Econ: The Forecast is...?

[Naked Gents Rut]

Why do you seem so emotional about all this?

If I actually cared about this, why would I be helping you out? I'm really just disappointed that you don't know enough to actually argue your side effectively...

[Jon Miller]

Gee, which posters here have been saying that?

Not you. You've been blaming it on Republican deregulation that never existed rather than the bipartisan resistance to increased regulation that did.

Well, the Republicans have had a lot more power lately. But I agree, Clinton is at fault as well.

And it seems like Obama is following his footsteps (better than Bush, but not good enough).

JM

[Naked Gents Rut]

Clinton actually balanced the budget and reduced the size of government while President. Obama, on the other hand, is just doubling down on the failed fiscal policies of the past 8 years. Don't insult Bill by saying Barry is following in his footsteps.

[notyoueither]

Why do you seem so emotional about all this?

If I actually cared about this, why would I be helping you out? I'm really just disappointed that you don't know enough to actually argue your side effectively...

Thanks for pitching in, but I wasn't posting old news when I started the thread a week ago.

Perhaps you can post something and actually get the meaning of it right. That might help.

[Zkribbler]

Clinton actually balanced the budget and reduced the size of government while President. Obama, on the other hand, is just doubling down on the failed fiscal policies of the past 8 years.

Repugs are all about supply-side economics: Give more and more to the rich capitalists, so they can create jobs.

What we are faced with now is a demand deficit. The entire world is spooked, so they're hanging onto the money, and, as they refuse to buy stuff, the economies of the world collapse. Obama's trying to SPEND, to get capital flowing again, to build DEMAND! To say he's following Bush's failed policies is to not understand what's going on.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Bush didn't recklessly expand the national debt to fund pet projects? Of course he did. Sadly, Obama has shown even less fiscal discipline than his dreadful predecessor.

[Theben]

How the hell is Obama so optimistic then? That's his guy. Personally I don't have much faith in him.

Obama is both optimistic and prophet of doom. It just depends on who's describing him.

[Theben]

Bush didn't recklessly expand the national debt to fund pet projects? Of course he did. Sadly, Obama has shown even less fiscal discipline than his dreadful predecessor.

He plans to spend now and cut back once the global market stabilizes. You don't have to be pining for an associate's degree in economics to understand that.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Obama is both optimistic and prophet of doom. It just depends on who's describing him.

No, it depends on what's most politically advantageous to him at the time. Obama's pronouncements are all doom and gloom when he's trying to convince the public to pass his spending plans, but the assumptions he makes to estimate the effects of those plans are all sunshine and rainbows. That's why he can go on national TV and talk about America standing on the edge of a precipice while releasing a budget that assumes 3.2% GDP growth in 2010.

He plans to spend now and cut back once the global market stabilizes.

Even if you believe both Obama's promises to reduce future spending and his rosy assumptions about future GDP growth, he's still not going to reduce the budget deficit to the already high-levels experienced under Bush.

[Jon Miller]

Bush didn't recklessly expand the national debt to fund pet projects? Of course he did. Sadly, Obama has shown even less fiscal discipline than his dreadful predecessor.

Bush had a decent economy for some of his time. Clinton had a great economy for most of his time.

Right now the economy is ****.

I only worry about balanced budgets when the economy is good (actually we should be paying back our debt when the economy is good).

Trying to force fiscal discipline when we aren't use to it when the economy is struggling is stupid.

JM

[Naked Gents Rut]

Trying to force fiscal discipline when we aren't use to it when the economy is struggling is stupid.

Stimulus spending during a recession is ok. Massive increases in discretionary spending that have little to no effectiveness as economic stimulus and must be financed by increased governmental debt are not.

[Jon Miller]

While I agree that stimulus spending would be good right now, I think that the discretionary spending is (in some parts) good as well. Not in particular for right now, but in general.

Later, when the economy is doing better, taxes should be raised to cover it. Right now, taxes can't be raised too much due to the economy.

I don't see much difference between not raising taxes and stimulus spending.

JM

[Naked Gents Rut]

I don't get your point. The problem is that America already had a large amount of debt and is now piling it on by the trillions to finance an expansion of the federal government that can't be financed via tax increases due to political and economic concerns. Obama is spending money the U.S. government doesn't have on his pet projects, just like Bush. God only knows how long this type of fiscal irresponsibility can last before the U.S. has to default or inflate away its debts.

And that's not even getting into the issue of global credit imbalances and the dangers of returning to the pre-recession status quo vis a vis American personal debt levels.

[Jon Miller]

Taxes were cut as part of Bush doing stimulus (when we didn't really need it...). Taxes are being kept down as part of Obama doing stimulus.

It is OK to go in debt due to stimulus.

These 'pet projects' are what most of the US want. He should be spending money on them, and in a good economy raising taxes to compensate. Unfortunately, that isn't the best idea right now. (raising taxes)

JM

[Naked Gents Rut]

It is OK to go in debt due to stimulus.

I never said it wasn't. I quite clearly said that what's not ok is piling on trillions of dollars in additional debt to finance non-stimulative spending, which is exactly what Bush did and Obama is now doing.