Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   National Budgets and Budget Deficits
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1 of 19 (455152)
02-10-2008 10:21 PM


I few years back Canada was running a deficit and going further into debt. It became a big issue here for all parties and we now have been running surplus budgets and paying down the debt for years. As a result our dollar has gone from the mid 60's up to around par (it peaked at 1.10) with the US dollar.
I hardly ever seem to hear anything by any of the candidates about the huge deficit that is being run by the US govt., let alone the mountain of debt including foreign debt that is accumulating.(Except Ron Paul and he isn't going anywhere.) There is the usual talk about cutting spending but nobody is suggesting that they will bring in a balanced budget, unless I'm missing something which is always possible.
Doesn't anybody think this is a problem?
{Note: This new topic message 1 is from message 103 of the "Your prediction about outcome of Super Tuesday" topic. - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change "Devicits" to "Deficits" in topic title.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See note above.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Taz, posted 02-11-2008 10:07 AM GDR has replied
 Message 5 by obvious Child, posted 02-12-2008 7:30 PM GDR has replied
 Message 6 by Chiroptera, posted 02-12-2008 7:33 PM GDR has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 2 of 19 (455185)
02-11-2008 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by GDR
02-10-2008 10:21 PM


GDR writes:
There is the usual talk about cutting spending but nobody is suggesting that they will bring in a balanced budget, unless I'm missing something which is always possible.
Well, considering the fact that most christians seem to think Bush is Jesus Christ II, it's political suicide to question the way he handled our budget. At the same time, he's run this country so much into deficit that I don't think the current candidates know what to do to rebalance the budget.
This I have to question. Republicans pride themselves in the ideals that the best gov is the small gov that's least interfering with our lives as well as least expensive. Bush has done just the opposite and somehow he's still considered the 2nd son of god. Makes no sense to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by GDR, posted 02-10-2008 10:21 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by GDR, posted 02-11-2008 11:03 AM Taz has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 3 of 19 (455191)
02-11-2008 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Taz
02-11-2008 10:07 AM


Hello again Taz.
I would agree that there are a group of Christians in the US that will always vote with a Christian that they believes shares their beliefs. There are also those who wouldn't ever vote for someone like Bush because of his beliefs.
Frankly, when I vote I want the best person for the job. I wouldn't support Huckabee as I don't see getting rid of the IRS as the solution to getting rid of the deficit.
Looking backwards by pointing the finger at Bush isn't a solution. Sure he took the problem of deficit spending and made the problem far worse. In this election you are looking at the future and blaming Bush isn't a solution. How is that going to help the fututre of your kids.
Where is the will by any of the candidates to put out a platform that outlines how they would reach a balanced budget? It is just the elephant in the room that nobody seems to talk about. Ron Paul does but the other candidates treat him with derision.
All of the candidates talk about how they are going to spend money on things like health care, Iraq etc. They only speak in very general terms about reducing expenses. None of the major candidates have the guts to say that there is a major problem that we have to address and here's how I would do it.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Taz, posted 02-11-2008 10:07 AM Taz has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 4 of 19 (455494)
02-12-2008 4:39 PM


Are there chickens on the horizon?
Some day these chickens are going to home to roost.
MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos
U.S. deficit running at twice last year's
Federal spending also rising at faster pace than last year

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 5 of 19 (455527)
02-12-2008 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by GDR
02-10-2008 10:21 PM


quote:
I hardly ever seem to hear anything by any of the candidates about the huge deficit that is being run by the US govt., let alone the mountain of debt including foreign debt that is accumulating.(Except Ron Paul and he isn't going anywhere.) There is the usual talk about cutting spending but nobody is suggesting that they will bring in a balanced budget, unless I'm missing something which is always possible.
Doesn't anybody think this is a problem?
Of course it's an problem. Economic Conservatives are furious with the Republican party. But the problem is most Americans are too busy or too stupid to pay attention to the problem of mounting debts and deficits. What they do pay attention to is the falling dollar, but Americans in general have weak economic backgrounds. Many are supporting the stimulus plan and interest rate cuts. Both of those will further weaken the dollar, yet I have not seen any mention of that in any major media outlet.
No one talks about cutting spending and raising taxes because it doesn't get them votes. The problem with Populist Democracies is that the people vote to elect politicians that will help them, not do what is best for the country. Hence we keep putting off the issues that matter to pander to the issues that people care about.
David Walker, the comptroller of the federal government has been running around the country with people from both the conservative Heritage foundation and liberal brooks institute trying to inform people of the coming fiscal crisis. Yet obviously his campaign isn't working.
Americans are dumb. There are still people who think that supply side economics is a good idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by GDR, posted 02-10-2008 10:21 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by GDR, posted 02-12-2008 7:42 PM obvious Child has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 19 (455530)
02-12-2008 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by GDR
02-10-2008 10:21 PM


Probably because no one has ever heard anyone actually explain what the problem with increasing deficits are, just that is is "bad" for some reason.

If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey.
Haven't you always wanted a monkey?
-- The Barenaked Ladies

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by GDR, posted 02-10-2008 10:21 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by obvious Child, posted 02-12-2008 7:43 PM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 9 by GDR, posted 02-12-2008 7:45 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 7 of 19 (455533)
02-12-2008 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by obvious Child
02-12-2008 7:30 PM


obvious child writes:
Americans are dumb. There are still people who think that supply side economics is a good idea.
Well as a Canadian let me say I disagree with the first part of your statement and as for the second part I can't see where supply side economics has anything to do with it. It doesn't matter what economic philosophy you believe in. Spending more than you earn is just not a good thing whether it be in your household or your country.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by obvious Child, posted 02-12-2008 7:30 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by obvious Child, posted 02-12-2008 7:48 PM GDR has replied
 Message 16 by nator, posted 02-13-2008 8:15 AM GDR has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 8 of 19 (455534)
02-12-2008 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Chiroptera
02-12-2008 7:33 PM


Or that the remaining republicans who haven't jumped ship may still believe that "deficits don't matter."
Most people just don't understand macro economics and how it relates to international relations. So we ignore them for issues like gay marriage. Seriously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Chiroptera, posted 02-12-2008 7:33 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by GDR, posted 02-12-2008 7:49 PM obvious Child has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 9 of 19 (455537)
02-12-2008 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Chiroptera
02-12-2008 7:33 PM


chiroptera writes:
Probably because no one has ever heard anyone actually explain what the problem with increasing deficits are, just that is is "bad" for some reason.
It seems to me that my approach is about as simplistic as it gets. Deficits just mean accumulating and accelerating debt. High levels of debt that you don't have the income or the reserves to cover just ain't good.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Chiroptera, posted 02-12-2008 7:33 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Taz, posted 02-12-2008 10:24 PM GDR has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 10 of 19 (455538)
02-12-2008 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by GDR
02-12-2008 7:42 PM


quote:
Well as a Canadian let me say I disagree with the first part of your statement and as for the second part I can't see where supply side economics has anything to do with it. It doesn't matter what economic philosophy you believe in. Spending more than you earn is just not a good thing whether it be in your household or your country.
Fine. Humans are stupid. Supply side economics are largely the reason why the debt is where it is now. Under Reagan, the debt skyrocketed. Bush Sr tried to stop it and Clinton went to back to Keynes, but Jr started it all up again. The debt is almost 100% of the US GDP. Republicans still back that logic despite history saying they are completely wrong and that their applied models make things worse. They just don't understand. Supply siders believe that if you cut taxes and give money back, that will result in more taxation revenue as more business is created. Not an bad idea in theory, but Congress has shown it is incapable of cutting spending at the same time. Thus we end up with huge outflows and smaller inflows. So no, they do believe that spending more then you take in is an good idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by GDR, posted 02-12-2008 7:42 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by GDR, posted 02-12-2008 7:52 PM obvious Child has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 11 of 19 (455540)
02-12-2008 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by obvious Child
02-12-2008 7:43 PM


obvious child writes:
Or that the remaining republicans who haven't jumped ship may still believe that "deficits don't matter."
Most people just don't understand macro economics and how it relates to international relations. So we ignore them for issues like gay marriage. Seriously.
But spending is spending whether it is subsidies to businesses or individuals, a war in Iraq, or a universal medicare plan. I don't see it as just a Republican issue. I can't see either party addressing the issue.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by obvious Child, posted 02-12-2008 7:43 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by obvious Child, posted 02-12-2008 7:50 PM GDR has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 12 of 19 (455541)
02-12-2008 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by GDR
02-12-2008 7:49 PM


I don't think you understand just how illiterate Americans are when it comes to economics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by GDR, posted 02-12-2008 7:49 PM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 13 of 19 (455542)
02-12-2008 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by obvious Child
02-12-2008 7:48 PM


obvious child writes:
Fine. Humans are stupid. Supply side economics are largely the reason why the debt is where it is now. Under Reagan, the debt skyrocketed. Bush Sr tried to stop it and Clinton went to back to Keynes, but Jr started it all up again. The debt is almost 100% of the US GDP. Republicans still back that logic despite history saying they are completely wrong and that their applied models make things worse. They just don't understand. Supply siders believe that if you cut taxes and give money back, that will result in more taxation revenue as more business is created. Not an bad idea in theory, but Congress has shown it is incapable of cutting spending at the same time. Thus we end up with huge outflows and smaller inflows. So no, they do believe that spending more then you take in is an good idea.
I'll buy all of that. I agree that supply side econmics is a good theory but not to the point that you run into deficit.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by obvious Child, posted 02-12-2008 7:48 PM obvious Child has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 14 of 19 (455578)
02-12-2008 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by GDR
02-12-2008 7:45 PM


GDR writes:
It seems to me that my approach is about as simplistic as it gets. Deficits just mean accumulating and accelerating debt. High levels of debt that you don't have the income or the reserves to cover just ain't good.
GDR, you didn't actually answer him at all.
It helps to view deficits as borrowing money from the future by spending more money than what you actually have. Ordinary people do this by using their credit cards. The difference between the government doing this and ordinary people doing this is ordinary people have to pay back their debt while the government could continue to do this without anyone actually calling in the debts. After all, your grandson can't just pick up the phone and call 70 years into the past and say "gee, grandpa, could you please start paying back the money you borrowed?"
Yes, everyone seems to agree that deficits are bad, but noone actually knows why it is bad.
In the past, other governments have tried to spend more money than they had by printing out more money. This created inflation and eventually ran their economies down the drain. However, so far there hasn't really been any disasterous side affect that anyone could see from borrowing money from the future. I guess as long as the debt collectors from the future don't show up at our doorsteps, we'll continue to spend money that we don't actually have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by GDR, posted 02-12-2008 7:45 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by GDR, posted 02-13-2008 1:32 AM Taz has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 15 of 19 (455612)
02-13-2008 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Taz
02-12-2008 10:24 PM


Taz writes:
GDR, you didn't actually answer him at all.
Actually he didn't ask a question. It was just a comment.
As for the rest of your post I agree except to point out that in this case the result so far has been a depreciation of the US dollar without causing runaway inflation. However it seems to me that as the cost of all your imports go up inflation is going to be a problem sooner or later.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Taz, posted 02-12-2008 10:24 PM Taz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024