U.S. Deficit Increased to $1.3T in Fiscal ’11

how? Because of all the military hardware needed? Remember that most of the young males were overseas at war...only the woman were left to do the factory work. so there is a flaw in your assessment!

 

Because of the spending needs. A result independent also of previous conservative views of the role of fiscal policy. You just haven't bothered to realise that the New Deal was conservatism in nature

 

keynes has always argued that governments need to spend during economic downturns in order to greese the wheels so to speak to jump start the economy. That is the basis of most of keynes work. I guess the only difference is keynes also said for a government to run surpluses during good times and many governments don't.

 

Thats nice spin except you sound foolish at the end of Obama's term still blaming Bush for Obama's failed leadership.

 

Keynes is much more than that. It provides a more complete understanding of capitalism. See, for example, the consequences of Keynes in post-Keynesian analysis of the labour market (and the rejection of the standard neoclassical approach)

 

Not increased TO 1.3 trillion, increased BY 1.3 trillion!

 

AKA: I WILL CHERRY PICK SINCE I CAN’T EXPLAIN ALL OF YOUR CLAIMS, that way it looks like I’ve addressed the issues.

As I pointed out before: 4 of the 5 wars of the 20th century were started under Dem leadership, presidentially and often with a Dem congress. The Republican who started the 5th war was so liberal he was unelected by his own party and that war was under a Democratic congress. At least we see you pay homage to the Greatest Generation who saved this country by calling them dogs. I guess if they had been the Repugnicas you wouldn’t feel that way. Yea, WWII was a cakewalk, I’m sure you could get any WWII historian to agree, as well the almost 500,000 Americans (including my uncle) who died there. You’re a joke and have just made that clear to all.

OK, I’ll dumb this down a bit, the question was more explicitly asking for the name often tax bill or even saying when Reagan cut taxes or when Kennedy cut taxes, altho that wasn’t really a major cut so much. But you see the idea? I realize you are an ideologue since you seem to feel all tax cuts good and all tax increases bad. Any real economist would know that there is a time for each, as when Clinton raised taxes early on and then cut parts of them as things became better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics Half way down the page you’ll see a table of the various tax bills.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States Item #78 at the bottom has a list of tax bills. So if you wish to take this issue seriously, research and show me a major federal tax cut that saved our asses, made things better, etc. I know you won’t but will still continue to carry on like a mynah bird, mimicking every conservative out there who also can’t show me a major federal tax cut that has been beneficial

1) Pull troops home - I agree
2) cut military by 2/3 - maybe a little radical, but ½ for sure and phase it in, not all at once
3) end SS for everyone who is under 30 today - http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/156/~/benefits-for-disabled-children of, so if a 5 year old child is blind, we need to cut SS? You really need to buy, borrow or steal a clue before you say stupid things.
4) corporate tax to zero - Yes, we need to shift even more wealth to corporate America and the rich at large. The top 1% of wealth holders have 35% of all American wealth; you want more disparity?
5) capital gains/income tax to one universal rate (except for the poor, they pay nothing) - Capital gains account for 2 to 3% of all federal tax revs, so to change that is insignificant. At 20% it’s pretty low, it should be left alone or raised back to 28%.
6) no tax deductions except for charity - Tax deductions are great things, they motivate spending, reinvesting and that’s what creates jobs. Are you nuts?
7) end welfare (except for mentally/physically handicapped)-replace with federal government run welfare centers (nice flop houses) in all medium/large cities that provide safe, clean bed, food, local bus/transit pass and medical care - You kind of talk in circles here: end welfare then open up welfare programs. What you mean to say is instead of a welfare check, provide hands on welfare reform. I can agree to part of that for sure, but some families need food stamps, not the whole trash the family unit thing and put them in a camp deal. Your idea is a bit radical, but very apropos for the homeless.
end/severely neuter the Fed - That would cause so much disruption to the entire country and require so much alternate funding that maybe small corrections a most.
9) end/severely neuter the FDIC - So no more bank insurance for account-holders? Talk about a new run on the banks, what a horrible idea.
10) end Freddie/Fannie - Maybe shake out the rats, but the people were as much to blame as the institutions, as they borrowed on loans they knew they couldn’t pay back.
11) never bailout/loan money to another corporation/bank - You are educated enough to be aware that that was part of Black Tuesday that kicked off the GD, the run on the banks and government failure to support them, right? As horrible as it was, it necessary or we would have had to nationalize the bank system. If no one is lending to marginal people or people w/o a stash of cash then goods don’t get bought like cars and houses. Are you an anarchist?
12) reduce remaining government departments by equal % until budget is balanced. - OK, so lay off all those perhaps millions of people, crush government services, etc? Nevermind, I just answered my last question.


Before you jump out with radical changes, you need to examine cause and effect. If you can’t, don’t want to or just don’t care then your opinions are just noise. Your ideas might sound neato, but when really look at small changes and the huge implications they can have, you need to relax and rethink some. Libertarians and **********s need to realize they make a Democrat like me aware they make Republicans look rational, even Repubs wouldn’t implement anarchy like this.


HERE ARE ISSUES YOU IGNORED FROM MY PREVIOUS POST:

A) What does a pretty departure from a typical Republican induced fiscal mess look like? I guess Clinton did it, of course GHWB set the stage by cutting fascist Ronny's military and slightly raising taxes, and the dotcom boom didn't hurt a thing either, but it took him 5 years to start to turn the corner, 8 years to fully emerge out of it. FDR had Hoover at least raise taxes 9 months before he handed it off to FDR, but it was a little late and altho it helped, it was pretty minimal due to the short time this was done before FDR took it over.

So tell me, what would make you happy? Perhaps shift all the resource to private corporations and let them deccide who lives? The major fisccal messes of teh last 100 years:

- GD from the 3 Republicans fools to FDR

- Fascist Reaganomics carried over to GHWB then dumped onto Clinton

- GWB's total meldown handed off to Obama

So you see, when your guys hammer the dogsh!t out of the economy, you don't get to decide what works and what doesn't, what is a good timeframe for recovery and what isn't. The Repub fascist garbage of the 1920's, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover handed off the country's assets to the rich over 11 years, then Hoover tried to take some back at the end, so it took FDR from 33 until 42 to fix the mess, aided with WWII spending, that's 9 years + Hoovers 1 to fix 11 years of wealth shifting. What are you crying about, crybaby? That's not bad, it took less time to fix than it took to ruin it, normally the ruining process is a smaller time span. Just because the dems don't fix it in 2 weeks doesn't mean it's a failed recovery, there are just your fabricated talking points.

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/recovery.htm

You see how as Hoover raised the top tax brkt from 25% to 63% the GDP immediately increased and unemp immediately fell? Tax cuts my friends, words of an American sociopath.


B) Ultimatley I ask: SHOW ME A MAJOR FEDERAL TAX CUT THAT YOU CAN SAY WAS OVERALL BENEFICAL.

 

Yes and no. The recovery of such a mess was such a long undertaking that the war played a part later on, not at first. I'll show you thru data.

BTW, we have 2 or 3 wars going on and the economy sucks, so I'll take your assertion as sarcasm.

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/recovery.htm

This is a pretty objective read from San Jose State Univ: As the above graph indicates that while the economy recovered somewhat from its state in 1933 the unemployment rate remained in the 15 percent range for the rest of the decade. The unemployment rate did not drop from depression levels until the economic impact of World War II was felt.

As you see by the first graph for unemp, recovery started when Hoover raised taxes from 25% to 63% top brkt. It continued for 5 years until the double dip occurred as unemp was steadily driven from 25% to 15%, then spiked again. This is where WWII spending started, around 1938 and this took the rest of the GD recovery to completion. We must accredit Hoover's tax increase and FDR's policies, New Deals for the initial ecovery, as war spending hadn't been realized yet.

Next graph down you can see the GDP at that time. You see it dips with the GD and as Hoover increases taxes, it recovers until the double dip, the recovers with war spending. Then look at the next chart entitled: The National Income Accounts for the Great Depression in the U.S.
(1992 Prices) See how at 1932 investment was almost nothing? It virtually doubles each of the following 3 years as taxes were increased 260% in June of 1932. This is why tax increases force investment, is it stealing? No, it's leveraging. If teh uber rich would invest in the country they claim to love so much, high taxes wouldn't be necessary, but since they do as human nature drives and save, greed, etc then taxes need to be high with a fair compliment of writeoffs.

Look at the next graph and how private investment drives these recoveries. See, these people only invest to shelter their wealth, which is fine, what's not fine is chopping taxes and letting them not reinvest their profits; that's as bad as sending it overseas.

The immediate cause of the recession that became the Great Depression was the collapse of private investment.

And why was private investment so low? TAX CUTS, MY FRIENDS.

So ultimate recovery was a product of WWII spending, but there was a lot of relief and immediate partial recovery made from 1932 to 1937 by way of tax increases and New Deals. So really it was both the tax cuts and the war.

So if you believe that the war was the recovery mode for the GD then you also agree that deficit spending stimulates the economy, as WWII spending was huge deficit spending. This is what Fascist Ronnie did, he deficit spent all 8 years. But guys like Clinton and Eisenhower thought higher taxes and cutting spending were better ideas and their economies were incredibly good while deficit/debt spending.

 

So, even though I have almost no knowledge of you, I am supposed to get into a ridiculously detailed debate with you over a subject that you have obviously made up your mind on?

Ahhhh...I think not.

Pretty arrogant of you as well - 'DA60 - you WILL debate with me at length if I so choose'

I put a wink smilie face after my comment.

My point was nothing to do with Americans in general then. My point was that America had such a complete and total production and military supremacy over the rest of the world that the President was completely superfluous to America winning the war.

You disagree...whatever.



As for my solutions 'of the top of my head'? I did not expect you to agree with them. Nor do I really care if you do or not. They were primarily for other people that might happen to read my post as it is obvious your mind is completely made up and to try and change it would obviously be a complete waste of time...assuming it was important enough to me to try and do so (I'll let you decide if it is or not).

Show me a link to one that benefits all social/financial classes equally and I will comment on it.

I am not aware of one, though.

If they do not meet this criteria...then they are flawed and probably not a great idea.


Have a less self-centered day.

 

Whether they wanted that or not, it was thrust upon them by 3 primary countries. As for the US, congress didn't want war, FDR did. After PH congress finally pulled their heads out.

 

That's Europe, we're (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) over here, we stab each other in the back with labor disputes and cross lines. Apples/oranges.

 

And for the record - I was referring to the old age part.

Again, any other welfare should be continued (as a cash payment) if the persons in question are physically/mentally handicapped.
But if dumped if they are not, dump it and if they want government assistance...then go to a shelter (as I mentioned above).

Otherwise, try a charity.


As for food stamps...I guess you can keep 'em going...for now.


And all FDIC does is make people trust their banks too much. Invest your money...don't leave it in some crappy return, bank account.

 

The Two-Ocean Navy Act, (a.k.a. Vinson-Walsh Act) was an American Act of Congress passed on July 19, 1940, to increase the size of the United States Navy by 70%, making it the largest naval procurement bill in U.S. history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Ocean_Navy_Act


I'd say they pulled their 'heads out' before Pearl Harbor.


Have a nice day.

 

A few issues here:

It's quite obvious you are not real well read, you hate the banks and FDR's policies and are obvioulsy not aware that FDR reformed the banks by punishing the bankers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

Bank and monetary reforms

With strident language Roosevelt took credit for dethroning the bankers he alleged had caused the debacle. On March 4, 1933, in his first inaugural address, he proclaimed:


Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men. ... The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization.[18]

He closed all the banks in the country and kept them all closed until he could pass new legislation.[19] On March 9, Roosevelt sent to Congress the Emergency Banking Act, drafted in large part by Hoover's top advisors. The act was passed and signed into law the same day. It provided for a system of reopening sound banks under Treasury supervision, with federal loans available if needed. Three-quarters of the banks in the Federal Reserve System reopened within the next three days. Billions of dollars in hoarded currency and gold flowed back into them within a month, thus stabilizing the banking system. By the end of 1933, 4,004 small local banks were permanently closed and merged into larger banks. (Their depositors eventually received on average 86 cents on the dollar of their deposits; it is a common false myth that they received nothing back.) In June 1933, over Roosevelt's objections, Congress created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which insured deposits for up to $2,500 beginning January 1, 1934; this amount was increased to $5,000 on July 1, 1934. To deal with deflation, the nation went off the gold standard. In March and April in a series of laws and executive orders, the government suspended the gold standard for United States currency.[20] Anyone holding significant amounts of gold coinage was mandated to exchange it for the existing fixed price of US dollars, after which the US would no longer pay gold on demand for the dollar, and gold would no longer be considered valid legal tender for debts in private and public contracts. The dollar was allowed to float freely on foreign exchange markets with no guaranteed price in gold, only to be fixed again at a significantly lower level a year later with the passage of the Gold Reserve Act in 1934. Markets immediately responded well to the suspension, in the hope that the decline in prices would finally end.[21]

FDR did take action to reform the banks, just as Obama demanded repayment or control of bank policies and payouts via bonuses. You embrace your conservatism, Republicanism, etc., yet are not willing to admit the GWB's and Hoovers of the world sat back and allowed these bankers to rape us.

Whatever you're smoking, I'll have what he's having. Unemployment peaked in 1932 at 25% http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/recovery.htm the GDP was the worst in 1933. Sure the Revenue Act of 1932 just passed months before, and had started to work, but in 1933 were in bad shape so where the hell do you get your idea that we were recovered in 1932? That was rhetorical, I know where you get that, my advice is that you do some general reading on the GD before pipng in such ridiculous assertions.

What intervention? Tax increases? Hoover realized how pathetic his ideas were like McCain's, "TAX CUTS, MY FRIENDS" idiocy. He thought it would just fix itself as it had before, then he realized how stupid he had been and raised income taxes from 25% to 63% as well as other huge tax increases. At least he had an excuse in that he had little previous data from which to draw, these neo-cons have tons of it and still do the same stupid sh!t.

Or intervention like the New Deals? Yea, sociopaths tend to not care that people were living in the streets, no jobs, no unemployment, no families some of them. Immediate relief was not a choice. Tell me what you think of how Hoover dealt with the Bonus Army if you even know what that is.

 

Your foolishness is that:

A) It's not the end of Obama's term, he has a year and 3 months, so really far from calling it the end.

B) GWB sitting back watching unemp rise 3% in his last year while doing nothing but bailing out the banks IS GWB's fault.

C) Sociopath in Chief vetoing the Children's HC Bill, then Obama and Dems passing it 2 weeks into his term is GWB's fault.

D) The GDP 4 of 5 Q's negative IS GWB's fault and all the billions to rectify it.

E) Handing off a >$1 trillion debt increase + $700B TARP + $800B stimulus is GWB's fault.

You act like this was a little recession, not the little brother to the Great Depression. Keep your blinders on and you'll be OK.

 

So the ARRA (Stimulus) that had NOTHING to do with the GWB administration was his fault?

Okaaaay.



'Look officer, I had to rob that bank. My wife racked up our credit cards...so it's her fault I killed those 2 cops while I was trying to get away.'

 

See, neo-cons always seem to defer to ad hominem, as in it matters who I am or who you are. I talk of the issues, you talk of the people arguing these issues. Have I made up my mind? Yes, and I would love for others to come in and enlighten me, change my position or whatever. It’s actually arrogant of you to make an assertion, declare it absolutely correct and then refuse to support it in any way but with more rhetoric. Can you even find a source by which to support your claims? It’s not that hard and try, oh try to reform from agenda sites like Heritage and Cato.

Hey, I said you can make fun of the greatest generation all you want, the people who died saving our country from the Axis of Evil, you wan to make a joke it and call it easy, go for it. You want to fabricate a reason to think FDR was less, even with your obvious limited knowledge of anything, go for it. Was LBJ in Viet Nam? Was Eisenhower in Korea? Presidents don’t go to war, so what is your point? FDR died in office rectifying a deeply troubled country. Don’t like him because he didn’t pander to the rich, that’s your issue. I can’t believe you’ve accidentally wandered onto a college/university campus, yet those with a lifetime of academia in the area of presidential achievement rank FDR the best president ever. Go ahead and let me hear your universities are liberal institutions, well, again, I am working on my second degree, you quite obviously have no education so make another unfounded claim.

You won’t change my mind with rhetoric from your diddy, your conservative friends or anything else like that. It’s most effective to change anyone’s mind using objective data, construct an argument and have it make sense in context. So do that, start by researching taxation history and their effects. Will you do this? Of course not.

So you’re answering my question with a question, how unexpected. Don’t worry, no one has yet to answer this question yet due to every major federal tax cut leading to destruction, so it’s really a rhetorical question. But to answer your lame question; show me one that benefits all social/financial classes equally, here goes.

1) Should we benefit the class that has run away with being overly benefited by tax policy for the last 30 years? We have such class disparity that worrying about those who have been so advantaged, whether they be the rich or the poor, that trying to further benefit that class is asinine absurdity. I know you’re not really a facts and numbers guy, but here goes: http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/06/22/u-s-has-record-number-of-millionaires/

According to the annual World Wealth Report from Merill Lynch and Capgemini, the U.S. had 3.1 million millionaires in 2010, up from 2.86 million in 2009. The latest figure tops the pre-crisis peak of three million.

So even in these hard times we are still creating more millionaires, I wonder how the other end is doing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_poverty_rate_timeline.gif Another surprise, I see how poverty is well on the rise. And then here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/us/14census.html?pagewanted=all

Another 2.6 million people slipped into poverty in the United States last year, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday, and the number of Americans living below the official poverty line, 46.2 million people, was the highest number in the 52 years the bureau has been publishing figures on it.


So let’s summarize; Millionaires are being crapped out at record paces and impoverished people are being made so at the highest rate of the 52 years the Census Bureau has been recording this data and your brilliant mind says we need to be sure to benefit all parties equally? I know you don’t understand this term, but this is sort of a zero sum game, go look it up, and if we benefit all equally then maybe we will be doing nothing or worse, ultimately benefiting the rich and spreading the disparity.

So now I’ve answered your question address mine and SHOW ME A MAJOR FEDERAL TAX CUT THAT HAS BENEFITED THE US POPULACE AS A WHOLE.

Let me ask you this, are you a sociopath? IOW’s, do you see human suffering and care, not care or get excited? Where are you on this scale? It’s hard for you to lie and say you care, yet you want to further spread the classes and advocate poverty creation; this is just a contradiction. Of course you could actually provide data showing how tax cuts relieve all these things and make us all better, and I’m awaiting that data.

I see, mine bring the classes somewhat closer together or at least stop some suffering and help impoverished people and yours at best keep the classes as far spread as they are and mine are flawed, yours divine? I think the membership sees what you are.

 

the wars going on now are mickey mouse....I am talking a great war involving many countries and in which the draft might be nescessary.

 

You didn't say that, you said end all SS for those under 30 years. You can backpeddal and look like an idiot doing it, but that's all you're doing; no one's fooled.

The rest of your backpeddaling nonsense is all over the place, I can't even make a little sense out of it, care to expound and I'll address it.

Well this clears the rest up, so screw the banks and give your money to a corporation hoping tehy don't bilk it all. Maybe we can bring Bernard Madoff out of prison so that completes your fantasy. Maybe the banks are good because they lend the money for houses and cars. Sure tehy package these up and sell them to teh big guys, but maybe we ned them all. I can't see how anyone looks at you with any credibility after these brilliant assertions. People trust banks over putting money in their matress due to the FDIA.

 

all I am saying is wars usually come after massive economic upheavals.....so this is why I am quite convinced a new war will probably come in the next few years...how big it will be is the only wild card!

 

so I guess you forgot the rodney king riots? How about the riots in watts new york? Funny how quickly people forget.......and don't forget the chaos ofter hurricane katrina......trust me....if things get bad enough people take to the streets!

 

So you've proven nothing, nor disporoven any of my assertions. The US was ramping up, we knew we would be drug in at least at the proxy war level, most likely further. In early 41, before PH we made an agreement to supply our alies with war toys, including ships, so it isn't hard to believe that in 1940 we would start building more ships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

And then we entered into conscription, oh sorry, let me dumb that down, the draft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States In Sep 1940 we started drafting for WWII. So way before PH we had started several measures as we knew we would be proxy warriors and probably actually warriors abroad. Had congress listened to FDR we might have averted PH by being actively engaged in WWII, of course with your impecable brilliance you'll disagree.

So your cite only further proves my point, I agree. Congress used a very slow process of pulling their heads out, they at least appropriated war funds and started making war toys, had they been quicker at pulling the head out they would have listened to FDR sooner.

 

I hear ya, but any spending, even personal spending written off as a business expense is positive. Let's get the thing under control first, worry about specifics later.

 

That logic only works if you think the following are normal:

- Unemp soaring thru 8% at a rate of 3% IN THE SINGLE YEAR BEFORE OBAMA TOOK OFFICE http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

- The GDP 4 of 5 quarters negative, the last one of 08 was -9% WHICH ABSOLUTLEY FING HUGE http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm

- Stock market blowing down thru 8k as Obama took office, ended at 6500 until the stimulus flipped it

- A debt that added >$1 trillion in the FY of 08, added another 600B in the 2 1/2 months between Oct 31, 08 and Jan 20, 09. So you see the accelleration.

So if you think when a president changes that he starts with a clean slate, you're mental. This is not cliche, Obama inherited the worst mess since the GD and let's see, to be fair, what did GWB inherit? Oh yea, the most vibrant economy ever.

You want to live in your bubble and smoke your hookah pipe, good for you, but there are adults in here and we exchange valid ideas with supporting reference.

So yes, the need for the stimulus was GWB's fault, he sat there and watched the wheels come off and did nothing to intervene. Oh yea, gov intervention is bad, I forgot.

It was GWB who robbed the bank, or at least watched and did nothing, it's just that Obama was left holding the bag.