"the budget deficit will shrink this year to $642 billion"

[Gimmesometruth]

No, the problem is lack of non-government subsidised full time PRIVATE sector employment. What you are suggesting is that we take up the slack with government employment - not a good answer.

BOTH declined, local/state govt employment was the leading sector of employment loss. If private employment is not taking up the slack, then govt must.....or you prolong the depressed economy.

This is basic and historical.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I can agree with your first sentence. Your second statement is a little off I am afraid. Are you saying that there couldn't possibly be any waste in government spending.

Complete straw, I never even mentioned "waste". It is a diversion from the base issue.

 

[rjay]

Complete straw, I never even mentioned "waste". It is a diversion from the base issue.

No you didn't - you said 'ANY cutting of the budget is going to result in MORE UNEMPLOYMENT....FULL STOP. By ANY cutting of the budget I interpreted that to include waste. So you meant ANY cutting will be catastrophic, except when cutting what we can do without?

 

[clownboy]

BOTH declined, local/state govt employment was the leading sector of employment loss. If private employment is not taking up the slack, then govt must.....or you prolong the depressed economy.

This is basic and historical.

Well then you will have no problem proving that first statement. In any event, solving the problem by taking on more employees of government only results in a government as majority employer model, not at all wise because the money to pay those government people does not come from government.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

By ANY cutting of the budget I interpreted that to include waste.

You are ignoring the point of my discussion, diverting to yours. I am discussion the effects of lowered govt spending and its effect on employment. Either discuss that with me or be ignored.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Well then you will have no problem proving that first statement.

If you wish to take the time to disprove it, be my guest.

In any event, solving the problem by taking on more employees of government only results in a government as majority employer model,

Straw, that is not my argument

 

[clownboy]

If you wish to take the time to disprove it, be my guest. Straw, that is not my argument

YOU made the claim, YOU back it up or cede the point automatically. And yes, that is precisely what your argument leads to.

 

[rjay]

You are ignoring the point of my discussion, diverting to yours. I am discussion the effects of lowered govt spending and its effect on employment. Either discuss that with me or be ignored.

No, I am doing neither. For the most part I agree with you. I just thought the word 'ANY' was the wrong word choice. Your emphasizing it, brought it to my attention. Perhaps you meant ALMOST ANY spending cut will result in more unemployment

 

[iguanaman]

Reminds me of when my ex and I were in a very tight financial spot but she went mall shopping anyway. Her answer is much like yours, "But, but, it was all ON SALE". :lamo

If the budget deficit is anything more than zero we're still taking on debt.

We have run deficits for 63 of the last 73 years. There is no need to balance the budget now when so many are unemployed. If the Republicans would stop undermining corporate confidence with these stunts we could grow our way out of most of the deficit. Otherwise new revenue by eliminating loopholes and needless subsidies will be needed. There is going to be a huge increase in sequester cuts for defense next year, I wonder if Reps. will be willing to deal or have theypermanently abdicated their role as defense hawks?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

No, I am doing neither. For the most part I agree with you. I just thought the word 'ANY' was the wrong word choice. Your emphasizing it, brought it to my attention. Perhaps you meant ALMOST ANY spending cut will result in more unemployment

So your major contribution is semantics.

Wow.

 

[jonny5]

so far so good as it pertains TO OUR CURRENT ECONOMY.

FALSE....in the this CURRENT SITUATION cutting govt spending make the economy worse.

shutting down the govt makes the economy worse. Defaulting makes the economy worse.

N THIS SITUATION.?????

It certainly did from 09 to 10 in aggregate gross terms....but as everyone should understand, spending will increase as population and the economy grows, that is inescapable.


Revenues have just NOW regained to 2008 levels....which ignores the historical trend and potential of revenue....and ignores the shortfall we have just went through. You did not counter my argument, you augmented it.

You said the debt has increased due to lack of revenue. Revenue is now higher than before the recession. Debt is still going up. So whats your next excuse?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

YOU made the claim, YOU back it up or cede the point automatically. And yes, that is precisely what your argument leads to.

No deary, i don't have to prove what should be common knowledge. I don't have prove the atmosphere is mostly N, I dont run errands for fools

 

[rjay]

So your major contribution is semantics.

Wow.

That was what I said in my first reply. Stop looking for the strawman. read responses and think, then respond.

 

[clownboy]

No deary, i don't have to prove what should be common knowledge. I don't have prove the atmosphere is mostly N, I dont run errands for fools

In other words, you made a claim you can't back up and aren't wise enough to say so. Automatic fail.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

That was what I said in my first reply. Stop looking for the strawman. read responses and think, then respond.

Um, the straw from you is unavoidable, it is what you rely upon. It is a baseless form of argument. Diversions of semantics and non-topics is just poor posting.

Find some other playmate.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

“If the current laws that govern federal taxes and spending do not change, the budget deficit will shrink this year to $642 billion”

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44172-Baseline2.pdf

wait! what?!? 642 billion? That is less than half of Bush's 1.4 trillion dollar budget deficit. So the pubs are threatening to destroy the economy with default not to reduce the deficit but to reduce it faster? But deficit reduction was their back up excuse to destroy the economy with default. Their first excuse to destroy the economy with default was to defund Obamacare. Well I guess Obamacare cant be that bad if they had to go to their back up excuse.

So, President Obama has reduced the deficit every year and maintained positive GDP and pubs are not happy? mmmm, that just doesn't make any sense. Lets look at Bush's last budget with President Obama's first four as a % of GDP.

Fiscal year_______2009___2010___2011___2012___ 2013(est)
Total Revenues___ 15.1____15.1___ 15.4___ 15.8___16.9
Total Outlays_____ 25.2____24.1___ 24.1___ 22.8___22.2

Can someone explain why those numbers are worth pubs threatening to destroy the economy with default? remembering of course that President Obama maintained positive GDP which greatly helped with reducing the Bush Deficits.

Yet when Obama took over we had 10 trillion in debt, now we have 17 trillion? The deficit isn't everything ya know. When you look at ACTUAL spending, the picture is very clear!

 

[KLATTU]

We have run deficits for 63 of the last 73 years. There is no need to balance the budget now when so many are unemployed. If the Republicans would stop undermining corporate confidence with these stunts we could grow our way out of most of the deficit. Otherwise new revenue by eliminating loopholes and needless subsidies will be needed. There is going to be a huge increase in sequester cuts for defense next year, I wonder if Reps. will be willing to deal or have theypermanently abdicated their role as defense hawks?

Excuse me- did he just say REPUBLICANS are undermining corporate confidence? No...he could n't possibly have said that could he?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

In other words, you made a claim you can't back up and aren't wise enough to say so. Automatic fail.

I see, denial of basic knowledge.....is a win.

Wow.

Ignorance is not only bliss....but a winning strategy!

 

[clownboy]

I see, denial of basic knowledge.....is a win.

Wow.

Ignorance is not only bliss....but a winning strategy!

Keep dodging, if it's such basic knowledge you would easily be able to prove it and wouldn't need to duck so hard.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Keep dodging, if it's such basic knowledge you would easily be able to prove it and wouldn't need to duck so hard.

Lets get some agreement here....if I show you that govt employment was the major employment sector with the greatest amount of job losses since 2007, what then? what will you concede?

 

[rjay]

Um, the straw from you is unavoidable, it is what you rely upon. It is a baseless form of argument. Diversions of semantics and non-topics is just poor posting.

Find some other playmate.

I never made an argument, straw or otherwise. I simply pointed out that you were wrong to use the word 'ANY' and why that was the wrong word choice. Your reponse should have been, I see your point.

and then clarified what you were trying to say. Instead you chose the 'look how great I am at debate' approach.

You should change your name to - IcantHandleTheTruth.

 

[KLATTU]

' now is not the time to cut spending".

As if there would ever be a time when a liberal would call for Gov't spending cuts.

Well, besides in the Defense Dept.

Seriously, do liberals even believe this crap?

 

[Jack Hays]

Total nonsense.

The budgetary decisions of a previous president carry over AT LEAST 6 month into a new presidents term. Holding a new president "responsible" for economic performance from decisions that were not his is the sort of intellectual dishonesty I have come to expect from you.

Every POTUS lives with the decisions of his predecessor and returns the favor to his successor. You're only angry because you support a POTUS who has performed even more poorly than his predecessor in terms of fiscal responsibility.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I never made an argument, straw or otherwise. I simply pointed out that you were wrong to use the word 'ANY' and why that was the wrong word choice. Your reponse should have been, I see your point.

and then clarified what you were trying to say. Instead you chose the 'look how great I am at debate' approach.

You should change your name to - IcantHandleTheTruth.

Like I said....wow.

If you want to spend your time going around making out that a persons argument was not correct in some absolutists framework.....while ignoring the point......and not furthering the debate....but simply a polishing of your ego...thats cool.

Go ahead and take your victory lap, champ.....apparently it is that important.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Every POTUS lives with the decisions of his predecessor and returns the favor to his successor.

No, not in terms of measuring economic performance of his OWN policies and decisions.

You're only angry

Angry? I find your basing the economic performance of President on his first day in office silly. This is just your conflating current events with future planning.

because you support a POTUS who has performed even more poorly than his predecessor in terms of fiscal responsibility.

Funny, most would want to differentiate those who lead us into fiscal disasters from those leading us out.

You mileage might vary.