• 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!

US Debt Could Double in 25 Years With Current Policies

Deficit spending up until WWII was minimal at best, and can be mostly attributed to a deteriorating tax base as aggregate income was nearly cut in half by 1933. There is not a cookie cutter definition of Keynesian macro policy. Yes, deficit spending is essential, but closer observations must be made in order to dissect how income dynamics impact the tax base. Simply pointing to the existence of deficits (in and of themselves) does not support your argument.

Deficits that from FY1932 until FY1940 averaged over 3.6% of total G.D.P. (or today would be a $566 billion dollar deficit) are 'minimal' to you?


Once again, okaaaaaaay.
 
Last edited:
No, you do not have a coherent argument, as it is riddled with misconceptions at every plausible turn.

Yeah. OK. :roll:

Let me add for those not so silly. Regarding The Depression, and spending. The last two years of Hoover pursued excessive spending, and the expansion of Government, which are just as much of a cause in sustaining the initial Depression as what FDR continued.
 
Last edited:
Yeah. OK. :roll:

Let me add for those not so silly. Regarding The Depression, and spending. The last two years of Hoover pursued excessive spending, and the expansion of Government, which are just as much of a cause in sustaining the initial Depression as what FDR continued.

Yes - as I have stated before, the notion that Hoover was an Austrian Schooler is totally wrong.
 
I figured the information answered it for me.

I guess not.


'Definition of 'Keynesian Economics'
An economic theory stating that active government intervention in the marketplace and monetary policy is the best method of ensuring economic growth and stability.'

Read more: Keynesian Economics Definition | Investopedia


So, you are seriously suggesting that the New Deal was not an example of 'active government intervention in the marketplace and monetary policy'?

So a government increase in spending from 1930 until 1936 of roughly 150%, despite the fact that government revenues actually were lower in 1936 then in 1930...and you say that is not engaging in Keynesian policies?

Okaaaaaaay.

Many of FDR's relief programs weren't initiated until around 1935-1936. And in 1937, FDR had actually cut spending. And, there's also the fact that Keynes wrote letters to Roosevelt criticizing him for not doing enough spending.....
 
A near tripling of spending between FY1930 and FY1940 is minimal at best to you?

Once again, okaaaaaaay.

The level of increased spending was nowhere near the requisite to close the output gap. Typically those right of center tend to confuse the New Deal with Keynes. The General Theory was not publish until 1936, and the notion of running deficits in proportion of the output gap was not initiated until the U.S. enters WWII.

This is simply a matter of fact.
 
Many of FDR's relief programs weren't initiated until around 1935-1936. And in 1937, FDR had actually cut spending. And, there's also the fact that Keynes wrote letters to Roosevelt criticizing him for not doing enough spending.....

Yep.

The letter can be found here, although this part is most interesting in regards to the discussion at hand.

snip

John Maynard Keynes said:
But in a slump governmental Loan expenditure is the only sure means of securing quickly a rising output at rising prices. That is why a war has always caused intense industrial activity. In the past orthodox finance has regarded a war as the only legitimate excuse for creating employment by governmental expenditure. You, Mr President, having cast off such fetters, are free to engage in the interests of peace and prosperity the technique which hitherto has only been allowed to serve the purposes of war and destruction.
 
Last edited:
The level of increased spending was nowhere near the requisite to close the output gap. Typically those right of center tend to confuse the New Deal with Keynes. The General Theory was not publish until 1936, and the notion of running deficits in proportion of the output gap was not initiated until the U.S. enters WWII.

This is simply a matter of fact.

Hit the nail on the head.
 
Yeah. OK. :roll:

Let me add for those not so silly. Regarding The Depression, and spending. The last two years of Hoover pursued excessive spending, and the expansion of Government, which are just as much of a cause in sustaining the initial Depression as what FDR continued.

You made an error in stating that the Banking Act of 1933 (a.k.a. Glass-Steagall) caused a lack of confidence in the banking system. First and foremost, the ridiculousness of the claim should be rather apparent given that nearly half of all banks in the U.S. failed by 1932. Secondly, FDIC insurance is responsible for bringing confidence back to depository institutions.

As stated earlier, your position stems from an incoherent understanding of contemporary finance.
 
The level of increased spending was nowhere near the requisite to close the output gap. Typically those right of center tend to confuse the New Deal with Keynes. The General Theory was not publish until 1936, and the notion of running deficits in proportion of the output gap was not initiated until the U.S. enters WWII.

This is simply a matter of fact.

I did not say Keynes was behind the New Deal.

I said the New Deal was an example of Keynesian economics.



And - so everyone is made aware of your understanding (?!?) of economics:


You have (apparently) said that the New Deal is not an example of Keynesian economics

AND

that a budget deficit of 3.6% of GDP (what would today be $566 billion) is 'minimal'.


Noted.



Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
Why allow the tax cuts to expire when we could just cut everything that makes American society not devolve us into a Somalia-like state?

"To keep deficits and debt from climbing to unsustainable levels, as they will if the current set of policies is continued, policymakers will need to increase revenues substantially above historical levels as a percentage of GDP, decrease spending significantly from projected levels, or adopt some combination of those two" - CBO

Treasury estimates the costs of making the tax cuts permanent for everyone is $3.7 trillion over 10 years.

Of that, $3 trillion accounts for the cost of extending them for the vast majority of Americans, as the president has proposed. The remaining $700 billion is the cost of extending them permanently for the high-income earners.

So -- ending the Bush tax cuts as President Obama wants will raise $70 billion a year in additional revenue. The United States in FY2012 is running a $1.327 trillion deficit.

The simple fact is plain for everyone to see (who wants to see it) -- ending the tax cuts are not enough the solve our fiscal issues -- we MUST address the real drivers of spending (which the CBO points to in this report) -- entitlements.
 
You made an error in stating that the Banking Act of 1933 (a.k.a. Glass-Steagall) caused a lack of confidence in the banking system. First and foremost, the ridiculousness of the claim should be rather apparent given that nearly half of all banks in the U.S. failed by 1932. Secondly, FDIC insurance is responsible for bringing confidence back to depository institutions.

As stated earlier, your position stems from an incoherent understanding of contemporary finance.

No. This is exactly what I said:

... His actions with the banks when he first took office undermined confidence in them.

At least quote me, or correctly state what I posted, instead of just lying about it, and then criticizing me for something that I did not say.

Here, from an earlier link that I provided:

The day after FDR took the oath of office, he issued a proclamation calling Congress into a special session. Before it met, he proclaimed a national banking holiday--an action he had refused to endorse when Hoover suggested it three days earlier.

Invoking the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, Roosevelt declared that "all banking transactions shall be suspended." Banks were permitted to reopen only after case-by-case inspection and approval by the government, a procedure that dragged on for months. This action heightened the public's sense of crisis and allowed him to ignore traditional restraints on the power of the central government.

You are making stuff up.
 
You have said that the New Deal is not an example of Keynesian economics

AND

that a budget deficit of 3.6% of GDP (what would today be $566 billion) is 'minimal'.

And i would be correct in that statement. Anyone who is familiar with Keynesian macroeconomic policy understands that the reason in engaging in deficit spending is to minimize the "output gap". By 1933, unemployment was around 20% and real GDP had fallen by 37% from 1929. Therefore it would take an enormous amount of deficit spending to push the economy back to full employment. And it did.
 
Apparently conservatives think that government spending - specifically, deficit spending for some unknown reason - is "Keynesian". And that therefore anyone that increases government spending must be "Keynesian".

I don't think they understand what Keynesian economics was about. :roll:
 
At least quote me, or correctly state what I posted, instead of just lying about it, and then criticizing me for something that I did not say.

Here, from an earlier link that I provided:

Your statement and link do not support your argument that the Banking Act of 1933 undermined confidence in banks. They were failing by the thousands as depositors fearing their savings would be wiped out caused continuous runs on the U.S. banking system. After the BA was in full effect, the U.S. has never faced another run on depository institutions.

You are making stuff up.

Not at all. I am just having a discussion with someone who does not know what they are talking about.
 
Last edited:
The only idiotic thing we can do right now is NOT borrow more. In real terms, we are presently able to borrow at negative interest rates.

This is really where no matter the partisan position, it's difficult to counter.

I think a number of conservatives, and maybe even a few libertarians, would be more inclined to back government spending during a bust, and restraint during a boom if:
1. Government consistent got it right on how the spend the money
2. Government got the restraint-part right.

But part of the issue that I don't see being disucssed much is:

- Of the tools government has to induce such economic growth (interest rates, spending, etc.), don't they lose much of their effect if we know how and when government will implement them? Don't they get both factored in, and worse, predicted? And those who predict it are most likely the big financial giants....

Greenspan left interest rates too low after dot-com, presumably leading to a worse housing bubble. Why isn't it more of a calculation than a thumb in the air? Is it a calculation, but they have to seem as random as possible to avoid the "factoring in and prediction" the market would use to counter it?

And finally, if we know approximately when interest rates will go up, and down (after some recovery, after a crash), can we all make a fortune on that and how?
 
Your statement and link do not support your argument that the Banking Act of 1933 undermined confidence in banks.

Show me the post where I commented about the Banking Act of 1933 ?

You had earlier praised FDR on his banking policies, and I only commented that he had done some banking things not worthy of praise as well.

Just go and pull the quote. I already posted it once, and yet you choose to remain dishonest about it.
 
Fitch Ratings has repeated its warning that it will cut the U.S. credit rating in 2013 if the U.S. fails to come up with a credible fiscal consolidation plan.

From Reuters:

Fitch Ratings reiterated on Thursday it would cut its sovereign credit rating for the United States next year if Washington cannot come to grips with its deficits and create a "credible" fiscal consolidation plan...

"The United States is the only country (of four major AAA-rated countries) which does not have a credible fiscal consolidation plan," and its debt-to-GDP ratio, or how much debt it has relative to the size of the economy, is expected to increase over the medium term, Ed Parker, sovereign ratings analyst, told a Fitch conference in New York.

U.S. rating faces 2013 cut if no credible plan: Fitch | Reuters
 
Interesting that they will decide after the elections. I guess they do not want the administration to be mad at them and ask some tough questions about how rating agencies get paid by the people they rate.

Their decision will be based on a number of significant decisions that will come up early next year.
 
Their decision will be based on a number of significant decisions that will come up early next year.

So they are saying that they will downgrade if Obama is reelected and does what he promises, including a new stimulus program in 2013?
 
So they are saying that they will downgrade if Obama is reelected and does what he promises, including a new stimulus program in 2013?

No, essentially they're saying they will downgrade if the teabagger Congress continues to refuse to negotiate, indicating that wer're in for at least another two years of ungovernable stupidity.
 
No, essentially they're saying they will downgrade if the teabagger Congress continues to refuse to negotiate, indicating that wer're in for at least another two years of ungovernable stupidity.

Whoa. It ain't the DNC setting the credit rating ! Good heavens !! Its folks who see Obama as clueless !

WTFU already/
 
No, essentially they're saying they will downgrade if the teabagger Congress continues to refuse to negotiate, indicating that wer're in for at least another two years of ungovernable stupidity.

They downgraded us because we can't set a budget. The Senate refuses to pass a budget. Those are the people you should be targeting. Congress has passed a ton a budgets since it has gotten out of the hands of the Dems. I know...Pelozi couldn't pass a budget because it might hurt the Dems during the 2010 elections. Ooops.
 
The problem with our Congress lies on both sides of the aisle since neither side is willing to budge on their Golden Calves and, in the last couple of decades, the word "compromise" has become a dirty word in the highly polarized politics plaguing our nation.
 
The problem with our Congress lies on both sides of the aisle since neither side is willing to budge on their Golden Calves and, in the last couple of decades, the word "compromise" has become a dirty word in the highly polarized politics plaguing our nation.

Except now, with Obama, it starts all the way at the top. His platform is class warfare. He is unfit to command.

Romney, agree or disagree with his politics, is not the assclown Obama is. Neither was W.
 
Back
Top Bottom