks for offshore accounts and profits and outsourcing.

o Increase the minimum wage.

o Increase the power of unions to unionize and make more wages determined by collective bargaining as opposed to what the market will allow for a particular individual.

o Make OT laws more broadly applicable and enforced so that more people who work OT hours get OT.

o Create Govt single payor health care so that insurance costs aren't eating more of middle class incomes.

o Provide more grants for education to lower income students so they can get advanced educations without crippling levels of debt.

 

It's almost as if we've been living under some right wing Republican government the past 5 plus years.

We had a government works program, Obama's stimulus.

Our personal income tax structure is one of the most "progressive" in the Western world

We cut FICA for a couple of years

The minimum wage was increased in 2009

As for your other suggestions, I'm not sure how they "stimulate" the economy. It sounds like the usual grab bag of goodies with no or detrimental economic effect.

- how would increasing the power of unions stimulate the economy?

- I wasn't aware there was an Overtime enforcement crisis. Why is Obama not enforcing Labor laws?

- You got Obamacare, now after just a couple of weeks, you're ready to toss it over the side and double down on failure? Not sure that's going to be popular now.

- Why does Obama hate poor people and want to keep them out of college (sorry, I was trying out sounding like a leftist with a ridiculous statement). Obama nationalized the student loan program, so that's his option.

Basically, you've gotten most of what you wanted and what you didn't get doesn't seem to have anything to do with stimulating the economy.

The economic growth is still anemic. Sounds like you need to start from scratch. You guys have had your way for years and these are the results.

 

Who is talking about money? The post was a response about 'Republicans' blocking the economy.

It's not the government who creates jobs unless the government wishes to hire them as government employees.

It's not the government's job to get more income in their pockets? People earn what they earn based on their qualifications and effort to secure work. What they earn is primarily based on supply and demand in the labor markets...not by the government.

Sometimes the economy can provide more and sometimes it won't, but when it won't, government cannot force it to happen. Government can spend taxpayer cash or debt money but all of that effort is temporary.

Obviously there is a reason why your government won't simply hire those 11 million unemployed...

 

Tea-Party induced spending cuts.

Those are jobs, paid by government funds. Those (bloated) government salaries spend money into the economy. Comprende?

See, above. The government has a direct effect on the economy. If the government decides to spend $3 billion on an infrastructure project (New Jersey Turnpike widening, like they did), it puts $3 billion worth of labor and materials to WORK.

The government can absolutely force the economy to stimulate. It is called a "stimulus." See, what I said above. The government does not need your taxpayer money to spend anything.

Tea Party created austerity. Why is the government cutting spending and firing workers during a recession? Thanks, Tea Party.

 

Government does not create jobs, they just shift a private sector job to a public sector job. If a businessman has $50,000 dollars to hire a person and the government takes that money in order to create a government job they did not create nothing new.

Then government jobs are expensive. A private sector job is self supporting, they pay into the system with their taxes. A government job is like having something on welfare. They depend on taxes in order to support their jobs. So you have to divert money from the private sector in order to support government employees. Starving the economy of money means less growth because you deprive people the ability to grow their businesses.

 

That is false. Deficit spending directly creates jobs. The government need not take a single dollar in taxes to fund its workers.

No, a government job is not like having something on welfare. A state, county, or town job is like having something on welfare. A Federal job is not. Please tell me how many Congressmen and essential government personnel were laid off during the shutdown. ZERO

 

True, we had a small one that involved about $400 billion over two years, equating to about 1% of the size of the economy. It helped save or create roughly 2.5 million jobs according to several independent analyses. But it largely tapered off in 2011. It's not getting people to work now.

I'd have to see proof of that. But it is not very progressive at the top. The top 1% take about 20% of the nation's income but only pay about 20% of the taxes.

It's not cut now.

It is still well below its peak adjusted for inflation or GDP or wages.

o Increase the power of unions to unionize and make more wages determined by collective bargaining as opposed to what the market will allow for a particular individual. Unions leverage higher salaries for their workers. There's a reason so many Wal-mart workers are working at or near minimum wage where as unionized workers are not.

o Make OT laws more broadly applicable and enforced so that more people who work OT hours get OT. Paying people for the OT work they do increases their incomes.

Increases middle class disposable income by reducing health insurance outlays.

o Provide more grants for education to lower income students so they can get advanced educations without crippling levels of debt.

Increases middle class disposable incomes by reducing the education debt load.

They were changed during the Bush administration and court decisions.

It will help some lower income folks. Single payor like Medicare would help more.

False premise.

Not really. We've taken some baby steps and gotten baby step stimulation of the economy.


The economic growth is still anemic. Sounds like you need to start from scratch. You guys have had your way for years and these are the results.[/QUOTE]

 

That's how they are blocking it.

Not necessarily. When the Govt contracts a construction company to rebuild a bridge it creates jobs.

Govt policies certainly have affected who gets the money. "Trickle down" policies like those I've mention have helped the 1% get more of the money instead of the middle classes.

Sure it can. Govt intervention can create jobs and mitigate the damage when the private sector is not.

Not that anyone has proposed the govt hire all 11 million, but there is a reason. It's called the Republican Tea Party.