File this under: Duh, but we're going to ignore it

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Article

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned on Thursday that unless lawmakers come to grips with spiraling U.S. deficits, the economy was at risk of stagnation "or worse."

 

"Under existing tax rates and reasonable assumptions about other spending ... projections make clear that the federal budget is on an unsustainable path, in which large deficits result in rising interest rates and ever-growing interest payments that augment deficits in future years," Greenspan said in testimony prepared for a Senate Budget Committee hearing.

 

He said the danger was that deficits would keep rising as a percentage of total national output.

 

"Unless that trend is reversed, at some point these deficits would cause the economy to stagnate or worse."

 

Much of Greenspan's testimony echoed prior cautions he has made to Capitol Hill lawmakers and he stressed that steps to fix the problem were essential.

 

"As the latest projections from the (Bush) administration and the Congressional Budget Office suggest, our budget position is unlikely to improve substantially in the coming years unless major deficit-reducing actions are taken," the Fed chief said.

[SuperJerk 0]

Of course deficits are bad, but Republicans only care about it when they're out of power.

 

[Slayer 0]

File this thread under: Duh, but we're going to ignore it

[Guest MikeSC]

Of course deficits are bad, but Republicans only care about it when they're out of power.

 

Actually, Republicans were in power during the surplus.

 

Congress controls the money.

 

The current Republicans tend to be craven.

-=Mike

[C Dubya 04 0]

Ah, but Republicans are in complete control now, so that's not saying too much.

 

Obviously the surplus was favorbly impacted by the stock boom of the late 90's, but a downturn had to be expected and better planned for to control this deficit spiral.

[Guest MikeSC]

Ah, but Republicans are in complete control now, so that's not saying too much.

 

Obviously the surplus was favorbly impacted by the stock boom of the late 90's, but a downturn had to be expected and better planned for to control this deficit spiral.

As I said, the Republicans are craven. They are so anxious to curry favor that they won't make a difficult choice.

-=Mike

[Special K 0]

I think Dem president, Republican Congress is the way to go. Republicans (hopefully) keep spending in check, the Pres (hopefully) veto some of the Republicans social conservatism.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

That's why I like having a divided Congress.

 

I was thinking about this not so long ago -- what would it have been like had that Balanced Budge Amendment been passed 10 years ago?

 

Oh, and Steve J. I would pay attention to what Alan Greenspan has to say, but Democrats told me earlier this year that he's a political hack...

[SuperJerk 0]

It took Clinton winning for the Republicans to get their act together and get serious about deficit reduction back in 1993. During both the 1980s and today, they could've cared less.

 

Of course deficits are bad, but Republicans only care about it when they're out of power.

 

Actually, Republicans were in power during the surplus.

In this case, "out of power" is a euphemism for controling the executive branch (where most of the power is). Congress can't do anything substantial without the President's approval. The President would, therefore, have to approve of those deficits in order for them to come into existence.

 

Please notice the correlation between Republican presidents and growing deficits.

 

Please also note the correlation between growing deficits and tax cuts.

[Justice 0]

Please notice the correlation between Republican presidents and growing deficits.

 

Please also note the correlation between growing deficits and tax cuts.

Not true. LBJ and Carter created bigger and bigger deficits (Also consider what they would be adjusted, as well) until Reagan did it, and then Reagan's economy was perhaps the best we've ever had, making the deficit less of a problem because of the massive growth we had. Your arguments are as short-sighted those who used it before you. The impact the deficit makes is completely dependent on the context, and a deficit isn't necessarily a problem in certain contexts.

 

And I'd attribute the Clinton Years non-deficit to both sides putting up hard fronts at the start, therefore forcing Clinton to make sure that his budget will at least pass, so no frills. More necessity than anything else.

[SuperJerk 0]

Please notice the correlation between Republican presidents and growing deficits.

 

Please also note the correlation between growing deficits and tax cuts.

Not true. LBJ and Carter created bigger and bigger deficits (Also consider what they would be adjusted, as well)

Way to ignore the chart.

**applauds**

 

For reference, Johnson's term ended in 1969, and Carter's ended in 1981 (yes, there was a spike at the end of the Carter term due to inflation, but for the most past the deficit declined while he was in office).

 

Everything else you said in that paragraph was Reagan apologist bullshit. (Reagan's economy was the best we ever had? That's a total load of crap.)

 

I'd attribute the Clinton Years non-deficit to both sides putting up hard fronts at the start, therefore forcing Clinton to make sure that his budget will at least pass, so no frills. More necessity than anything else.

 

I can't argue with this, but unfortunately the current administration seems to be oblivious to the greater neccesity we have today.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Actually, RobotJerk, the 1980s-1998 peacetime expansion was the best economic boom nonwartime in the 20th century.

 

Justice is also correct that given the booming growth, the deficit debt wasnt a concern.. Now that we've returned to normal growth levels, it is.

[SuperJerk 0]

Actually, RobotJerk, the 1980s-1998 peacetime expansion was the best economic boom nonwartime in the 20th century.

That's not the same thing as saying it was the "best we ever had".

 

As far as the deficit not being a concern during times of booming growth, I'm not interested as to whether not it actually a concern or not at the time, but the debt (the total accumulated deficits from 1981-1989) amassed during that time is certainly a concern for us now, since the money we use to service it could be better used for other things.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

It took Clinton winning for the Republicans to get their act together and get serious about deficit reduction back in 1993.

 

And it took Republicans winning Congress for Bill to get his act together and drop delusions like universal health care, among other things.

 

Actually, RobotJerk, the 1980s-1998 peacetime expansion was the best economic boom nonwartime in the 20th century.

Shut up you arrogant economist.

 

And since this thread is about costs and stuff, peep this.

 

As Paul Harvey would say, this is the rest of the story

 

The Senate moved toward approving $81 billion for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on Thursday in a measure that would push the total cost of combat and reconstruction past $300 billion.

 

Ugh...

[EricMM 0]

there is a HILarious clip that they ran repeatedly on the Daily show of a Bush-man saying the war in Iraq would cost somewhere around two billion dollars.

 

Ha.

 

Haha.

 

Boy oh boy, if Bush had mentioned in his speeches preceeding the war that the costs would have been EVEN as high as they are today, (not counting the coming years) would we have done it?

 

And seriously, they will be coming years. At least a few years til Bush gets out of office, I think we'll be there. Spending money and lives, money and lives...

[Guest MikeSC]

Spending money on something that might actually make things MUCH better.

 

Unlike, say, the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

As George Bush's pimp, do you get a cut of his prostitution money?

[Guest MikeSC]

As George Bush's pimp, do you get a cut of his prostitution money?

You know who made arguments like that?

 

Hitler.

-=Mike

...Your criticism is like the Beer Hall Putsch all over again...

[SuperJerk 0]

As George Bush's pimp, do you get a cut of his prostitution money?

You know who made arguments like that?

 

Hitler.

Quit comparing me to your hero. I don't deserve it.

[Guest MikeSC]

As George Bush's pimp, do you get a cut of his prostitution money?

You know who made arguments like that?

 

Hitler.

Quit comparing me to your hero. I don't deserve it.

Yes, Hitler is my hero.

 

You got it.

 

Good call.

-=Mike

...Hmm, you're a teacher. Well, as they say, those who can, do. Those who can't, teach...

[SuperJerk 0]

As George Bush's pimp, do you get a cut of his prostitution money?

You know who made arguments like that?

 

Hitler.

Quit comparing me to your hero. I don't deserve it.

Yes, Hitler is my hero.

 

You got it.

 

Good call.

-=Mike

...Hmm, you're a teacher. Well, as they say, those who can, do. Those who can't, teach...

Congratulations on insulting millions of good people just to get back at me.

 

I guess you must have taught yourself to read and write...skills which you've used to:

a) get a dead-end job at a cell phone company.

b) spend way too much time on the internet.

 

Yup, you sure showed me...

[Guest MikeSC]

As George Bush's pimp, do you get a cut of his prostitution money?

You know who made arguments like that?

 

Hitler.

Quit comparing me to your hero. I don't deserve it.

Yes, Hitler is my hero.

 

You got it.

 

Good call.

-=Mike

...Hmm, you're a teacher. Well, as they say, those who can, do. Those who can't, teach...

Congratulations on insulting millions of good people just to get back at me.

 

Oh, I've not insulted them any more than you being a member of their profession does.

I guess you must have taught yourself to read and write...skills which you've used to:

a) get a dead-end job at a cell phone company.

b) spend way too much time on the internet.

 

Yup, you sure showed me...

Dead-end job? Yeah, that's EXACTLY what I have.

 

And, I have three days a week off. But it's a nice try on your part.

 

Don't worry, though. They're so desperate for warm bodies in the classroom that even I turned down a job as a teacher.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Dead-end job? Yeah, that's EXACTLY what I have.

 

And, I have three days a week off. But it's a nice try on your part.

 

Don't worry, though. They're so desperate for warm bodies in the classroom that even I turned down a job as a teacher.

Then I guess the ignorant, inbred children of South Carolina caught a lucky break.

 

And you're bragging about getting 3 days off a week when I get 3 months off a year? Nigga, please.

[Guest MikeSC]

Dead-end job? Yeah, that's EXACTLY what I have.

 

And, I have three days a week off. But it's a nice try on your part.

 

Don't worry, though. They're so desperate for warm bodies in the classroom that even I turned down a job as a teacher.

Then I guess the ignorant, inbred children of South Carolina caught a lucky break.

 

Well, the students in whatever shithole you live in aren't quite that lucky. Yet, I somehow see you as that PE coach who nobody can figure out how they got the job and who enjoys fucking children.

And you're bragging about getting 3 days off a week when I get 3 months off a year?  Nigga, please.

Because teachers do SO much work.

 

Bragging about not doing shit isn't something to brag about.

-=Mike

[treble 0]

Alright guys, you're queering up 3 threads now. Give it a rest, since it's already incredibly lame and getting lamer by the post.

[Guest MikeSC]

Alright guys, you're queering up 3 threads now. Give it a rest, since it's already incredibly lame and getting lamer by the post.

Consider it over.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Because teachers do SO much work.

10 hours a day, bitch.

 

Well, the students in whatever shithole you live in aren't quite that lucky.

 

I teach in Johnson County, Kansas. Ask someone familiar with the Kansas City area about what its like there.

[Guest]

Alright guys, you're queering up 3 threads now. Give it a rest, since it's already incredibly lame and getting lamer by the post.

And queering don't make the world work.

 

harharharharhar

[SuperJerk 0]

Alright guys, you're queering up 3 threads now. Give it a rest, since it's already incredibly lame and getting lamer by the post.

Whatever.

[Guest MikeSC]

OMG! BAN PLZ!

-=Mike