A New New Deal?

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I think it's possible...how likely remains to be seen, but I agree with Colin Powell...Obama is a transformational figure.

And while I agree with the gist of what Agathon says, I think there are enough people who really WANT to make that kind of difference left in the world that something like a "new, new deal" might have a shot at happening.

One thing is certain, we shall continue to live in interesting times...

-=Vel=-

(one thing can be fairly said...the current system, in its current form, isn't working--if it was, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now, and our beloved conservative pres (aren't conservatives supposed to be FISCALLY conservative as well?) wouldn't have added nearly eleven TRILLION bucks worth of new debt in eight years--if we don't try SOMETHING else, we're fools of the highest order)

A "new, new deal" will just be more of the same then. Providing short term gains for long term costs.

The "OLD" way of doing things is for home owners to borrow big amounts of money for houses they want but don't need with the expectation that their value will just magically keep going up, up, up. Financial fat cats lending big amounts of money to people who have never shown they can pay it back and then trading around the securities to get their profit now and pass on the risk to someone else. And governments who borrow, borrow, borrow to fund expensive tax cuts, wars, bailouts, pork and entitlement programs without ever expecting to have to pay back trillians of debt. Saying that our economy is big enough that the debt doesn't matter.

Instant gratification and ignoring longterm consequences has been the rule so far.

What does Obama (not that McCain is any better) want to do? Give out big tax cuts, boost health care spending and put us deeper into debt. And that is a more modest agenda than the "new, new deal" that some here are talking about. Such a "new, new deal" would be an even worse continuation of the OLD way of doing things.

The "Something else" you are looking for is real fiscal responsibility, paying down the debt, addressing the looming social security crisis, and making some tough decisions to keep the whole system solvent.

Both parties have demonstrated they have little interest in such responsibility.

[Kidlicious]

The debt will NEVER be paid down. That's more evident than ever.

[Dinner]

70% of GDP is a lot but it can be paid provided taxes are raised so we stop having annual budget deficits and we cut spending (especially military spending). It will take quite a while but it can be done.

[Velociryx]

Ozzy,

I think that what you say is true, when looking at the population of politicians as a whole.

Individually, I think there are those odd birds out there who actually DO have the balls to get something meaningful accomplished. It is my hope...my belief, that Obama is one such individual.

Is it true? Only time will tell. I am willing to take a chance on him though, and thus my vote on November 4.

BTW, as I understand his tax cut plan, the cut applies to the folks who only contribute a small portion of the total tax reciepts. The folks who pay the lion's share will pay a smidge more (back to Clintonian era levels). If that understanding is correct, then it'll wind up being a net increase in tax dollars, even with a "cut" built in.

What I'd like to see is our immediate return to budgetary surplusses and a steady paying down of what we owe. Right now. From day one of the new administration.

If I could have one wish, I think that'd be it.

-=Vel=-

[Naked Gents Rut]

Looks like the Fair Pay Act is indeed back on the table, Dan.

A landslide victory next Tuesday would give Barack Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reshape government policy dramatically.

By controlling the White House and expanding their Senate majority, Democrats would remove the most reliable weapons used by the GOP to block their agenda: the filibuster and the veto.

Those tools have thwarted Pelosi (Calif.) and Democrats since they won the majority in both chambers, leaving bills affecting labor law, healthcare and other issues to die in the Senate or on the president’s desk.

With those obstacles removed, Democrats could quickly push forward with legislation allowing labor unions to organize without secret-ballot elections and a bill expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

Other possibilities include the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which would overturn a Supreme Court decision restricting equal pay lawsuits; a measure that would narrow the role of a “supervisor” for collective bargaining purposes; and a mandate for paid sick leave for companies with 15 or more employees who work at least 30 hours a week — all left over from the last Congress.

“I think they want to strike while the iron’s hot and grab everything they can,” said Marc Freedman, director of labor law policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-get-ready-to-rule-2008-10-28.html

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oerdin
70% of GDP is a lot but it can be paid provided taxes are raised so we stop having annual budget deficits and we cut spending (especially military spending). It will take quite a while but it can be done.

Are you assuming the economy is going to grow? The baby boomers are now starting to retire, and you want to raise taxes now? This is ridiculous. Just forget it.

[Velociryx]

Dude...retire on what?

Their 401k's just got *reamed*

A few might retire, but I suspect that many will have to delay those plans...



I think I just stumbled onto a new conspiracy theory....

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Dude...retire on what?

Their 401k's just got *reamed*

A few might retire, but I suspect that many will have to delay those plans...



I think I just stumbled onto a new conspiracy theory....

-=Vel=-

Well that's true, but they are sure to cut their spending habits drastically.

Talking about paying off the debt makes about as much sense as HalfLotus talking about going on the gold standard. It doesn't make much sense at all. Trying to even balance the budget is going to have drastically negative effects on the economy.

[Velociryx]

As is the alternative...what? So we just keep running up the debt....fifty trillion? A hundred? Just keep letting the meter run, eh?

That's not the solution.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
As is the alternative...what? So we just keep running up the debt....fifty trillion? A hundred? Just keep letting the meter run, eh?

That's not the solution.

-=Vel=-

The goal isn't to pay off the debt. The goal is to have the best economy possible.

[Velociryx]

Okay...I'll buy that as a goal (maybe not *the* goal, but sure...a goal)...now the central question...can you do that when you're buried under fifty trillion dollars in debt? Can you leave the meter running forever, without reprecussion?

Cos if you can't, then you have to think in terms of getting the debt level down. Maybe that doesn't mean paying it off, but it certainly doesn't mean just letting the debt spiral up forever, does it?

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Okay...I'll buy that as a goal (maybe not *the* goal, but sure...a goal)...now the central question...can you do that when you're buried under fifty trillion dollars in debt? Can you leave the meter running forever, without reprecussion?

I don't agree that there's a meter running. However, I expect that the debt will never be paid off, and the government will default. When, I don't know. I don't think you can look into the future like that. We need to do the best thing for right now, otherwise we are going to have an economic casastrophy right here and now.

Cos if you can't, then you have to think in terms of getting the debt level down. Maybe that doesn't mean paying it off, but it certainly doesn't mean just letting the debt spiral up forever, does it?

Right. I don't believe in adding to the debt, but we can't pay it off. However, it's natural to go into debt in a economic downturn, so I don't think we can even balance the budget.

[Seedle]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I suspect they'll get raised on the fatcats tho. Back to the Clinton era levels.

But if you raise taxes, the economy will be destroyed and everyone will be poor. As you said, they're talking about Clinton-era tax levels. And we all remember what a horrid, poverty ridden, economically stagnant time period that was.

[Riesstiu IV]

I remember that! I could only afford 8 Fabergé eggs a week instead of my usual 16. Those were very dark times indeed.

[Velociryx]

@ Kid: Oh, but I think there IS a meter running. Each year we're running a government deficit...that's the sound of the meter running. Debt increasing = meter running.

And I think that if we focus only on the short term...what's good for right now (this quarter, in the parlance of the Corporation), we'll wind up making it worse for ourselves down the line. Just IMO, mind you.

@ Seedle....

-=Vel=-