Economy vs. Deficit Reduction

OmniScience wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Europe is doing austerity right now and unemployment is rising. Part of the austerity is raising taxes on the rich. Think the US should do that too?

Unemployment in Spain is now 27%. Higher taxes do not encourage growth.

Spain is an great example. Spain went into an austerity program that cut heavily into government programs in order to reduce their deficit. The result was 27% unemployment, an economy that is totally in the tank. The Spanish government has recognized their mistake and announced this week that they were reversing the austerity program, increasing government spending in order to grow the economy there.

A rising economy will do more to reduce the deficit than any attempts at deep and rapid cuts to reduce the deficit. Yes, the deficit must be reduced but drastic attempts to do so with no regard to improving the economy first is not a sound policy. Clinton showed the way in reducing the enormous deficits that he inherited from Reagan, that a combination of spending cuts with increased revenues is the best way to improve the economy while reducing the deficit.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

OmniScience wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Europe is doing austerity right now and unemployment is rising. Part of the austerity is raising taxes on the rich. Think the US should do that too?

Unemployment in Spain is now 27%. Higher taxes do not encourage growth.

A rising economy will do more to reduce the deficit than any attempts at deep and rapid cuts to reduce the deficit. Yes, the deficit must be reduced but drastic attempts to do so with no regard to improving the economy first is not a sound policy. Clinton showed the way in reducing the enormous deficits that he inherited from Reagan, that a combination of spending cuts with increased revenues is the best way to improve the economy while reducing the deficit.

I agree that a rising economy is THE ONLY way we will get our debt and deficits under control. I noticed you didn't include tax hikes as a way to reduce the deficit... did you just forget to add that or do you understand that tax increases are not a good idea during a struggling economic period? And using the Clinton economy as something relevant to this economy is silly at best. There was a massive dotcom boom that ended up crashing (liberals never mention that part)... but the bottom line is that the economy during Clinton was booming for nine straight quarters BEFORE he raised taxes so the economy was already going strong and could withstand those increases. Clinton also deregulated banks and agreed to welfare reform (more facts liberals ignore). This economy is struggling and Obama's cure for the deficit and debt is to raise taxes any chance he gets (even though a few years ago he said tax hikes would be a bad idea).

Something the Dog Said wrote:

OmniScience wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Europe is doing austerity right now and unemployment is rising. Part of the austerity is raising taxes on the rich. Think the US should do that too?

Unemployment in Spain is now 27%. Higher taxes do not encourage growth.

Spain is an great example. Spain went into an austerity program that cut heavily into government programs in order to reduce their deficit. The result was 27% unemployment, an economy that is totally in the tank. The Spanish government has recognized their mistake and announced this week that they were reversing the austerity program, increasing government spending in order to grow the economy there.

A rising economy will do more to reduce the deficit than any attempts at deep and rapid cuts to reduce the deficit. Yes, the deficit must be reduced but drastic attempts to do so with no regard to improving the economy first is not a sound policy. Clinton showed the way in reducing the enormous deficits that he inherited from Reagan, that a combination of spending cuts with increased revenues is the best way to improve the economy while reducing the deficit.

Austerity measures didn't cause the unemployment, Spain's economy was already in the tank. This was a result of another real estate bubble and unsustainable social benefits for the growing number of unemployed. Spain was heavily reliant on massive tax revenues from real estate, and when real estate market crashed they went from a previous budget surplus of over 2 percent of GDP into a deficit of almost 4 percent of GDP.

As for Clinton, he was blessed with the juggernaut of the tech revolution in the 1990's which resulted in huge tax revenues because businesses were investing and everyone who wanted to work could get a job. He was smart enough to agree with the Republicans to cut spending. These 2 factors resulted in a sound fiscal scenario. Since then, our government refuses to quit spending money or to address government waste.

Spending your way out of debt is like trying to drink yourself sober.

So Spain is in trouble not because of austerity but because of too many years of Keynsian economics? Dick Lamn wrote an opinion piece in the Post a couple weeks ago about Keynsians who just can't stop. Even when unemployment was 4%, they wanted more jobs programs and more spending instead of saving and operating in their budget.

And now the Obama administration wants to create another property bubble by making home loans easier to get again. (And help drive up property prices.)

Rick wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

OmniScience wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Europe is doing austerity right now and unemployment is rising. Part of the austerity is raising taxes on the rich. Think the US should do that too?

Unemployment in Spain is now 27%. Higher taxes do not encourage growth.

A rising economy will do more to reduce the deficit than any attempts at deep and rapid cuts to reduce the deficit. Yes, the deficit must be reduced but drastic attempts to do so with no regard to improving the economy first is not a sound policy. Clinton showed the way in reducing the enormous deficits that he inherited from Reagan, that a combination of spending cuts with increased revenues is the best way to improve the economy while reducing the deficit.

I agree that a rising economy is THE ONLY way we will get our debt and deficits under control. I noticed you didn't include tax hikes as a way to reduce the deficit... did you just forget to add that or do you understand that tax increases are not a good idea during a struggling economic period? And using the Clinton economy as something relevant to this economy is silly at best. There was a massive dotcom boom that ended up crashing (liberals never mention that part)... but the bottom line is that the economy during Clinton was booming for nine straight quarters BEFORE he raised taxes so the economy was already going strong and could withstand those increases. Clinton also deregulated banks and agreed to welfare reform (more facts liberals ignore). This economy is struggling and Obama's cure for the deficit and debt is to raise taxes any chance he gets (even though a few years ago he said tax hikes would be a bad idea).

I did include enhanced revenues as part of the solution, which is indeed critical. You may have your opinion about the Clinton role in the recovery of the devastated economy that he inherited, but your dismissal of the role that the strategy of enhanced revenues and spending cuts is clearly wrong. I do agree that it would not be beneficial to raise taxes on the middle class, but there are numerous avenues to raise revenues that would not affect the economy, such as eliminating the ability of fund managers to pay only 15% on their earnings instead of their income tax rates, numerous loopholes that exist that only benefit a few that should be closed, royalty rates on mineral extraction that should be brought up to market rates, etc.

I note that despite your ill-informed rant about Obama and tax hikes, currently most if not all Americans are paying the lowest rate on taxes in the last 50 years. The facts do not support your rant.

FredHayek wrote: So Spain is in trouble not because of austerity but because of too many years of Keynsian economics? Dick Lamn wrote an opinion piece in the Post a couple weeks ago about Keynsians who just can't stop. Even when unemployment was 4%, they wanted more jobs programs and more spending instead of saving and operating in their budget.

And now the Obama administration wants to create another property bubble by making home loans easier to get again. (And help drive up property prices.)

Dick Lamm likes to see his name in the news regardless of whether he actually knows anything.

Spain's economy went into the toilet when the housing boom went bust, not because of "Keynesian" policies, then was devasted when it imposed austerity measures that destroyed the economy. But go ahead and make up your own "factoids" since you already do.

LOL, your economic illiteracy is legendary. Quick, look up your talking points for the housing boom/bust.

Something the Dog Said wrote: I note that despite your ill-informed rant about Obama and tax hikes, currently most if not all Americans are paying the lowest rate on taxes in the last 50 years. The facts do not support your rant.

FALSE: My Federal tax burden increased at the beginning of the year as it did for many in the middle class.

The Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan Washington research group, estimates that 77 percent of American households will face higher federal taxes in 2013 under the agreement negotiated between President Barack Obama and Senate Republicans. High-income families will feel the biggest tax increases, but many middle- and low-income families will pay higher taxes too.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/payroll-tax-rise-article-1.1231335

The Democrats have lost on sequestration

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... estration/

Recall the Democrats’ original theory of the case: Sequestration was supposed to be so threatening that Republicans would agree to a budget deal that included tax increases rather than permit it to happen. That theory was wrong. The follow-up theory was that the actual pain caused by sequestration would be so great that it would, in a matter of months, push the two sides to agree to a deal. Democrats just proved that theory wrong, too.

It is worth noting how different the Democrats’ approach to sequestration has been to the GOP’s approach to, well, everything. Over the past five years, Republicans have repeatedly accepted short-term political pain to win the leverage necessary for long-term policy gain. That’s the governing political principle behind their threats to shut down the government, breach the debt ceiling, and, for that matter, accept sequestration. Today, Democrats showed they’re not willing to accept even a bit of short-term pain for leverage on sequestration. They played a game of chicken with the Republicans, and they lost. Badly.

Deficit Reduction.

OmniScience wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: I note that despite your ill-informed rant about Obama and tax hikes, currently most if not all Americans are paying the lowest rate on taxes in the last 50 years. The facts do not support your rant.

FALSE: My Federal tax burden increased at the beginning of the year as it did for many in the middle class.

The Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan Washington research group, estimates that 77 percent of American households will face higher federal taxes in 2013 under the agreement negotiated between President Barack Obama and Senate Republicans. High-income families will feel the biggest tax increases, but many middle- and low-income families will pay higher taxes too.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/payroll-tax-rise-article-1.1231335

You federal tax burden increased because the House GOP refused to renew the payroll tax break.