We lost $14 trillion of the American family's equity and we aren't in a depression and are in fact still the world's safe haven investment.
That's just semantics though, whether you call it "theirs" or "ours" or "yours" - it doesn't really a change a lot of the underlying realities that government spending isn't inherently bad, and that there's not really much evidence to show that less of it is always a good thing.
Overly simplistic and inaccurate. Loans that private banks originate have far more impact on the money supply than fiscal/monetary policy. In fact, the vast majority of money in circulation was created out of thin air by commercial banks in the form of loans. Government taxation and spending are two sides of the same coin. You can't ignore the fact that when the government spends, that money is going back into the private sector somewhere. That money doesn't just disappear. Cutting spending (while not exactly the same) is quite similar to raising taxes in terms keeping more money in the hands of the government instead of the people. In a recession caused by excessive private sector debt, running a surplus entails removing net financial assets from the private sector, which would only hurt households more. The government has no solvency risk, only inflation risk. In an environment where the private sector desperately needs money, and every single inflation indicator (even ones from websites that typically scream "hyperinflation cometh") shows very low inflation, why shouldn't the government run large deficits to temporarily bolster the private sector until it can recover on its own?
You're right, in the short term taxes don't really help that much (which is why the President has cut taxes a number of times...), and if the economy grew quickly enough, taxes wouldn't ahve to be raised at all. In the long term though, this probably won't be the case, which is why taxes will probably have to increase, and some form of entitlement reform (which is what a national health care system is designed to help with) are necessary. Also, should be noted that a rise in taxes may help keep borrowing costs (and thus debt) lower, provided the rise isn't so high as to stifle growth. It (like spending) basically depends on circumstances. There's also an issue with the fact that super-low taxes on the wealthy is pretty unhealhty from a societal standpoint insofar as it makes them more likely to stay wealthy, and the rest of us slobs less likely to become wealthy. The real point though is that having an set of hard & fast, untouchable beliefs like "all spending bad" "all debt bad" "all tax cuts good" is really silly and not supported by evidence.
Its interesting that when we argue the most basic non-disputable facts that are clearly the root of the problem, the basso, big texx response is always the same: "Excuses, typical left response, etc. etc." I agree, this is the typical left response.
One massive point that is constantly overlooked is a huge % of government spending is either indirectly or DIRECTLY tied to jobs. So reducing spending almost always means that Americans lose jobs. Many private "small businesses" or big business is directly tied to government contracts. Close to home, look how pissed Houstonians got when Obama suggested we cut NASA's budget and we'd lose all these engineering jobs that built the city of Clear Lake. Everybody wants to cut the budget until it means losing jobs in your hometown. Another example of why government spending /= household spending.
Something to keep in mind while talking about taxes: Money is a zero sum game. If you and I are in a room with 20 dollars, and I take 19 dollars, that only leaves 1 dollar for you. The more money I have, the less money you have. It's time to get past the propagandistic idea that this is somehow a moral issue. It's only a moral issue because you've been convinced of that by people who have a purely financial interest in the subject (and who don't believe that it's a moral issue at all...they just need you to continue believing it). We need to forget about the finance=morality propaganda and, instead, focus on practical things. There is a finite amount of money in the economy. Money is a zero sum game. The more money the super-wealthy have, the less money all of us have. It's not a moral issue. It's a practical economic issue.
Back on topic ...I remember reading an article written by a conservative outlining the strategy for "wedge politics". I can't find it now. But it outlined a whole strategy for how the republicans would actively find decisive topics and use that to force people to pick sides. Someone have that link? I know Carl Rove was a key proponent and early adopter of wedge politics as he utilized religion (more specifically abortion) to court the evangelical Christians and ensure they would deliver more votes to GOP. ..but I don't think it was Rove that originally built the strategy. It seems to me, implementing the strategy of wedge politics is largely responsible for America's divisiveness today. It is a dishonest strategy this isn't interested in solving problems ....but instead a strategy to garner votes.
krosfyah, you might be talking about Lee Atwater, who rose to some prominence in the 1980's and was a key to Bush-v-Dukakis.
There was a paper I remember reading that layed out exactly how to implement wedge politics. It was a paper Not written for the public ...but insiders. It spelled it out. Say this ...do that. It was the handbook. I don't think it was Atwater (I can't find it under his name either) although it looks like Atwater is perhaps the grandfather but I don't think he had a formal system.
Government Spending is a vital part of the economy. The government needs to play a role when there is no other liquidity in the marketplace as the governments goal is to provide protection and safeguard certain situations when the private sector cannot. Do I think Government is way too involved in industry and that quasi-regulated industries (housing mortgages and healthcare and student loans) are full of inefficiencies, Yes, but the government shouldn't slow down spending or borrowing in an era of virtually 0 treasury yields and low demand. Don't know why this is being discussed. What is concerning though is that major industries and employers feel alienated and have no idea what the climate will be in the future based on rules and the rhetoric dividing employer vs. employee and rich vs. poor. That lack of vision of the future and uncertainty will limit job growth and is affecting the economy in a negative way.
I am not sure if this is it but it is interesting none-the-less. http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html The author was Phillip Johnson in 1992 and this was his very detailed plan how to promote intelligent design. You could take any issue and insert it and execute the same plan. For example, global warming. Find a handful of people who cast a seed of doubt who are experts in the field. This way later on when you go on the attack, you can always reference back to these original "credible" sources. It's a specific and methodical strategy that takes years to execute.
It is patently irresponsible to argue that there is only mere rhetoric between "rich vs poor". The nation can only grow stronger if it addresses the legitimate greivances of the "poor". The system just went through one of the biggest private-market failures (and perhaps the biggest) in American history, and yet those who caused the crisis have somehow been placed in positions of even higher responsibility and power. To ignore the chorus of voices directing attention to this issue is foolhardy. This isn't just mere division; it should be a call to action. If, or rather when if nothing is done, the system collapses again, the repercussions will be much worse. They were too big to fail then, and they are even bigger now. Ramped-up income inequality and the increased concentration of economic power will, ultimately, only make America weaker.
Just what is it that you want? George Bush ran in 2000 pledging to decrease both the size of our government, and government spending. What did he give America? Several large tax cuts while this country was busy fighting 2 wars, one of those wars his own creation, and that is the first time, to my knowledge, that the United States has cut taxes while fighting a war. Two wars, in this case. The result? Massive budget deficits, doubling the national debt, while he was busy telling the country that the tax cuts would "grow us out of the budget deficit." Under his Republican watch, with his Republican Congress, this all happened. That Republican Congress that produced those huge deficits never had a spending bill vetoed by that Republican President. This wasn't because of Barack Obama. It wasn't the fault of the Democratic minority. Are you trying to pretend that none of that happened, or are you simply unaware of the history of the United States over the last 12 years?
