Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/30/12 10:00 PM, Saen wrote: I don't see why we are all of the sudden eager to tackle the national debt while we were in a recession and just pulled ourselves out of one!

Because Republicans preach their principles while they aren't in power, and then refuse to live up to them when they are... (ie, advocating fiscal restraint in the 90's and in the 112th Congress, but voting to increase the federal debt ceiling 275 times between 2002-2008, and then after Obama's election, they have filibustered or defeated every attempt to raise the debt ceiling except on four occasions (and after the last time, S&P downgraded the US credit rating just days after Boehner says he got what he wanted in the 2011 debt deal.

Wouldn't it make sense to pay off the national debt while the country is posting a surplus?

That was actually the plan before Bush was elected. Ensure solvency of major social safety net programs (SS and Medicare) and then pay down the National Debt. See what happens to our priorities after eight years of a Republican administration?

If we are in a recession or a period of low economic activity we should invest our spending federal dollars in rebuilding roads, restoring cities and towns, and revamping schools. These are just a few examples of activities that make areas more desirable to live, visit, or spend money in while filling jobs for those positions.

Not only that, but government spending during a recession is a direct economic impetus. Most of the spending - like you mentioned - is on infrastructure (which is badly needed in our country, we currently face an infrastructure deficit that is threatening to sabotage our country). Other programs - like unemployment benefits - yield far greater benefits per dollar spent (I think it was like the US gets back 1.30$ for every 1$ invested in the long-term unemployed).

Once the recession is over and we can draw down the level of federal spending to a more reasonable level, we can then use the benefits gained from our investments to pay down the national debt. This is really not a hard concept, but some people are just too obtuse to understand or simply don't care.

At 12/31/12 12:48 AM, theburningliberal wrote:
Because Republicans preach their principles while they aren't in power, and then refuse to live up to them when they are... (ie, advocating fiscal restraint in the 90's and in the 112th Congress, but voting to increase the federal debt ceiling 275 times between 2002-2008, and then after Obama's election, they have filibustered or defeated every attempt to raise the debt ceiling except on four occasions (and after the last time, S&P downgraded the US credit rating just days after Boehner says he got what he wanted in the 2011 debt deal.

It's true and it makes me sick. While throughout Bush's two terms Republicans were all in on increased government power and interference within our lives. Now they've jumped to the other crazy ass end of the spectrum saying that the government only want to rape their wives and force their kids to be gay. It's every modern Republican's wet dream for the country to collapse while under President Obama's term and enjoy shooting each other in a post apocalyptic world.

That was actually the plan before Bush was elected. Ensure solvency of major social safety net programs (SS and Medicare) and then pay down the National Debt. See what happens to our priorities after eight years of a Republican administration?

Yup and the said thing was the country posted a surplus just before Clinton left office, we were on track. Electing bush will be remembered in our history and the U.S. History foreign countries teach as one of the dumbest and economically ruinous decisions our country had made.

Not only that, but government spending during a recession is a direct economic impetus. Most of the spending - like you mentioned - is on infrastructure (which is badly needed in our country, we currently face an infrastructure deficit that is threatening to sabotage our country). Other programs - like unemployment benefits - yield far greater benefits per dollar spent (I think it was like the US gets back 1.30$ for every 1$ invested in the long-term unemployed).

Once the recession is over and we can draw down the level of federal spending to a more reasonable level, we can then use the benefits gained from our investments to pay down the national debt. This is really not a hard concept, but some people are just too obtuse to understand or simply don't care.

Right on again. What I don't understand is why Republicans complain about increased government spending in a recession, since that is exactly what is needed!

In my home town of Jax Beach (Neptune beach and Atlantic beach as well), it was federal dollars from the Obama stimulus that payed for new roads, sidewalks, bridges, aesthetics, school revamping and hiring. As a result the real estate market has go on the upswing, restaurants and shops have opened up, development has increased, the town is more beautiful that when I've ever lived there, and it is so much easier to drive around town! And Republicans are not in favor of federal dollars being spent in this way, PLEASE TELL ME WHY!

At 12/30/12 08:41 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: lets see all the dumbasses who voted for Obama cry because their messiah took away their free money.

George Soros paid me 500 dollars to vote for Obama.

To actually contribute something that's worth reading, here's an update on what we're looking at right now. Congress is currently trying to work out a deal that extends tax cuts $400k individuals / $450k families, extends UI, locks in the estate tax rates permanently, and delays the sequester for 3 months*. Keep in mind that Obama went from raising taxes on $250k, to $400k (and ending the estate tax cut), to $400k (and keeping the estate tax cut) to try to make the GOP happy.

*The big problem as it is now is the sequester - there's a disagreement with how long the sequester extension will be (Dems want 1 year, GOP wants 3 months). The numbers aren't arbitrarily decided, either. The Dems want to extend it 1 year to avoid having a sequester fight at the same time as the debt ceiling fight; but that's exactly what the GOP wants. It's important to scrutinize the deal being made and to determine which measures are permanent, which ones are temporary, and which ones are transient. If the deal permanently extends the estate tax cut and extends the <400k tax cuts/UI for a few years, but kicks the rest of the sequester back for three months, then we're back into the same clusterfuck in three months. From the Dems perspective this is a horrible position to be in - not only would the Dems have to get the GOP have to agree to renew all the other spending, but they'd have to do this without any bargaining chips (the tax issue would already be settled).

Interestingly, this bill is originating in the Senate, which is technically unconstitutional. How they get around that is they just get any unrelated house bill and wipe it clean, then just fill it in with whatever deal is made in the Senate (if that ever happens). I have my doubts that it won't, but extending the status quo for another 3 months is arguably just as bad as going over the cliff. I'd rather bite the bullet now than later and bypass all the instability in the meantime.

Fuck.

Obama continues to disappoint by throwing away all leverage he had here for little political gain, only to repeat the same fucking thing two months from now.

The country can't continue to operate like this.

At 12/31/12 03:02 AM, Saen wrote: It's true and it makes me sick. While throughout Bush's two terms Republicans were all in on increased government power and interference within our lives.

There's a difference between using the Patriot Act to target terrorists sand forming legislation to federally mandate the budgets of private companies, compel people to make purchases, and generally screw over any individual or company that doesn't want to make way for a new entitlement.

That was actually the plan before Bush was elected. Ensure solvency of major social safety net programs (SS and Medicare) and then pay down the National Debt. See what happens to our priorities after eight years of a Republican administration?

Federal budget deficits under Bush (billions):
2001: 128.2 (surplus)
2002: (157.8)
2003: (377.6)
2004: (412.8)
2005: (318.3)
2006: (248.2)
2007: (160.7)
2008: (458.6)

Federal budget deficits under Obama (billions):
2009: (1,412.7)
2010: (1,293.5)
2011: (1,299.6)
2012 (estimate): (1,326.9)

Yeah, that's totally Bush's fault.

Yup and the said thing was the country posted a surplus just before Clinton left office, we were on track. Electing bush will be remembered in our history and the U.S. History foreign countries teach as one of the dumbest and economically ruinous decisions our country had made.

Are you calling nearly 8 years of unemployment under 6 percent with strong GDP growth economically ruinous?

Not only that, but government spending during a recession is a direct economic impetus. Most of the spending - like you mentioned - is on infrastructure (which is badly needed in our country, we currently face an infrastructure deficit that is threatening to sabotage our country). Other programs - like unemployment benefits - yield far greater benefits per dollar spent (I think it was like the US gets back 1.30$ for every 1$ invested in the long-term unemployed).

Dear god, another delusional infrastructure freak. What do you think the stimulus project was? Hundreds of billions on "shovel ready" infrastructure projects. Yet, despite the "desperate" need for them, how many were actually started within a year of the funding grant? Even Obama admitted as much later on. The CBO, as well, said that the stimulus plan acted as a net drag on the economy over the long run. This isn't rural Africa. All the best routes for businesses to ship freight and goods already exist. There isn't any "new" economic potential to be unlocked, only greater efficiencies to be acheived, and the margins for those are already pretty low.

No one denies that people spend unemployment benefits. The question is how much of that spending would have been performed anyway? Unemployment benefits essentially subsidize a standard of living; they don't support a family from going homeless or starving to death. The state margins for welfare (which averages a higher payment than UI) mean that the people who really need UI to meet basic needs for food and shelter are probably already eligible for public assistance. Those that aren't are simply experiencing a slow bleed on the public dime, putting the taxpayer on the hook for maintaining their assets above the welfare eligibility levels. I understand that its a recession, but I've said this before and I'll say it again: if you haven't had a single job in over 60 weeks or some other absurdly long amount of time, you shouldn't be allowed to keep any of the assets not exempted from your state's assistance requirements. You do not an innate right to be kept off the welfare rolls.

In my home town of Jax Beach (Neptune beach and Atlantic beach as well), it was federal dollars from the Obama stimulus that payed for new roads, sidewalks, bridges, aesthetics, school revamping and hiring. As a result the real estate market has go on the upswing, restaurants and shops have opened up, development has increased, the town is more beautiful that when I've ever lived there, and it is so much easier to drive around town! And Republicans are not in favor of federal dollars being spent in this way, PLEASE TELL ME WHY!

BECAUSE IT'S FUNDED THROUGH DEBT! Someone else paid for your sidewalks, your bridges, and your aesthetics, all of which have no investment value at all and are examples of utterly wasteful federal spending. On a national scale, the saying "there is no free lunch" is always true. Those people who moved to your area because it "looks so nice" are only transfering their spending from one geographic area to another; it's nice for you, but not for their former area of residence which has now lost part of its tax base. It's the same case with your new businesses and development. If the money to support it came from new arrivals, it reflects a transfer of wealth from other areas. If it reflects new hiring supported by federal spending, then those businesses are going to be in for some serious disappointment when the funds run out (or taxes go up to pay for these new public employees). The sidewalks and bridges have no economic value in and among themselves (I doubt the bridges have opened up vast new trade opportunities for the transport of goods, otherwise they would have been built by now). In essence, none of these great things that have happened to your town are founded upon anything of real value innate to your area, but are merely the result of a one-time influx of public spending or a transfer of income and wealth from some other town, making it essentially a zero-sum game for the country as a whole. In the meantime, the interest costs on the debt keep going up, and because nothing in your town actually served as an investment, there's nothing to defray or outweigh the charges.

There is no fiscal cliff. It's an imaginary crisis used to fearmonger people into being okay with bullshit

At 1/1/13 03:42 PM, LemonCrush wrote: There is no fiscal cliff.

Yes there is.

At 1/1/13 04:15 PM, Feoric wrote: Yes there is.

Nope. It's fearmongering bullshit. Just like WMD's, budget ceiling, and all that other shit.

Just another case of politicians trying to make shit look worse than they are so it looks like they swooped in and saved the day.

Remember when they said the world was practically going to end when the debt ceiling was being raised? Remember when they said the world was gonna end at midnight if a deal wasn't passed?

Guess what. The world is still here. Obama still spending like a 14 year old with daddy's credit card. Americans are still going to be taxed far too much (plus side, these increased tax revenues will not even make a dent in Obama's spending for killing brown children and sucking union cock), and the dollar will continue to inflate.

Nothing changed. No difference.

At 1/1/13 04:32 PM, LemonCrush wrote: stuff

Sure. Let's see how right you are when our anemic economy takes all those tax hikes and spending cuts at once because of Republicans.

At 1/1/13 04:45 PM, Feoric wrote: Sure. Let's see how right you are when our anemic economy takes all those tax hikes and spending cuts at once because of Republicans.

We need spending cuts. Spending is causing the problem. I got a question for you....you had a flu, would you put a cast on your foot? Or would you take some anti-biotics?

At 1/1/13 04:48 PM, LemonCrush wrote: We need spending cuts.

Sure. The problem is when Congress tries to agree on what to cut. Because they don't ever agree.

At 1/1/13 04:48 PM, LemonCrush wrote: We need spending cuts. Spending is causing the problem. I got a question for you....you had a flu, would you put a cast on your foot? Or would you take some anti-biotics?

Government spending stimulates the economy, if you cut government spending then the economy suffers as a result. On the other hand cutting taxes does the same, but not as well.

At 1/1/13 05:01 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: what did that link mean, I don't understand and how that corrolates with your statement, could you please explain?

It means that the deal that was agreed upon in the Senate (and possibly being shot down by the House Republicans) made the sequester cuts occur at the same time the debt ceiling negotiations occur. If it passes the House it essentially means that the status quo of bickering and brinkmanship is extended for two months. The sequester isn't being resolved, and it would have to be on top of intense debt ceiling negotiations. We all remember know well that went last year.

At 1/1/13 05:33 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Oh ok that makes sense. so now that it went in the senate it has to go to the House were it could possibly get shot down. but does that mean the Tax hikes are going to happen for the middle class until the House OKs it?

Yes. The agreement kept the middle classes taxes low and raised rates on the wealthy. If it's amended or shot down in the House (effectively the same thing) then we're going over the cliff. There will be no further negotiations after this.

At 1/1/13 05:40 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: that makes sense, thank you.

No prob, if there's anything else ask away.

At 1/1/13 04:48 PM, LemonCrush wrote: We need spending cuts.

Going back to this: I forgot to mention that the initial offer Obama made to the GOP included 1 trillion in spending cuts. The GOP turned it down. They wound up taking the offer with zero dollars in spending cuts.

At 1/1/13 04:48 PM, LemonCrush wrote: We need spending cuts. Spending is causing the problem. I got a question for you....you had a flu, would you put a cast on your foot? Or would you take some anti-biotics?

Neither, because the flu is a viral condition and neither a cast or antibiotics would help.

List of budget deficits 2001-2012
Yeah, that's totally Bush's fault.

Actually, as a result of the banking bailout in 2008 (during Bush's presidency), the federal budget deficit on Jan 19th, 2009 (the day before Obama's inauguration) stood at 1.2 trillion dollars. Obama's stimulus only added the final .2 trillion to it. Furthermore, the subsequent deficits were the result of not only the automotive bailout, but also finally accounting for the 800 billion dollars spent on the Iraq War during the Bush presidency that was never accounted for in the federal budget.

Are you calling nearly 8 years of unemployment under 6 percent with strong GDP growth economically ruinous?

We are calling eight years of ignoring predatory lending practices, re-implementation of trickle-down economics, an unnecessary foreign war, and deregulation of Wall Street economically ruinous.

Dear god, another delusional infrastructure freak. What do you think the stimulus project was? Hundreds of billions on "shovel ready" infrastructure projects.

Actually, only 92 billion or so was spent on infrastructure projects. Here is a good article detailing why the ARRA fell short in meeting our infrastructure deficit.

Yet, despite the "desperate" need for them, how many were actually started within a year of the funding grant? Even Obama admitted as much later on. The CBO, as well, said that the stimulus plan acted as a net drag on the economy over the long run.

Yet ARRA helped to sustain as many as 3.6 million jobs, preventing a jump as high as 2% in the national unemployment rate. As I see it, we borrowed against long-term economic growth to prevent a short-term economic disaster. Source

This isn't rural Africa. All the best routes for businesses to ship freight and goods already exist. There isn't any "new" economic potential to be unlocked, only greater efficiencies to be acheived, and the margins for those are already pretty low.

True, but the price of maintaining the infrastructure we have and re-engineering it so that we can continue to do those things in the future. Not to mention the need for renewable sources of energy and a grid capable of handling power loads in the 21st century and beyond.

No one denies that people spend unemployment benefits. The question is how much of that spending would have been performed anyway? Unemployment benefits essentially subsidize a standard of living; they don't support a family from going homeless or starving to death. The state margins for welfare (which averages a higher payment than UI) mean that the people who really need UI to meet basic needs for food and shelter are probably already eligible for public assistance. Those that aren't are simply experiencing a slow bleed on the public dime, putting the taxpayer on the hook for maintaining their assets above the welfare eligibility levels. I understand that its a recession, but I've said this before and I'll say it again: if you haven't had a single job in over 60 weeks or some other absurdly long amount of time, you shouldn't be allowed to keep any of the assets not exempted from your state's assistance requirements. You do not an innate right to be kept off the welfare rolls.

Let's be clear, here. Most welfare assistance is provided in the form of food stamps and medical insurance. Cash assistance is only provided to families on the very low end of the economic spectrum (for instance, Florida requires that total assets < 2,000$ to be eligible, along with a littany of other requirements). So for many people who are used to living middle class lifestyles, after being laid off they are ineligible for cash assistance, and probably ineligible for other forms of welfare. UI becomes the major line of defense for people who lose their job through no fault of their own, especially when other social safety net programs are not suited for their specific needs.

In response to your question - "how much of this spending would have been performed anyway?" - the answer is virtually none. Without UI, there is no money to spend and thus, no demand created, leading to both a raw and net drag on economic growth. Moreover, UI may be subsidizing their lifestyles, but it provides incentives to remain in the hunt for a new job, and statistics show that people on UI tend to find equivalent work faster than those without UI.

The evidence is conclusive. Unemployment insurance is a critical social protection program that funnels key investment dollars into our economy while simultaneously helping to keep millions of American jobseekers from slipping into poverty. With so many Americans out of work, we need these benefits to continue.

At 1/1/13 04:59 PM, Warforger wrote: Government spending stimulates the economy, if you cut government spending then the economy suffers as a result. On the other hand cutting taxes does the same, but not as well.

Except it doesn't. It creates a bubble. Please, explain how government spending will put money in my pocket, lower food or gas prices, or benefit the regualr American family.

At 1/1/13 06:53 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Except it doesn't. It creates a bubble.

No it doesn't. The economy is like a racetrack: it doesn't matter how many cars are on the track, it matters how fast they're going. The faster money is being transferred through the economy, the healthier it is. When the economy slows down and you don't have money being pumped into the system, you get a recession. Government infrastructure programs hire people, giving them money to spend.

Please, explain how government spending will put money in my pocket, lower food or gas prices, or benefit the regualr American family.

Government spending has zero to due to food or gas prices. Biofuels do, though.

At 1/1/13 06:53 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Except it doesn't. It creates a bubble. Please, explain how government spending will put money in my pocket, lower food or gas prices, or benefit the regualr American family.

How many regular families work for the Federal Government? How many regular families work for private firms that get government contracts? How many regular families work for institutions that are at least partially funded by the Federal government?

Answer: More than enough to make a HUGE impact on the economy.

At 1/1/13 07:08 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Answer: More than enough to make a HUGE impact on the economy.

Why? The Free Market will give these people betters jobs with more money once you fire them all, of course.

This will be his next response.

At 1/1/13 07:05 PM, Feoric wrote: No it doesn't. The economy is like a racetrack: it doesn't matter how many cars are on the track, it matters how fast they're going. The faster money is being transferred through the economy, the healthier it is. When the economy slows down and you don't have money being pumped into the system, you get a recession. Government infrastructure programs hire people, giving them money to spend.

And creating economic uncertainty, and destroying credit is gonna make those cars go real fast, huh?

Government spending has zero to due to food or gas prices. Biofuels do, though.

You mean the biofuels that are developed by private industry, right?

And govt. spending, and econ. policy has everything to do with food and fuel prices.

At 1/1/13 07:32 PM, LemonCrush wrote: And creating economic uncertainty, and destroying credit is gonna make those cars go real fast, huh?

Demonstrate that.

You mean the biofuels that are developed by private industry, right?

Is it biofuels that drive up food prices or the government subsidization of biofuels that drives up food prices?

At 1/1/13 07:42 PM, Feoric wrote: Demonstrate that.

Current economic crisis.

Is it biofuels that drive up food prices or the government subsidization of biofuels that drives up food prices?

Nope, it's the government inflating the dollar that does.

I love how Mitch McConnell made a total ass of himself proposing that childish, sarcastic bill to vote on whether or not the president gets the right to raise the ceiling, and ended up filibustering his own bill. total schadenfreude right there. What a dick.

At 1/1/13 10:14 PM, Sense-Offender wrote: I love how Mitch McConnell made a total ass of himself proposing that childish, sarcastic bill to vote on whether or not the president gets the right to raise the ceiling, and ended up filibustering his own bill. total schadenfreude right there. What a dick.

It's even funnier than that. The goal of the bill was to drive home a talking point which said that not even the Democrats would support what Obama was asking for at the time (a permanent removal of the debt ceiling hostage-taking). Turns out they actually did support Obama, so he filibustered it to avoid it accidentally passing.

They're voting. And the music is hilarious.