• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who Has the Courage to Get Our Budget in Order?

Yeah, ya could say that, but it would be a load of crap. What is yer argument to support such a claim?

Think about it for 5 seconds and its not that hard, for me anyway.

Tax cuts: Are you going to be able to invest your saved money and turn it into anything initially? No, probably not. But expand those same tax cuts for a decade or more...hmm...you could have some serious cash saved up from that. Now your possibilities open up and you could create a business, simply save the money, invest in stocks, etc etc etc...you know...do things that actually improve the economy and your personal quality of life.

Unlike when the government confiscates your money.

That is why Reagan is responsible for the 90s, not Clinton. Clinton is responsible for the 00s. Thanks for repealing Glass-Steagall, dick.
 
Think about it for 5 seconds and its not that hard, for me anyway.

Tax cuts: Are you going to be able to invest your saved money and turn it into anything initially? No, probably not. But expand those same tax cuts for a decade or more...hmm...you could have some serious cash saved up from that. Now your possibilities open up and you could create a business, simply save the money, invest in stocks, etc etc etc...you know...do things that actually improve the economy and your personal quality of life.

Unlike when the government confiscates your money.

That is why Reagan is responsible for the 90s, not Clinton. Clinton is responsible for the 00s. Thanks for repealing Glass-Steagall, dick.

By YER logic, Bush-43 is responsible for Obama's economy that McConnell took credit for this past January.
Pretty flawed thinking on your part don't you think--as to be expected .
 
I would say that Clintons economic results were a result of Reagans policies. And yes, the GDP did double under Reagan.

And you would be wrong again WSUwarrior.
Reagan's tax cuts in 1983 began this 18 Trillion spiral we're in.

We have Sen. Dole's and Sen. Simpson's own words for that.
As they admitted after retiring that "voodoo" economics was the worst mistake they ever made .
 
I would say that Clintons economic results were a result of Reagans policies. And yes, the GDP did double under Reagan.
Yeah, ya could say that, but it would be a load of crap. What is yer argument to support such a claim?
...
You beat me too it, mmi. According to the fact-free right-wing mindset, Reagan was not responsible for the poor economic performance of his successor, GHW Bush, but Reagan's economic aura skipped right over Bush and landed on Clinton, who raised taxes and created a surplus. [SARCASM]The resulting Clinton Boom was really Reagan's, don't you see? [/SARCASM]

Let's also remind our readers that the GOP leaders at the time of Clinton, argued that raising taxes was going to tank the economy.
FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton's Tax Plan Would 'Kill Jobs,' 'Kill The Current Recovery' | ThinkProgress

ep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA), February 2, 1993: We have all too many people in the Democratic administration who are talking about bigger Government, bigger bureaucracy, more programs, and higher taxes. I believe that that will in fact kill the current recovery and put us back in a recession. It might take 1 1/2 or 2 years, but it will happen. (Congressional Record, 1993, Thomas)
 
Last edited:
You beat me too it, mmi. According to the fact-free right-wing mindset, Reagan was not responsible for the poor economic performance of his successor, GHW Bush, but Reagan's economic aura skipped right over Bush and landed on Clinton, who raised taxes and created a surplus. [SARCASM]The resulting Clinton Boom was really Reagan's, don't you see? [/SARCASM]

Let's also remind our readers that the GOP leaders at the time of Clinton, argued that raising taxes was going to tank the economy.
FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton's Tax Plan Would 'Kill Jobs,' 'Kill The Current Recovery' | ThinkProgress

To add to this:

As far as GDP is concerned, one can look at a raw figure, such as this:

1981-01-01 $3.1318 trillion
1989-01-01 $5.5274 trillion
source: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/GDP.txt

To double GDP, the Jan. 1989 GDP would have had to be $6.2636 trillion. Sorry, myth busted.

But there is more to it than raw numbers. Real economic analysis requires adjustments, for things like inflation (and population growth) which make the economy increase regardless of government policy. That's what the term "Real GDP" means. Real GDP (Chained 2009 Dollars) was:

1981-01-01 $6.6357 trillion
1989-01-01 $8.6977 trillion

So, one can see that in real terms, GDP far from doubled, rising 31% during the Reagan Administration. Clinton's p% increase was 34%.
 
I find myself debating with myself, Eric, whether you have an odd sense of humour, or perhaps an aversion to reading. I'm hoping for the former.

Keynes, by current American standards, was a raging socialist, who advocated spending what was needed during recessions, to keep up employment and economic activity. His point was that budgets should be balanced through a cycle of ups and downs. Spend when necessary, tax when times are good.

Most European countries have high taxes, and it works very well for them. Resources are allocated to socially redeeming projects, and individuals are shepherded towards productive activity. Contrast this with the boom and bust mentality of free wheeling capitalism, which has brought quite a bit of destruction through its history.

Americans have only recently been adverse to high taxes. They were extremely high in the '50s and '60s, and no one complained. In fact, those were some of the best times ever for working people. Today they are at historical lows, and still the shills for the ultra rich are demanding even lower taxes, which would recreate the world of the early industrial revolution.

Keynes, by no stretch of the imagination was a socialist, although the right-wing thinks so. (Another of the many areas they have been shown to be wrong.)

As Keynes put it: in the absence of an effective monetary or fiscal policy, a recession would have to go on until "the shortage of capital through use, decay and obsolescence causes a sufficiently obvious scarcity to increase the marginal efficiency." However, the government could create demand and shorten the time of the slump.

The debate over business-cycle economics has always settled to a left-right divide. Specifically, the right has always been deeply hostile to the notion that expansionary fiscal policy can ever be helpful or austerity harmful; most of the time it has been hostile to expansionary monetary policy too (except for Friedman types). So the politicization of the macro debate isn't some happenstance, it has deep roots. After World War II there was a concerted, disgraceful effort by conservatives and business interests to prevent the teaching of Keynesian economics in the universities.

It's also a topic that tends to cut at the grain of conservative ideology, namely, the government can never help, it's all the free market. So, any model that shows that the government can help (e.g. shorten an economic slump) undercuts the basic premise of conservative thought. This ties into the general fear on the part of conservatives that if you admit that the government can do something useful other than fighting wars, you open the door to the idea that other government activities might work. That explains why conservatives have always seen Keynesianism as a dangerous leftist doctrine even though that makes no sense in terms of the theory’s actual content. On top of that there’s the Kalecki point that admitting that the government can create jobs undermines demands that policies be framed to cater to all-important business confidence. Keynesian economics, if true, would mean that governments don't have to be deeply concerned about business confidence, and don't have to respond to recessions by slashing social programs. Therefore it must not be true, and must be opposed.

The flip-side fact that Keynes also believed that in boom times, government spending should be cut and taxes raised, to cool down the economy, never gets the play from conservatives.
 
Keynes, by no stretch of the imagination was a socialist, although the right-wing thinks so. (Another of the many areas they have been shown to be wrong.)

As Keynes put it: in the absence of an effective monetary or fiscal policy, a recession would have to go on until "the shortage of capital through use, decay and obsolescence causes a sufficiently obvious scarcity to increase the marginal efficiency." However, the government could create demand and shorten the time of the slump.

The debate over business-cycle economics has always settled to a left-right divide. Specifically, the right has always been deeply hostile to the notion that expansionary fiscal policy can ever be helpful or austerity harmful; most of the time it has been hostile to expansionary monetary policy too (except for Friedman types). So the politicization of the macro debate isn't some happenstance, it has deep roots. After World War II there was a concerted, disgraceful effort by conservatives and business interests to prevent the teaching of Keynesian economics in the universities.

It's also a topic that tends to cut at the grain of conservative ideology, namely, the government can never help, it's all the free market. So, any model that shows that the government can help (e.g. shorten an economic slump) undercuts the basic premise of conservative thought. This ties into the general fear on the part of conservatives that if you admit that the government can do something useful other than fighting wars, you open the door to the idea that other government activities might work. That explains why conservatives have always seen Keynesianism as a dangerous leftist doctrine even though that makes no sense in terms of the theory’s actual content. On top of that there’s the Kalecki point that admitting that the government can create jobs undermines demands that policies be framed to cater to all-important business confidence. Keynesian economics, if true, would mean that governments don't have to be deeply concerned about business confidence, and don't have to respond to recessions by slashing social programs. Therefore it must not be true, and must be opposed.

The flip-side fact that Keynes also believed that in boom times, government spending should be cut and taxes raised, to cool down the economy, never gets the play from conservatives.

Exactly. It is the sad state of affairs today that basic, accepted economic doctrine, and programs like universal health care, are considered socialist within the fevered minds of the ultra right, and their unwitting supporters. To the latter I'd just say: be careful what you wish for. Because a Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, or similar in charge could lead you to a sort of corporate feudalism, with millions impoverished and US credibility in tatters.
 
Exactly. It is the sad state of affairs today that basic, accepted economic doctrine, and programs like universal health care, are considered socialist within the fevered minds of the ultra right, and their unwitting supporters. To the latter I'd just say: be careful what you wish for. Because a Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, or similar in charge could lead you to a sort of corporate feudalism, with millions impoverished and US credibility in tatters.

Keynesian economics as a " economic doctrine " is a proven failure and therefore SHOULDN'T be accepted by anyone on the Right, Left or otherwise.

The ONLY people that accept this ridiculous notion are those who are the least knowledgeable when it comes to growing market driven economies. Those on the left.

And yes, by definition Universal Healthcare is Socialist and NO, we do not need single payer Healthcare in America.

It would be a disaster.

You really want ALL Americans to be treated as poorly as the VA treats or Vets ?
 
Exactly. It is the sad state of affairs today that basic, accepted economic doctrine, and programs like universal health care, are considered socialist within the fevered minds of the ultra right, and their unwitting supporters. To the latter I'd just say: be careful what you wish for. Because a Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, or similar in charge could lead you to a sort of corporate feudalism, with millions impoverished and US credibility in tatters.

I am an advocate for national health insurance, but find your reference to the ultra right, somewhat curious. The Democrats had one of those rare opportunities in the past few decades where they controlled both the legislative and executive. Not only did they punt on national health insurance, but created a recipe for and given its blessing to an unprecedented consolidation of health care insurers. The monopolists of old would be proud. Similarly, its hard to imagine that Ted Cruz or Donald Trump, or for that matter anybody on the right could have matched Obama's generosity to Wall Street.
 
I am an advocate for national health insurance, but find your reference to the ultra right, somewhat curious. The Democrats had one of those rare opportunities in the past few decades where they controlled both the legislative and executive. Not only did they punt on national health insurance, but created a recipe for and given its blessing to an unprecedented consolidation of health care insurers. The monopolists of old would be proud. Similarly, its hard to imagine that Ted Cruz or Donald Trump, or for that matter anybody on the right could have matched Obama's generosity to Wall Street.

Yep, no doubt about it. I always say you have two major political parties in the US, one somewhat to the right of political center, and one somewhat to the right of Attila the Hun. Both are firm believers in the world of big money and profit seeking in all things.

My gut feeling is that Obama probably wanted a universal health care system for the US, but whether he was cajoled, browbeaten, threatened, out maneuvered, or just plain worn down by the self-interested and the ideologically crazed I don't know. Maybe no one does. What I do believe is that America needs more of a voice from the left.
 
Yep, no doubt about it. I always say you have two major political parties in the US, one somewhat to the right of political center, and one somewhat to the right of Attila the Hun. Both are firm believers in the world of big money and profit seeking in all things.

My gut feeling is that Obama probably wanted a universal health care system for the US, but whether he was cajoled, browbeaten, threatened, out maneuvered, or just plain worn down by the self-interested and the ideologically crazed I don't know. Maybe no one does. What I do believe is that America needs more of a voice from the left.

I don't know how you can define the center anywhere except the midpoint of the two parties given that most elections are won by swaying perhaps 5% of the electorate or less. Although I disagreed with Clinton on a number of issues, he was last president I felt that seemed to be guided, not by his own agenda but what he perceived to be the majority. Obama, is as bad if not worse than any president I can remember in terms of thinking its about his own personal agenda. If he actually wanted universal health care, all I heard him do was to say whatever he thought might get enough support to create his "landmark" legislation.

My apologies to the thread for this off topic rant.
 
We
Keynesian economics as a " economic doctrine " is a proven failure and therefore SHOULDN'T be accepted by anyone on the Right, Left or otherwise.

The ONLY people that accept this ridiculous notion are those who are the least knowledgeable when it comes to growing market driven economies. Those on the left.

And yes, by definition Universal Healthcare is Socialist and NO, we do not need single payer Healthcare in America.

It would be a disaster.

You really want ALL Americans to be treated as poorly as the VA treats or Vets ?
First, Keynesian economics has been proven correct. The only people who deny it are those wearing ideological blinders.
Second, why would universal health care be a disaster? It works in many other countries, providing better results art lower cost. Why can others do something Americans cannot?
 
We
First, Keynesian economics has been proven correct. The only people who deny it are those wearing ideological blinders.
Second, why would universal health care be a disaster? It works in many other countries, providing better results art lower cost. Why can others do something Americans cannot?

Sure it's a " success " , if your'e intention is to produce stagnation and debt.

Japan blew through a 100 Trillion Yen in the 90s and what did it lead to ? 30 years of stagnantion and the Highest debt to GDP ratio in the world.

How many Trillions in new debt have we spent in the last 7 years ? Whats it produced ? More stagnation and debt

You people have no clue how to grow a market driven economy because you do not UNDERSTAND market driven economies.

And why would single payer be a disaster ? Oh I don't know.

Ask Vermont why single payer would have been a disaster for that State. Ask them why they scrapped it.
 
Sure it's a " success " , if your'e intention is to produce stagnation and debt.

Japan blew through a 100 Trillion Yen in the 90s and what did it lead to ? 30 years of stagnantion and the Highest debt to GDP ratio in the world.

How many Trillions in new debt have we spent in the last 7 years ? Whats it produced ? More stagnation and debt

You people have no clue how to grow a market driven economy because you do not UNDERSTAND market driven economies.

And why would single payer be a disaster ? Oh I don't know.

Ask Vermont why single payer would have been a disaster for that State. Ask them why they scrapped it.

We've been through this before. When you ask, "How many Trillions in new debt have we spent in the last 7 years ? Whats it produced ? More stagnation and debt." The answer is that A) very little of the "new" debt was stimulus. It was merely the day-to-day activities of government. B) It also didn't result in stagnation. It resulted in a recover.

But on the major debate of whether Keynesian economics works, this is Business Insider's take: The Economic Argument Is Over — Paul Krugman Has Won

On single-payer HC, I'm not going to ask an entire state why it would be a disaster. That's preposterous. But I asked you and your answer was, "And why would single payer be a disaster ? Oh I don't know." I accept that answer.
 
I don't know how you can define the center anywhere except the midpoint of the two parties given that most elections are won by swaying perhaps 5% of the electorate or less. Although I disagreed with Clinton on a number of issues, he was last president I felt that seemed to be guided, not by his own agenda but what he perceived to be the majority. Obama, is as bad if not worse than any president I can remember in terms of thinking its about his own personal agenda. If he actually wanted universal health care, all I heard him do was to say whatever he thought might get enough support to create his "landmark" legislation.

My apologies to the thread for this off topic rant.

I'm defining the center in terms of the major western democracies, and their current political philosophies. In that context, the US has two parties on the right, some tiny bit players that almost all ignore, and that's it. Generally, about half of the eligible electorate don't vote in the US, and I'd speculate that is because a great many of them feel they have no voice on offer to represent their real desires. As for the narrow victories, I'm not too surprised, as most elections tend to focus on personalities and trivia, and treat the status quo as untouchable. This is changing a bit today, as the Republican Party moves ever closer to the realm of psychosis, a strategy they will come to regret in my opinion.

Universal health care is something most Americans have approved of, and Obama was elected by a clear majority with a mandate for such change. Support for this program has dropped recently, if I'm not mistaken, and I guess that's not surprising, as one extorted compromise after another have made a mess of what should have been a clear priority, and a deliverable system. I don't know what else you consider his "personal agenda"- withdrawing from foolish and unpopular wars? Heading off a nuclear Iran? Ending the childish and vindictive crusade against Cuba? My guess is that a lot of folks are giving a sigh of relief after enduring eight years in a circus with the former president.
 
We've been through this before. When you ask, "How many Trillions in new debt have we spent in the last 7 years ? Whats it produced ? More stagnation and debt." The answer is that A) very little of the "new" debt was stimulus. It was merely the day-to-day activities of government. B) It also didn't result in stagnation. It resulted in a recover.

But on the major debate of whether Keynesian economics works, this is Business Insider's take: The Economic Argument Is Over — Paul Krugman Has Won

On single-payer HC, I'm not going to ask an entire state why it would be a disaster. That's preposterous. But I asked you and your answer was, "And why would single payer be a disaster ? Oh I don't know." I accept that answer.

Why didn't Vermont go through with their Single payer iniative ?
 
I'm defining the center in terms of the major western democracies, and their current political philosophies. In that context, the US has two parties on the right, some tiny bit players that almost all ignore, and that's it. Generally, about half of the eligible electorate don't vote in the US, and I'd speculate that is because a great many of them feel they have no voice on offer to represent their real desires. As for the narrow victories, I'm not too surprised, as most elections tend to focus on personalities and trivia, and treat the status quo as untouchable. This is changing a bit today, as the Republican Party moves ever closer to the realm of psychosis, a strategy they will come to regret in my opinion.

Universal health care is something most Americans have approved of, and Obama was elected by a clear majority with a mandate for such change. Support for this program has dropped recently, if I'm not mistaken, and I guess that's not surprising, as one extorted compromise after another have made a mess of what should have been a clear priority, and a deliverable system. I don't know what else you consider his "personal agenda"- withdrawing from foolish and unpopular wars? Heading off a nuclear Iran? Ending the childish and vindictive crusade against Cuba? My guess is that a lot of folks are giving a sigh of relief after enduring eight years in a circus with the former president.

The American people have not approved of universal healthcare, Obama did not campaign on universal health care, and Obamacare is not in any way shape or form of universal health care. However, given the fatal flaws of Obamacare, and the new wave of uber expensive biologics that will be hitting the drug market soon... public opinion will be changing in the not too distant opinion, of that I'm confident.

You and I clearly see the role of a President quite differently. I believe that the legislative branch is the appropriate place for partisanship to duke it out. As the only representative of all the people in the legislative and regulatory functions, pursuit of personal agenda without a strong plurality is destructive to the nation. Obama is the worst in my memory, and Clinton the best.
 
Oh, when did I become your spokesperson?

You tell us.

It's a simple and relevant question. Why did Vermont bail on their single payer initiative ??
 
It's a simple and relevant question. Why did Vermont bail on their single payer initiative ??

Could you explain what Vermont meant by "single payer"... was that going to cover everybody in the state, (medicare, military, federal, corporate, etc) If not, its simply a way to throw the individual market in with Medicaid in a single state and wave a magic wand to create savings... but that is not universal or national health care.
 
Could you explain what Vermont meant by "single payer"... was that going to cover everybody in the state, (medicare, military, federal, corporate, etc) If not, its simply a way to throw the individual market in with Medicaid in a single state and wave a magic wand to create savings... but that is not universal or national health care.

Why single payer died in Vermont - Sarah Wheaton - POLITICO

" Medicare " for all...

It was what every low information Progressive advocates for on a National scale and it wasn't feasible.

Vermont bailed because the tax liability for Single payer would have killed their local economy.

The Elephant in the room, the ever present hitch in the Progressives agenda to redistribute and tax the " Rich " to pay for it couldn't be ignored.

You cannot Tax what's not there, be it Capital bussinesses or individuals.
 
Why single payer died in Vermont - Sarah Wheaton - POLITICO

" Medicare " for all...

It was what every low information Progressive advocates for on a National scale and it wasn't feasible.

Vermont bailed because the tax liability for Single payer would have killed their local economy.

The Elephant in the room, the ever present hitch in the Progressives agenda to redistribute and tax the " Rich " to pay for it couldn't be ignored.

You cannot Tax what's not there, be it Capital bussinesses or individuals.

I have a question for you Fenton. Why do almost all developed modern economies in the world have some sort of comprehensive medical care system, one in which no one is left out, and what's more, all of them, without exception, can do this at a lower cost per capita than the current system in the US, one dominated by private interest, and private profit?

Because they do, and it doesn't kill their economies, they are doing quite well, and in some measures better than the US. And to be honest, I suppose this is a redundant question, because we know the answer, don't we? If everyone up the line demands as much profit he or she can leverage out of the system, by the time it gets down to poor Mr and Ms Average worker, the bill is through the roof. But here is the takeaway for you: it doesn't have to be.
 
Why single payer died in Vermont - Sarah Wheaton - POLITICO

" Medicare " for all...

It was what every low information Progressive advocates for on a National scale and it wasn't feasible.

Vermont bailed because the tax liability for Single payer would have killed their local economy.

The Elephant in the room, the ever present hitch in the Progressives agenda to redistribute and tax the " Rich " to pay for it couldn't be ignored.

You cannot Tax what's not there, be it Capital bussinesses or individuals.

Appreciate the link. However, if you read the article it points out, that it wouldn't have included everyone, and mentioned Medicare, Tricare and multi state corporations... that would simply have been a more flawed plan than Obamacare.
 
Could you explain what Vermont meant by "single payer"... was that going to cover everybody in the state, (medicare, military, federal, corporate, etc)

No, it wasn't single-payer in that sense.
 
Appreciate the link. However, if you read the article it points out, that it wouldn't have included everyone, and mentioned Medicare, Tricare and multi state corporations... that would simply have been a more flawed plan than Obamacare.

Lol !!

This is like one of those debates where the guy on the left keeps denying that real Socialism exist in any form or function while he defends Socialism.

So youre saying Vermont couldn't afford its version of single payer but COULD afford your version of single payer ?

Had they just done it properly it would have worked ?

Does your version of single payer include tax increases on consumers and bussinesses because thats what killed Vermonts initiative.

They finally reasoned ( beats me how they didn't realize this from the get go ) that a substantial increase in taxes would lead to a huge drop in revenue, and without revenue they couldn't afford single payer Healthcare.
 
Back
Top Bottom