Skip to main content

View Diary: 94 percent of Americans don't know the budget deficit is getting smaller (126 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Deficit is down due to tax increases mostly (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SpamNunn, nextstep

    Yes, it is down.  But not for lack of spending.  Or, any belt-tightening on the part of this bloated behemoth we call our federal government.

    Most of the reduction was from increased taxes, budget caps that kicked in and reduced projected interest.  All good things.

    But, please.. we keep seeing these "deficit cuts" figures going forward over ten years as if this administration was cutting spending.  They are not.  Spending still increases.

    •  What tax increases are you referring to? (0+ / 0-)

      Tax increases before Jan 2013? Were there tax increases prior? Because the growth of the deficit was down for 2012.  So, please clarify your claims.

      So far as fed govt spending is projected to grow over the next decade, that growth is tied to expected increases in health care costs ("bloated behemoth"?).  In general, progressives think that privatization leads to consumer gouging (particularly in this era of Grammian-McCainian deregulation), explaining why health care costs have grown out-of-scale to the rest of the economy.

      That's why so many of us progressives support Medicare-for-all.

      What's your position on privatizing Medicare?  

      •  Tax revenues increased since the bottom (0+ / 0-)

        of the recession.

        People need to be more precise when talking "tax increases" or "tax decreases" to indicate if they mean total revenue, tax rates or changes in the calculation.  They are quite different from each other.

        The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

        by nextstep on Sat Feb 23, 2013 at 11:48:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Tax receipts are not the same as tax increases (0+ / 0-)

          Respectfully, your point you try to make to me is not reflected in the comment you uprated:


          Deficit is down due to tax increases mostly (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ..., nextstep

          Yes, it (deficit) is down.  But not for lack of spending.  Or, any belt-tightening on the part of this bloated  behemoth we call our federal government.

          I can see Grover Norquist uprating this comment!

          It's reasonable to ask for clarification. I hope the original commenter will clarify.

          •  I took tax increase in this instance to mean (0+ / 0-)

            Tax revenue increases.  It was also the reason I went on to say the we should be more specific than saying tax increase.

            I updated the other comment for being correct about the reason for the deficit decrease.

            The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

            by nextstep on Sat Feb 23, 2013 at 12:38:18 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Tax revenue increased.. (0+ / 0-)

        but FY 2012 did not see a reduction in deficit.

        FY 2012 had a deficit of $1.3 Trillion dollars

        FY 2013 - mostly because of the newly enacted taxes and the upcoming sequestration, will see a projected deficit of $900 Billion dollars.

        Now, perhaps since I am using Fiscal Years it might seem off to you, but that's really the only way to get accurate data for gov't spending and revenues.

        •  So, are you a deficit hawk? (0+ / 0-)

          I've asked you to disclose your political views, in fairness to the dKos community, since you've accrued TU status.

          While budget deficits and long term government debt are not desirable (some progressives argue that they may be desirable but I don't take that positions) Keynesians tend to view them as necessary evils during periods of recession and depression. What do you think?

          •  Yes.. it should be apparent I am a deficit hawk! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            annominous

            I think I have made that quite obvious around here.

            I think it robs future generations of services they could have had had they not been paying off our debt.  Or, burdens them with taxes to do the same.

            That's not to say I don't think we should be spending.  I have said many times.. if we want services at a certain level, we ALL should be wiling to pay the taxes to provide those services.  Europeans do.  Middle class and even lower middle class are taxed at rates Americans would scream about - but they realize to get the benefits, they must all pay for them.

            As far as Keynsian ideas go.. I'm for government deficit spending for major projects - infrastructure, etc. - true investments.

            What I do NOT think we should be spending borrowed money on is day-to-day services.  If we want to spend money on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and wars - we should be willing to fund them with increased taxes.

            •  OK thanks for disclosing that (0+ / 0-)

              Yes, it's obvious that you are a deficit hawk.

              Were you concerned about Bush's deficit during Bush's time in office? Were you a deficit hawk then?

              If so, were you vocal in your opposition to Bush's deficits? If so, can you point to any protests you made during that era?

              •  Yes.. I was against paying for wars (0+ / 0-)

                on borrowed money.  That is most especially egregious.  If you want to wage war, you should be willing to pay for it.

                Protests?  I don't do protests.. much too busy, especially ten years ago.

                •  Are you a registered as a democrat? (0+ / 0-)

                  Are you here to elect more and better democrats?

                  •  Are you? (0+ / 0-)

                    I don't particularly like your third degree.

                    There is no party registration in Illinois.

                    I vote Democratic most of the time.  I rarely vote in primaries as there is no point here in a red part of Illinois that most of the time doesn't even bother to put up a Dem candidate against the R's.  

                    I do not feel I have to pass your particular purity test.  So, I won't be answering any more of your probing questions.

                    Perhaps you should read:  DailyKos FAQ

                    Who posts here?
                    The quick answer is "anyone who wants to". There are a wide variety of people writing diaries and comments on dkos. They include elected politicians, candidates hoping to become elected politicians, experts in a range of fields, and active bloggers from around the net. The vast majority of writers, however, are ordinary citizens interested in talking about and participating in the political process. The majority of people posting here fall on the liberal side of the US political spectrum, however people of conservative views are welcome to come and debate. If you are polite, you will be treated politely. Unfortunately, there are some people who post comments or diaries with the sole purpose of provoking others. These people are called trolls. Some tips and techniques for dealing with trolls are described below.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site