Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Robert Reich: Why we should stop obsessing about the federal budget deficit

+4
Sal
Hospital Bob
Markle
Floridatexan
8 posters

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/14611-why-we-should-stop-obsessing-about-the-federal-budget-deficit

"I wish President Obama and the Democrats would explain to the nation that the federal budget deficit isn't the nation's major economic problem and deficit reduction shouldn't be our major goal. Our problem is lack of good jobs and sufficient growth, and our goal must be to revive both.

Deficit reduction leads us in the opposite direction - away from jobs and growth. The reason the "fiscal cliff" is dangerous (and, yes, I know - it's not really a "cliff" but more like a hill) is because it's too much deficit reduction, too quickly. It would suck too much demand out of the economy.

But more jobs and growth will help reduce the deficit. With more jobs and faster growth, the deficit will shrink as a proportion of the overall economy. Recall the 1990s when the Clinton administration balanced the budget ahead of the schedule it had set with Congress because of faster job growth than anyone expected - bringing in more tax revenues than anyone had forecast. Europe offers the same lesson in reverse: Their deficits are ballooning because their austerity policies have caused their economies to sink.

The best way to generate jobs and growth is for the government to spend more, not less. And for taxes to stay low - or become even lower - on the middle class.

(Higher taxes on the rich won't slow the economy because the rich will keep spending anyway. After all, being rich means spending whatever you want to spend. By the same token, higher taxes won't reduce their incentive to save and invest because they're already doing as much saving and investing as they want. Remember: they're taking home a near record share of the nation's total income and have a record share of total wealth.)

Why don't our politicians and media get this? Because an entire deficit-cutting political industry has grown up in recent years - starting with Ross Perot's third party in the 1992 election, extending through Peter Petersen's Institute and other think-tanks funded by Wall Street and big business, embracing the eat-your-spinach deficit hawk crowd in the Democratic Party, and culminating in the Simpson-Bowles Commission that President Obama created in order to appease the hawks but which only legitimized them further.

Most of the media have bought into the narrative that our economic problems stem from an out-of-control budget deficit. They're repeating this hokum even now, when we're staring at a fiscal cliff that illustrates just how dangerous deficit reduction can be.

Deficit hawks routinely warn unless the deficit is trimmed we'll fall prey to inflation and rising interest rates. But there's no sign of inflation anywhere. The world is awash in underutilized capacity As for interest rates, the yield on the ten-year Treasury bill is now around 1.26 percent - lower than it's been in living memory.

In fact, if there was ever a time for America to borrow more in order to put our people back to work repairing our crumbling infrastructure and rebuilding our schools, it's now.

Public investments that spur future job-growth and productivity shouldn't even be included in measures of government spending to begin with. They're justifiable as long as the return on those investments - a more educated and productive workforce, and a more efficient infrastructure, both generating more and better goods and services with fewer scarce resources - is higher than the cost of those investments.

In fact, we'd be nuts not to make these investments under these circumstances. No sane family equates spending on vacations with investing in their kids' education. Yet that's what we do in our federal budget.

Finally, the biggest driver of future deficits is overstated - rising health-care costs that underlie projections for Medicare and Medicaid spending. The rate of growth of health-care costs is slowing because of the Affordable Care Act and increasing pressures on health providers to hold down costs. Yet projections of future budget deficits haven't yet factored in this slowdown.

So can we please stop obsessing about future budget deficits? They're distracting our attention from what we should be obsessing about - jobs and growth."

Guest


Guest

Robert Reich:  Why we should stop obsessing about the federal budget deficit Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRfo_jeCfLRobJVwHezgIn20Sg-NHyDF47iZ9AlG96xSyb2KwTK

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufYYOXiEtxM&feature=related

Laughing

Guest


Guest

Scarry keynesian disconnect... more govt solutions/spending.

It's cute how the progressive media/web gets a theme rolling and the lap dogs gobble it up and run with it.

Markle

Markle

Floridatexan wrote:
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/14611-why-we-should-stop-obsessing-about-the-federal-budget-deficit

"I wish President Obama and the Democrats would explain to the nation that the federal budget deficit isn't the nation's major economic problem and deficit reduction shouldn't be our major goal. Our problem is lack of good jobs and sufficient growth, and our goal must be to revive both.

Deficit reduction leads us in the opposite direction - away from jobs and growth. The reason the "fiscal cliff" is dangerous (and, yes, I know - it's not really a "cliff" but more like a hill) is because it's too much deficit reduction, too quickly. It would suck too much demand out of the economy.

But more jobs and growth will help reduce the deficit. With more jobs and faster growth, the deficit will shrink as a proportion of the overall economy. Recall the 1990s when the Clinton administration balanced the budget ahead of the schedule it had set with Congress because of faster job growth than anyone expected - bringing in more tax revenues than anyone had forecast. Europe offers the same lesson in reverse: Their deficits are ballooning because their austerity policies have caused their economies to sink.

The best way to generate jobs and growth is for the government to spend more, not less. And for taxes to stay low - or become even lower - on the middle class.

(Higher taxes on the rich won't slow the economy because the rich will keep spending anyway. After all, being rich means spending whatever you want to spend. By the same token, higher taxes won't reduce their incentive to save and invest because they're already doing as much saving and investing as they want. Remember: they're taking home a near record share of the nation's total income and have a record share of total wealth.)

Why don't our politicians and media get this? Because an entire deficit-cutting political industry has grown up in recent years - starting with Ross Perot's third party in the 1992 election, extending through Peter Petersen's Institute and other think-tanks funded by Wall Street and big business, embracing the eat-your-spinach deficit hawk crowd in the Democratic Party, and culminating in the Simpson-Bowles Commission that President Obama created in order to appease the hawks but which only legitimized them further.

Most of the media have bought into the narrative that our economic problems stem from an out-of-control budget deficit. They're repeating this hokum even now, when we're staring at a fiscal cliff that illustrates just how dangerous deficit reduction can be.

Deficit hawks routinely warn unless the deficit is trimmed we'll fall prey to inflation and rising interest rates. But there's no sign of inflation anywhere. The world is awash in underutilized capacity As for interest rates, the yield on the ten-year Treasury bill is now around 1.26 percent - lower than it's been in living memory.

In fact, if there was ever a time for America to borrow more in order to put our people back to work repairing our crumbling infrastructure and rebuilding our schools, it's now.

Public investments that spur future job-growth and productivity shouldn't even be included in measures of government spending to begin with. They're justifiable as long as the return on those investments - a more educated and productive workforce, and a more efficient infrastructure, both generating more and better goods and services with fewer scarce resources - is higher than the cost of those investments.

In fact, we'd be nuts not to make these investments under these circumstances. No sane family equates spending on vacations with investing in their kids' education. Yet that's what we do in our federal budget.

Finally, the biggest driver of future deficits is overstated - rising health-care costs that underlie projections for Medicare and Medicaid spending. The rate of growth of health-care costs is slowing because of the Affordable Care Act and increasing pressures on health providers to hold down costs. Yet projections of future budget deficits haven't yet factored in this slowdown.

So can we please stop obsessing about future budget deficits? They're distracting our attention from what we should be obsessing about - jobs and growth."

Robert Reich...awwww...you just can't make these things up! This is like asking Barney Frank and Chris Dodd describe the "problems" with the housing/mortgage/financial and then fix them. Oh...that's right, that's what they did!

Now...Robert Reich, one of the architects of this massive debt, telling us it is okay, everything will be fine, let's be like Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain and California and BORROW OUR WAY TO PROSPERITY!

Robert Reich:  Why we should stop obsessing about the federal budget deficit 21ad6f75-b6d8-4b16-9a57-508c885125c2_Large

Guest


Guest

Robert Reich:  Why we should stop obsessing about the federal budget deficit Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRfehnhKUfNjYQeE798EV4qkTDCcwUF58o6MCcZZ7l9OuacSWz7ag

Not to digress... But I think I said what both of you had to say about her speel with my first post. Unfortunately we have another four years of people like her using the credit card...

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAsV5-Hv-7U

Shocked

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

I personally know one family who, after maxing out it's credit card and other personal debts, chose to solve the family's financial crisis by getting even another credit card and using that to "get it over the hump". They did very little to get their spending under control. They continued living beyond their means.
They got over the hump alright. Unfortunately the other side of the hump was Chapter 13.

Reich's notion that "austerity" was the root cause of Europe's economic crises is just so ridiculous that it's like saying boarding up your windows at the beach is what caused a hurricane to hit you.
Southern Europe's problems stemmed from living WAY beyond their means for so long while they continued spending WAY more than they were taking in and piling up crushing debt. And that all came to a head when the 2008 worldwide financial collapse burst their bubble.
"Austerity" is not the cause of their problems. Austerity was an attempt to cope with the problem they had already given themselves.

Yes we're now between a rock and a hard place. If the government tries to control the out-of-control borrowing and spending that could easily throw us into recession. That of course is because we've now gotten our whole economy dependent on that same government borrowing and spending. Those borrowed government dollars are now a big part of what fuels our consumer economy. Without that our whole economy will falter.

But Reich says we need to keep borrowing and spending at full throttle because that will create jobs and more jobs will bring in more revenue and that will solve the problem.
Only problem is it's no longer the same world as it was when Reich was a political hack decades ago. That era was before Reich and the politicians he worked for helped see to it that the economic base we had since World War 2 was all outsourced.
Reich's solution is now a pipedream. About as valid as his boss Clinton's claim back then that "this trade agreement will create a one-way street of trade FROM the U.S. TO China". One is as laughable as the other.




Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Robert Reich:  Why we should stop obsessing about the federal budget deficit Unemp-vs-spending

Guest


Guest

The only time unemployment bothers you is when you dont have a job.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Damaged Eagle wrote:Robert Reich:  Why we should stop obsessing about the federal budget deficit Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRfehnhKUfNjYQeE798EV4qkTDCcwUF58o6MCcZZ7l9OuacSWz7ag

Not to digress... But I think I said what both of you had to say about her speel with my first post. Unfortunately we have another four years of people like her using the credit card...

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAsV5-Hv-7U

Shocked

speil

I don't use credit cards.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


All you armchair economists...tell me how many courses you've taken in economics...including you, Markle.

Guest


Guest

Bob spelled it out for you... anybody that's balanced a checkbook should be more informed and expert than this lackey.

Guest


Guest

Floridatexan wrote:speil

I don't use credit cards.


Robert Reich:  Why we should stop obsessing about the federal budget deficit Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcST1t7BkN0OTFyFfimlDgsF1M9JOYCbjEZ1Gr6_vTaxtqDUgke-

When you practice what you preach for your daily finances you can give us lessons on national economics and spelling. Let us know if you were able to buy your way into posperity. Go ahead spend two or three times as much as your paycheck for the next ten years and see how it turns out for you. After all it's only...

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkhX5W7JoWI

Smile

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Damaged Eagle wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:speil

I don't use credit cards.


Robert Reich:  Why we should stop obsessing about the federal budget deficit Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcST1t7BkN0OTFyFfimlDgsF1M9JOYCbjEZ1Gr6_vTaxtqDUgke-

When you practice what you preach for your daily finances you can give us lessons on national economics and spelling. Let us know if you were able to buy your way into posperity. Go ahead spend two or three times as much as your paycheck for the next ten years and see how it turns out for you. After all it's only...

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkhX5W7JoWI

Smile

Look, you cornfed sack of pig manure, I said I don't use credit cards. Nor do I spend more than I have. And I started my career as a banker. I've balanced plenty of checkbooks; I've filed plenty of tax returns...my own, my childrens' trusts, and returns for friends who were behind on their taxes. And one more thing...I was a proofreader of annual and quarterly reports.

Guest


Guest

Floridatexan wrote:
Look, you cornfed sack of pig manure, I said I don't use credit cards. Nor do I spend more than I have. And I started my career as a banker. I've balanced plenty of checkbooks; I've filed plenty of tax returns...my own, my childrens' trusts, and returns for friends who were behind on their taxes. And one more thing...I was a proofreader of annual and quarterly reports.

Yet that is exactly what you expect the government to do.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

alecto wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
Look, you cornfed sack of pig manure, I said I don't use credit cards. Nor do I spend more than I have. And I started my career as a banker. I've balanced plenty of checkbooks; I've filed plenty of tax returns...my own, my childrens' trusts, and returns for friends who were behind on their taxes. And one more thing...I was a proofreader of annual and quarterly reports.

Yet that is exactly what you expect the government to do.

No, it isn't. There's no comparison. And there's really not much choice, since the Republicans decided to give away the economy to their "base". It's the revolving door that keeps the masses satisfied with bread and circuses. We elect and expect policies that are for the benefit of the many; what we get instead is something CALLED the greater good, which is actually NOT. What we had is Cheney-style "greater good" which ended up making piles of cash for the few on the backs of the many. There's no reason to compound that error, and there's NO WAY BACK EXCEPT THROUGH SPENDING. FDR did it, but he got cold feet or bad advice and reversed course. He should have stuck with Keynes; instead he prolonged the Great Depression. There's no reason the majority should accept the terms of a small minority...we need austerity like a hole in the head.

Guest


Guest

Floridatexan wrote:
alecto wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
Look, you cornfed sack of pig manure, I said I don't use credit cards. Nor do I spend more than I have. And I started my career as a banker. I've balanced plenty of checkbooks; I've filed plenty of tax returns...my own, my childrens' trusts, and returns for friends who were behind on their taxes. And one more thing...I was a proofreader of annual and quarterly reports.

Yet that is exactly what you expect the government to do.

No, it isn't. There's no comparison. And there's really not much choice, since the Republicans decided to give away the economy to their "base". It's the revolving door that keeps the masses satisfied with bread and circuses. We elect and expect policies that are for the benefit of the many; what we get instead is something CALLED the greater good, which is actually NOT. What we had is Cheney-style "greater good" which ended up making piles of cash for the few on the backs of the many. There's no reason to compound that error, and there's NO WAY BACK EXCEPT THROUGH SPENDING. FDR did it, but he got cold feet or bad advice and reversed course. He should have stuck with Keynes; instead he prolonged the Great Depression. There's no reason the majority should accept the terms of a small minority...we need austerity like a hole in the head.

Idiocy

Sal

Sal

If Congress would've forced banks to write down mortgages to fair market value and refinance them into thirty-year fixed mortgages, and had the Fed printed and distributed money directly to consumers rather than playing around with ineffective quantitative easing monetary policy, the downturn would be long over and the economy would be booming.

However, this sort of approach does not please our plutocratic overlords.

Thus austerity.



Last edited by Sal on 11/20/2012, 4:07 pm; edited 1 time in total

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:If Congress would've forced banks to write down mortgages to fair market value and refinance them into thirty-year fixed mortgages, and had the Fed printed and distributed money directly to consumers rather than playing around with quantitative easing monetary policy, the downturn would be long over and the economy would be booming.

However, this sort of approach does not please our plutocratic overlords.

Thus austerity.

I agree... if the govt was going to act... I've said the same thing... The money still would've found the banks.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Sal wrote:If Congress would've forced banks to write down mortgages to fair market value and refinance them into thirty-year fixed mortgages, and had the Fed printed and distributed money directly to consumers rather than playing around with quantitative easing monetary policy, the downturn would be long over and the economy would be booming.

However, this sort of approach does not please our plutocratic overlords.

Thus austerity.
Now you've finally come full circle and joined the tinfoiler crowd with teo. lol

But regardless if you call it "The New World Order" or the Overlords from Pluto, the premise is just not logical. The overlords would themselves benefit when they're overlording over a "booming economy". They have no incentive to intentionally put the economy their overlording into shambles. lol

Sal

Sal

Bob wrote:
Sal wrote:If Congress would've forced banks to write down mortgages to fair market value and refinance them into thirty-year fixed mortgages, and had the Fed printed and distributed money directly to consumers rather than playing around with quantitative easing monetary policy, the downturn would be long over and the economy would be booming.

However, this sort of approach does not please our plutocratic overlords.

Thus austerity.
Now you've finally come full circle and joined the tinfoiler crowd with teo. lol

But regardless if you call it "The New World Order" or the Overlords from Pluto, the premise is just not logical. The overlords would themselves benefit when they're overlording over a "booming economy". They have no incentive to intentionally put the economy their overlording into shambles. lol


Of course there's an incentive.

Money.

It's called disaster capitalism.

Create a crisis, and in response to the crisis - deregulate, crush unions, slash public spending, and privatize everything in sight.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

We now have a national mindset that believes one political ideology (and it's accompanying pied pipers) can magically fix all that ails us. And believes another political ideology will destroy everything.
Half the population believes one is the messiah and the other the devil, and the other half believes the opposite.
It's all straight out of the Bible and a World Wrestling Federation script.

But the real world, and in particular the national and the world economy, does not lend itself to that kind of utter simplification.
Neither applying "austerity" alone nor continued wreckless borrowing and spending alone is any solution to it. In the absence of some NEW ideas, I'm becoming less convinced that there is any outcome which does not result in a lot of suffering.


Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Sal wrote:Of course there's an incentive.

Money.

It's called disaster capitalism.

Create a crisis, and in response to the crisis - deregulate, crush unions, slash public spending, and privatize everything in sight.[/font]

And in your mind those "plutocrat overlords" would be represented by the Romney crowd.
Only problem is the "deregulate, crush unions, slash public spending, and privatize everything in sight" which romney and the "plutocrats" wanted to happen, required that romney or someone like him got elected.
But that aint what got elected so now it's back to the drawing board for the plutocrat overlords.
In order for a team of football players to get all the endorsements and other perks, requires that it not be the team which loses the Superbowl.
That's rule number one in the overlord business. lol








Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Bob wrote:
Sal wrote:If Congress would've forced banks to write down mortgages to fair market value and refinance them into thirty-year fixed mortgages, and had the Fed printed and distributed money directly to consumers rather than playing around with quantitative easing monetary policy, the downturn would be long over and the economy would be booming.

However, this sort of approach does not please our plutocratic overlords.

Thus austerity.
Now you've finally come full circle and joined the tinfoiler crowd with teo. lol

But regardless if you call it "The New World Order" or the Overlords from Pluto, the premise is just not logical. The overlords would themselves benefit when they're overlording over a "booming economy". They have no incentive to intentionally put the economy their overlording into shambles. lol


Yes, they do. It's called GREED. They got theirs; then they took everyone else's...pensions, homes, jobs. It doesn't matter to some people how many others they hurt in their quest to fatten their own wallets. Austerity right now would cripple an already weak recovery. The thing about the "overlords" is they want it and they want it now.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Floridatexan wrote:

Yes, they do. It's called GREED. They got theirs; then they took everyone else's...pensions, homes, jobs.


The jobs and pensions were lost because both democrats and republicans sent the jobs overseas.
But in the defense of both, it was probably inevitable anyway. A big part of the rest of the world was a "sleeping giant who awakened". And they were willing to do those jobs for a fraction of what we need (notice I said "need" and not "want". Because to live in that post-WW2 society we had required higher wages).
All the government policy contributed was greasing the skids that were already being built.

We all participated in the "losing homes". The people started living beyond their means. The lenders and builders and everyone employed by those and the whole damn spinoff economy were all in favor of them living beyond their means because they all got profits and jobs as a result of it. The whole country contributed to the "uncollapsible" bubble.
And yes of course the financial system wanted it too because they so easily sold pieces of the bubble as investments.
And since EVERYBODY was in favor of it, so were BOTH the democrat AND the republican politicians. That's how they get elected/re-elected.

Not an "overlord conspiracy". Just human failing. lol

gulfbeachbandit

gulfbeachbandit

robert reich the third wrote this story?
Seriously? The third reich.



Last edited by salinski on 11/20/2012, 10:51 pm; edited 1 time in total

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum