Posted by cccp1014 on 9/15/2017 12:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/15/2017 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 9/15/2017 12:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/15/2017 11:46:00 AM (view original):
I'm not blaming either administration. You're ignoring reality.

Regardless of who is/was president, if the economy crashes because demand disappears, cutting spending and/or raising taxes to fight debt is stupid because it does more harm to the economy.

Reality is Bush went into Iraq (stupid) and didn't monitor the mortgage market/I Bank regulations...another mistake. Dumbass. He and his administration are 100% to blame. Obama inherited a mess but I don't see anything that he did to fix the mess:

-- He spent all his political capital on that stupid healthcare reform that neither party likes and both want to amend.
-- He went overboard with his regulations, which froze credit and slowed the recovery. In my job alone the compliance work that is required is costly and mind boggling.
-- He left the World with the rise of Isis, mess in Syria, rise of Russian power (see Crimea); stronger N. Korea; Angered Israel with his stupid Iran deal
-- Under his leadership the racial tensions rose ridiculously high. See BLM, see Ferguson, see Baltimore.
-- He was supportive of the job killing TPP


Now you will come out and try to defend all this rhetoric. But the end result was the Country was angry and elected someone who is totally disparate from him in Donald Trump.

You're moving the goalposts.

We're specifically talking about the debt. Do you or do you not agree that taking actions to reduce the debt (cutting spending/raising taxes) would have caused further damage to an economy in trouble?

Yes, in the first two years not in the final six years. My problem is that he increased the debt without a plan to ever pay it back or decrease it. He lowered the deficit via the stupid sequester. I admitted that 50% was due to Bush but I hold him accountable for the other 50%.

--- He did nothing to curb corporate inversions
--- He did nothing to stop jobs from going overseas
--- He lowered military spend

So while he increased the debt, what did the country truly get out of it other than an inflated stock market?

I feel like you're just vomiting words on the page without really understanding what you're writing.

You say he "lowered the deficit via the stupid sequester," one breath after saying he did nothing to lower the debt. You can't lower the debt until you eliminate the deficit. You're mad that he cut military spending when lower military spending is a great option for lowering the deficit.

Part of the deficit lowering was spending cuts, part of it was economic growth. Combined, the deficit went from around $1.5 trillion in 2009 and 2010 to under $600 billion in 2016. All while bringing unemployment to historical lows.

If you want to argue that Obama should have done more to grow wages and push the benefits of the recovery towards the middle and lower classes, I absolutely agree. But I also think that his hands were somewhat tied by a congress that refused to consider things like a jobs program or large scale infrastructure bills, things that usually have at least some bipartisan appeal. Getting to real difference makers like laws to increase worker leverage in the market, were non-starters.

Posted by bad_luck on 9/15/2017 1:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 9/15/2017 12:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/15/2017 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 9/15/2017 12:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/15/2017 11:46:00 AM (view original):
I'm not blaming either administration. You're ignoring reality.

Regardless of who is/was president, if the economy crashes because demand disappears, cutting spending and/or raising taxes to fight debt is stupid because it does more harm to the economy.

Reality is Bush went into Iraq (stupid) and didn't monitor the mortgage market/I Bank regulations...another mistake. Dumbass. He and his administration are 100% to blame. Obama inherited a mess but I don't see anything that he did to fix the mess:

-- He spent all his political capital on that stupid healthcare reform that neither party likes and both want to amend.
-- He went overboard with his regulations, which froze credit and slowed the recovery. In my job alone the compliance work that is required is costly and mind boggling.
-- He left the World with the rise of Isis, mess in Syria, rise of Russian power (see Crimea); stronger N. Korea; Angered Israel with his stupid Iran deal
-- Under his leadership the racial tensions rose ridiculously high. See BLM, see Ferguson, see Baltimore.
-- He was supportive of the job killing TPP


Now you will come out and try to defend all this rhetoric. But the end result was the Country was angry and elected someone who is totally disparate from him in Donald Trump.

You're moving the goalposts.

We're specifically talking about the debt. Do you or do you not agree that taking actions to reduce the debt (cutting spending/raising taxes) would have caused further damage to an economy in trouble?

Yes, in the first two years not in the final six years. My problem is that he increased the debt without a plan to ever pay it back or decrease it. He lowered the deficit via the stupid sequester. I admitted that 50% was due to Bush but I hold him accountable for the other 50%.

--- He did nothing to curb corporate inversions
--- He did nothing to stop jobs from going overseas
--- He lowered military spend

So while he increased the debt, what did the country truly get out of it other than an inflated stock market?

I feel like you're just vomiting words on the page without really understanding what you're writing.

You say he "lowered the deficit via the stupid sequester," one breath after saying he did nothing to lower the debt. You can't lower the debt until you eliminate the deficit. You're mad that he cut military spending when lower military spending is a great option for lowering the deficit.

Part of the deficit lowering was spending cuts, part of it was economic growth. Combined, the deficit went from around $1.5 trillion in 2009 and 2010 to under $600 billion in 2016. All while bringing unemployment to historical lows.

If you want to argue that Obama should have done more to grow wages and push the benefits of the recovery towards the middle and lower classes, I absolutely agree. But I also think that his hands were somewhat tied by a congress that refused to consider things like a jobs program or large scale infrastructure bills, things that usually have at least some bipartisan appeal. Getting to real difference makers like laws to increase worker leverage in the market, were non-starters.

You are not addressing the over regulation on banks and lack of laws preventing corporate inversions. He had capital and spent it all on Obamacare, which both parties currently dislike. I think fixing the deficit has many phases but one of them is not lowering military spend. Maybe you improve it but you don't lower it. You also refuse to address how did not curb jobs from going overseas. So while he curbed the deficit somewhat it was mostly due to the sequester. It was not due to improved GDP or wage growth (stagnant under him).

We are actually sort of agreeing.

You're both talking about the same subject.......... that's a start.......... not sure I'd call it agreement.

What did the Country GET out of the debt increase Boris??? We're still free and functioning, for one thing.
There WAS some serious concern of economic failure when Obama received the helm!

Posted by laramiebob on 9/15/2017 1:22:00 PM (view original):
You're both talking about the same subject.......... that's a start.......... not sure I'd call it agreement.

What did the Country GET out of the debt increase Boris??? We're still free and functioning, for one thing.
There WAS some serious concern of economic failure when Obama received the helm!

Wait so Obama was the Emperor? I was just told he could not get anything done and the House and Senate stopped him. So did they save us or Obama? Bob, your view is certainly left. Which is of course fine but I do disagree with you on this topic. 100%.

Posted by bronxcheer on 9/15/2017 1:26:00 PM (view original):
Repuglican Presidents bring tax cuts, then recesssions/depressions, inflation, high gas prices......then Democrats to clean up their messes

So you assume Presidents are Emperors, OK.

You are not addressing the over regulation on banks and lack of laws preventing corporate inversions.

I'm not going to pretend to be a tax avoidance expert, but I can't imagine a GOP congress being open to things like regulations on earnings stripping.

Obamacare, which both parties currently dislike

Well, this is not true. I think you're referencing charts that show something like 1/3 hate obamacare, 1/3 like obamacare as is, 1/3 wish obamacare went further. That should be read as 2/3 like, 1/3 dislike.

I think fixing the deficit has many phases but one of them is not lowering military spend

I don't see why military spending isn't a reasonable cut.

You also refuse to address how did not curb jobs from going overseas

Jobs go overseas because labor costs are so much lower. There is no simple fix to this. High-paying, union manufacturing jobs are probably never coming back, at least not large-scale.

It was not due to improved GDP

The lower deficit certainly is a function of growth. You can see it by tracking outlays vs revenue instead of the deficit itself. Outlays have been relatively flat the last 5 years (mid to upper $3T), revenue has gone up (mid $2T in 2012, mid $3T now).

no no I mean corporate inversions where if a Company can move just 20% of its operations to say Ireland they can incorporate in Ireland and pay a 12% tax rate vs. 40% here. I think Military spend is not as high of a priority as are entitlements. Military at least gives us innovation. But wasting out military in Iraq certainly didn't help.

Yeah I understand what corporate inversions are. They only work if you're able to get revenue out too. Companies do that through earning stripping. Again, I'm not going to pretend to be an expert, but I doubt the GOP would be in favor of regulations that stop that. (Also, the corporate rate is 35% here, not 40%...and almost no corporations pay 35%)

It's difficult to cut entitlements. You're cutting benefits to mostly poor people so that you don't have to tax wealthy people as much. That's politically unpopular for good reason.

Posted by bad_luck on 9/15/2017 2:18:00 PM (view original):
Yeah I understand what corporate inversions are. They only work if you're able to get revenue out too. Companies do that through earning stripping. Again, I'm not going to pretend to be an expert, but I doubt the GOP would be in favor of regulations that stop that. (Also, the corporate rate is 35% here, not 40%...and almost no corporations pay 35%)

It's difficult to cut entitlements. You're cutting benefits to mostly poor people so that you don't have to tax wealthy people as much. That's politically unpopular for good reason.

35% - Fed and in most states 5% state so ~40%
GOP may or may not be based on the lobbyists but it needs to be addressed. I think tax evasion, which is what this is hurts the country.
It is difficult to cut entitlements but they are much more expensive than military spend so while difficult it needs to be addressed. There are no easy choices but there are necessary choices. Population is aging and I see many elderly going to doctors for the sake of going to doctors and over prescription of pills is insane. I don't have all the answers but you cannot just keep doing the same old same old and hope for the best. So Obama concentrated on military reduction, which IMO was stupid. He should have tried to see what we can do to cut corruption and inadequacy of the entitlements. I didn't see him address that one time!

Posted by bad_luck on 9/15/2017 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 9/15/2017 12:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/15/2017 11:46:00 AM (view original):
I'm not blaming either administration. You're ignoring reality.

Regardless of who is/was president, if the economy crashes because demand disappears, cutting spending and/or raising taxes to fight debt is stupid because it does more harm to the economy.

Reality is Bush went into Iraq (stupid) and didn't monitor the mortgage market/I Bank regulations...another mistake. Dumbass. He and his administration are 100% to blame. Obama inherited a mess but I don't see anything that he did to fix the mess:

-- He spent all his political capital on that stupid healthcare reform that neither party likes and both want to amend.
-- He went overboard with his regulations, which froze credit and slowed the recovery. In my job alone the compliance work that is required is costly and mind boggling.
-- He left the World with the rise of Isis, mess in Syria, rise of Russian power (see Crimea); stronger N. Korea; Angered Israel with his stupid Iran deal
-- Under his leadership the racial tensions rose ridiculously high. See BLM, see Ferguson, see Baltimore.
-- He was supportive of the job killing TPP


Now you will come out and try to defend all this rhetoric. But the end result was the Country was angry and elected someone who is totally disparate from him in Donald Trump.

You're moving the goalposts.

We're specifically talking about the debt. Do you or do you not agree that taking actions to reduce the debt (cutting spending/raising taxes) would have caused further damage to an economy in trouble?

If you can find me specific examples where a specific country took actions to reduce debt during a recession and it backfired, then I might agree with you. But I need facts, not some lefty taking points.

It's not a lefty talking point. It's a truth that people on both sides know.

From Business Insider:

One of the under-remarked on things in the Mark Halperin interview of Mitt Romney in Time magazine comes here.

Halperin: Why not in the first year, if you're elected — why not in 2013, go all the way and propose the kind of budget with spending restraints, that you'd like to see after four years in office? Why not do it more quickly?

Romney: Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I'm not going to do that, of course. [emphasis mine]

It couldn't be clearer: Mitt Romney believes that a large cuts to federal outlays will throw us into a recession or depression.

This is written by a different BI columnist arguing for Romney's election in 2012:

There's a zero percent chance that a first-term President, with few obvious convictions other than wanting to be President, does anything that would slow GDP (and that includes cut government spending), when his first goal from the day he takes the Oath Of Office would be to get re-elected in 2016.

And an actual example: Brazil

They were in a recession in 2015 and decided that huge spending cuts to shrink the deficit were the solution. Unemployment went from 9% to 13% over the next year.

This is pretty good too: Reagan used massive government spending to end recession