Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama focuses on spending cuts, closing tax loopholes in weekly address (170 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Of course governments are not like (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    satrap

    families. I didn't say that. In fact I was quite deliberate in my comment to say that it was a wise political way of putting it given than families, many of whom are struggling and do have to spend only what they are making, are thinking.

    Obviously governments and families are not the same. I'm addressing POLITICAL messaging. Re read my comment. I choose my words carefully, generally speaking.

    •  I think it's simply very (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mdmslle

      useful political messaging.

      A president is never, ever, ever going to convince the citizenry that the govt can somehow budget differently than the family WHILE the deficit is x trillion dollars.

      It just looks goofy and it makes the political class appear tone-deaf.

      From Neocon to sane- thanks to Obama- and Kos.

      by satrap on Sat Jul 02, 2011 at 08:31:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Please (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      psyched

      You, "the notion that we, as a nation, ought to be aspiring to spend what we rake in."

      Why?  Exactly why do you believe this?  Provide the logic or evidence leading to this conclusion.

      If I was a communist, rich men would fear me...And the opposite applies. The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

      by stewarjt on Sat Jul 02, 2011 at 08:32:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why not? Are you suggesting that (0+ / 0-)

        any entity is better off spending more than they make long-term?

        I hope not.

        Yes, there are times when we will and should - just like any other entity. But again, (and I choose my words carefully), i think there is nothing wrong with aspiring to spend what you take in. That's a good and worthy aspiration.

        We had (at one point before the middle class disappeared) a GDP of 14 trillion. We are not broke. But wouldn't it be great if we could spend 14 trillion too? And wouldn't it be great to operate at a surplus, like you so proudly lauded Clinton for?

        Of course it would. And yes, there would be times where we'd need to spend more than we take in - to grow the economy or our infrastructure or fund research for example - but I see nothing wrong with aspiring to spend what we take in so long as the needs of the populace are met.

        I think you need to reject GOP framing. There is a lot of sensibleness between where they are (which is completely off the rails) and sensible governance. The sensible approach to it is not the opposite of the GOP's position, since they are not really on the actual playing field. They're in the pRking lot of the stadium having tailgate parties and pretending to know what they're talking about.

        The game is in the stadium.

        There's room for senible governance which includes spending and revenue being as close to each other as possible whenever possible. There's not a single thing wrong with that goal.

        •  I'm Asking One More Time (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          psyched

          For your reasons WHY the government should "aspire" to spend less than revenues.

          Why is a budget surplus desirable now or in the future?What are your reasons, concrete reasons?  Because you "see nothing wrong" with a budget surplus isn't a very strong reason.  Do you agree?

          Please see this post by Dr. Dean Baker, especially the last paragraph before you respond again.

          If I was a communist, rich men would fear me...And the opposite applies. The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

          by stewarjt on Sat Jul 02, 2011 at 08:55:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  A budget surplus is a good thing to (0+ / 0-)

            have because it allows you to grow and expend when and where needed without borrowing against future revenue. It makes for a more stable economy.

            If we didn't have a debt right now, how might our actions domestically be different?

            Could we be talking about investing, say, 3 trillion over three years into, say, completely revamping our energy grid? Or throwing ourselves into biotech research? Or helping a foreign nation rebuild? Or restting our health care system from the ground up?

            Maybe.

            But instead at every turn whenever an expenditure is suggested (well, almost whenever), someone trots out how much we already owe.

            I've answered your question.  It's much better and more stable long-term  to operate without debt than with it, if it can be helped.

            By the way, I didn't say anything about now. Not one word.
            Now is a bad time to cut so severly that it ends up costing money in the long run. That's not what I'm talking about and so please be clear on it. Reread my comments. I'm very deliberate in my wording.

            •  Respectfully (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              psyched

              Deliberate in wording, cloudy in thinking.

              It appears your only reason for cutting the deficit is that it "allows you to grow and expend when and where needed without borrowing against future revenue."

              This can be done without a surplus.  You're confusing what is possible with what Republicans say is possible.  It's possible to do all you say with a big deficit if someone leads!

              There's nothing undesirable about government borrowing in the current situation.  Therefore, this is NOT the time to cut spending!!!

              What sticks in the craw is your desire to defend a Republican policy offered by a so-called Democratic president just because you may like him.  I lean to this position because your reasons for cutting the deficit, now or in the future aren't strong ones.

              President Obama isn't acting in the interests of most people now.  It's any wonder why a smart man is doing exactly the wrong thing for most people in the US.  Who is he listening to?  It's not the people.

              There are 25 million people who are officially unemployed, involuntarily working part time and jobless, but not officially counted as unemployed.  Any good Keynesian, and you say you're familiar, knows this is EXACTLY THE WRONG TIME TO BE CUTTING SPENDING!

              For more on this position please see Dr. Paul Krugman's latest post here.

              If I was a communist, rich men would fear me...And the opposite applies. The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

              by stewarjt on Sat Jul 02, 2011 at 10:08:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  And you need to read MY comments (0+ / 0-)

            i have addressed health care as issue number two in my book as a perfect example of how we could cut spending while improving services in our society.

            Cutting military spending was my first.

            Just because 'cut spending' comes out of themmouths of GOP deficit hypocrites more often than anywhere else doesn't mean there's no room for our side to have a sane discussion about it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site