Las Vegas Advisor Menu
« LVA Forums « Vegas Free-for-All

Almost broke again

pjstroh
pjstroh
Sep 6, 2013
2:57am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: DonDiego
Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
Give me one noteable example in the last 100 years of US history where an ongoing reduction in government spending was coupled with an ongoing expanding economy.

It is quite difficult to find an example of an actual reduction in government spending in the last 100 years.



Yeah, I cant find many examples either. Surprising since that seems to be the underlying philosophy of one of our major political parties - at least when they aren't responsible for running the executive branch.

I would postulate "removing money from the economy" and "adding money to the economy" are two mututally exclusive things. And based upon their economic legacy, it would appear every president from the last 100 years would agree.
Roulette Man
Roulette Man
Sep 6, 2013
4:10am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: jatki99
HA! What am I saying, we already are,but it's that time to the US is almost out of money yet again and time to fight over raising the debt limit YET ONCE AGAIN. sigh...
Reagan raised it 17 times without a fight. But I think we had a lot fewer drama queens back in the 1980's.


But Reagan, But Bush. What an absurd argument. We are reaching debts that are unsustainable and you make this argument.
hoops2
hoops2
Sep 6, 2013
4:14am
Block User
Trillion dollar deficits cannot go on forever. And while the current deficit is under that, the long term prognosis that it will go back up to that level.

SS and medicare spending will eventually consume 100% of the tax revenue.

Remember when obama was going to go thru the budget line by line to remove wasteful spending?
forkushV
forkushV
Sep 6, 2013
4:30am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: Roulette Man
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: jatki99
HA! What am I saying, we already are,but it's that time to the US is almost out of money yet again and time to fight over raising the debt limit YET ONCE AGAIN. sigh...
Reagan raised it 17 times without a fight. But I think we had a lot fewer drama queens back in the 1980's.


But Reagan, But Bush. What an absurd argument. We are reaching debts that are unsustainable and you make this argument.
Oh, did I forget? But Clinton! He raised the debt ceiling four times. Because it's, you know, normal, especially in a recession.

And the deficit is down over 40% since Obama took over.

jatki
jatki
Sep 6, 2013
4:33am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
You can demand the government pursue austerity or that it pursues growth. You cant have it effectively do both. And thats the whole problem with many people in and out of government right now. They demand we grow GDP and put people to work while simultaneously demanding we cut millions of jobs from the public sector and public spending.

You cant have it both ways. Pick which one is more important to you and weigh in accordingly.


I dunno PJ, the sequester was supposed to have "draconian effects" when it was implemented and there has been no noticable effect on the sluggish economy at all. Now the fed starting to taper the stimulus will/is having an effect, but that's not really "adding money" to the economy, is it?

jatki
jatki
Sep 6, 2013
4:48am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: jatki99
HA! What am I saying, we already are,but it's that time to the US is almost out of money yet again and time to fight over raising the debt limit YET ONCE AGAIN. sigh...
Reagan raised it 17 times without a fight. But I think we had a lot fewer drama queens back in the 1980's.


That's just deflecting the issue and no argument about anything relevant to the current situation at all, is it? But to respond and humor you, I don't give two shits what happened back when Reagan or anyone else raised the debt limit in the past. And to further make your statement a moot one, at no time did the fed debt ever come close to the GDP under Reagan ,not even close. The only time in history that it has exceeded GDP is during the new deal era and FDR. WWII brought us out of that.

Drama queens my ass, some people ought to be up on the hill with more drama than a frickin' greek tragedy.

An end to riders and give the pres the power of line veto would be a tremendous start to helping things I believe.

All IMHO of course

Roulette Man
Roulette Man
Sep 6, 2013
4:52am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: Roulette Man
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: jatki99
HA! What am I saying, we already are,but it's that time to the US is almost out of money yet again and time to fight over raising the debt limit YET ONCE AGAIN. sigh...
Reagan raised it 17 times without a fight. But I think we had a lot fewer drama queens back in the 1980's.


But Reagan, But Bush. What an absurd argument. We are reaching debts that are unsustainable and you make this argument.
Oh, did I forget? But Clinton! He raised the debt ceiling four times. Because it's, you know, normal, especially in a recession.

And the deficit is down over 40% since Obama took over.


Again a very misleading statement from the fork tongued one. You are talking about the annual deficit, not the overall national deficit. Your argument once again is extemely shallow and rather inept. You can't continue to heap on debt and expect future generations to either be taxed or for the economy to eventually outgrow it.

I think of things from the past that probably wouldn't be done today just because of the huge federal debt. This would include things like putting a man on the moon.
forkushV
forkushV
Sep 6, 2013
5:10am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: Roulette Man
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Oh, did I forget? But Clinton! He raised the debt ceiling four times. Because it's, you know, normal, especially in a recession.

And the deficit is down over 40% since Obama took over.


Again a very misleading statement from the fork tongued one. You are talking about the annual deficit, not the overall national deficit...
There is no such thing as the "overall national deficit." It doesn't exist, and never has. Now you're just making shit up to make your argument.

The "national debt" of the federal government is the combined debt throughout our history, and it is still rising, although at a MUCH slower rate than before. The deficit is a one year snapshot.

And the deficit is down over 40% since Obama took over. Even if you don't want it to be.



Don
Don
Sep 6, 2013
5:13am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
Yeah, I cant find many examples either. Surprising since that seems to be the underlying philosophy of one of our major political parties - at least when they aren't responsible for running the executive branch.

Nonetheless, DonDiego provided an example as requested - the 1990s.

Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
I would postulate "removing money from the economy" and "adding money to the economy" are two mututally exclusive things. And based upon their economic legacy, it would appear every president from the last 100 years would agree.

"Adding money to the economy" and "removing money from the economy" are, . . . umm, . . . different things, but mutually exclusive? DonDiego doesn't think so. He really cannot address the issue without some definition.

Does "adding money to the economy" mean, f'rinstance, Government spending? Does "removing money from the economy" mean, f'rinstance, Government taxation?
Or what exactly does pjstroh mean by "adding money to the economy" and "removing money from the economy"?




Roulette Man
Roulette Man
Sep 6, 2013
5:22am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: Roulette Man
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Oh, did I forget? But Clinton! He raised the debt ceiling four times. Because it's, you know, normal, especially in a recession.

And the deficit is down over 40% since Obama took over.


Again a very misleading statement from the fork tongued one. You are talking about the annual deficit, not the overall national deficit...
There is no such thing as the "overall national deficit." It doesn't exist, and never has. Now you're just making shit up to make your argument.

The "national debt" of the federal government is the combined debt throughout our history, and it is still rising, although at a MUCH slower rate than before. The deficit is a one year snapshot.

And the deficit is down over 40% since Obama took over. Even if you don't want it to be.


Again another argument that makes absolutely no sense from you. If the deficit is down 40%, then why is Congress FIGHTING OVER RAISING THE DEBT LIMIT?
Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now