Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not only did they increase military spending they voted down the end of subsidies to big oil companies.
The basic Republican strategy during this whole budget crisis is preserve the tax loopholes for corproate interest in the rich and cut spending that aids middle class and poor Americans.
Now that you have told me what Paul Krugman said about that law how about dealing with the budget talk I wrote that post about. You have to know that we have been without a budget for nearly 2 full years and that has contributed so much to the deficit spending because they say the Congress has given the money to be spent.
I would like to see what your economists have to say about the budget and whether we need an annual budget or not. Harry Reid says we have done quite well without it. I think that is saying that anything Constitutional about how money is spent has to be one away with.
Your contention is that the U.S. has been without a budget but the Congress has passed joint continuing resolutions to fund the government. Congress votes on these and have the same effect as voting for the budget. Besides, Wiki has listed continuing resolutions going back to 2001, here. Thus, it's not a resent anomaly to use continuing resolutions to fund the government.
Now, you also said, not having a budget "has contributed so much to the deficit spending." Besides 2009, which was budgeted, spending did not rise more than than any other part of the decade. That would indicate that having a formal budget or not makes no difference in terms of spending rises.
It takes very little research on-line to show that that statement is just false. While one can argue that the stimulus didn't do enough or did what could have been expected related to its size and the size of the economy, it cannot be argued that it did nothing.
The ARRA was just politicians picking out winners and losers, it was not about stimulating the economy. Have you read some of the things the stimulus money went to, they were a haphazard, patchwork quilt of paybacks to cronies, vote buying schemes, and 0bama's presidency has been one giant stream of corny give-away schemes.
The ARRA failed to stimulate the economy, not because it was too small, but because it was conceived by, written by, and administered by democrats. Democrats think all that is good in life emanates from government, so 50% of the ARRA went to government, and the rest of it was a hodgepodge of vote buying schemes, paybacks, kickbacks and giveaways to democrat cronies and large cash infusions to liberal groups and pet projects.
The guy that owns a shoe manufacturing company or the person running a hair salon or auto repair shop did not benefit from the stimulus because the stimulus was about politicians deciding what parts of the economy was important, by picking the winners and losers.
We're seeing issues with Democrats and liberals refusing to balance the budget at state and federal levels. Why do liberals feel the need to negotiate? Do you realize how silly negotiating is? You are negotiating over money you do not currently have to spend (which must be raised through treasuries/bonds). Negotiating is done, liberals. NO ONE wants American debt anymore. The Federal Reserve is buying 70% of new treasuries and that program, though we know it will continue under a different guise, will still cause us to seek funding elsewhere.
So what exactly is there to negotiate liberals? It's money we currently don't have. The gauntlet has been thrown, the credit cards are at their limits. The utopia is over with.
Economists say that a 2% or more spending cut would have a terrible impact on the economy of at least 700,000 lost jobs. So the compromise should be what items to cut below the 2% amount and where and whom should pay for the additional revenue to cut the deficit.
Multiply this across many agencies and you can see the waste.
Your link is the entire HUD budget. HUD has been in existence for decades, long before the stimulus. If you object to $13.6 billion in stimulus being spent on HUD programs the onus is one you to highlight the specific part of the stimulus that affected HUD. But you can't expect use to read through the entire HUD budget to find it for you.
I think you should be Quick Enough to understand that.
Economists say that a 2% or more spending cut would have a terrible impact on the economy of at least 700,000 lost jobs. So the compromise should be what items to cut below the 2% amount and where and whom should pay for the additional revenue to cut the deficit.
I think you misunderstand that 2% number. It's not an absolute, where 2% loses 700,000 jobs and 1.999% loses no jobs.
A 1% cut probably loses ~350,000 jobs. The point with the no-cut argument is that we already have 14M unemployed and we don't want to add anyone else to the unemployment roles. Cutting, in the midst of a recession, prolongs the recession which undermines government revenue further. It's a vicious circle.
The objective is to get out of the recession, where employees paying taxes creates government revenue that decreases deficits.
I think you misunderstand that 2% number. It's not an absolute, where 2% loses 700,000 jobs and 1.999% loses no jobs.
A 1% cut probably loses ~350,000 jobs. The point with the no-cut argument is that we already have 14M unemployed and we don't want to add anyone else to the unemployment roles. Cutting, in the midst of a recession, prolongs the recession which undermines government revenue. It's a vicious circle.
I did not misunderstand it. Any cuts will hurt the economy, the question is how much can it take without completely derailing the economy. The economists disagree on whether we can cut 61 billion without derailing the economy, but they agree that 300 billion would be a catastrophe.
We have a double edge sword and very little wiggle room. We have to cut the deficit over time, but cutting spending is going to hurt the economy. The thread was about compromise. So the question then becomes how much could we actually cut and where and how much should increase revenue and who should bears the burden.
Your link is the entire HUD budget. HUD has been in existence for decades, long before the stimulus. If you object to $13.6 billion in stimulus being spent on HUD programs the onus is one you to highlight the specific part of the stimulus that affected HUD. But you can't expect use to read through the entire HUD budget to find it for you.
I think you should be Quick Enough to understand that.
I posted an excerpt from the Secretary's opening remarks.
HUD, like most gov't agencies do not create jobs.
With the gov't, the devil is always in the details.
Here is the complete paragraph:
"HUD is essential to broader economic recovery and restructuring given its power to generate jobs
quickly and catalyze housing construction and renovation. The American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act invested $13.6 billion in HUD programs in an ambitious effort to modernize
and “green” the public and assisted housing inventory, jumpstart the stalled low-income housing
tax credit market, stabilize neighborhoods hard hit by foreclosures, and prevent homelessness.
With affordable housing renovation and construction underfunded in recent years, these
activities generate local jobs quickly in neighborhoods hardest hit by unemployment".
I ask you, how many jobs were generated by this infusion of $13.6 billion?
How does jump starting the the low-income housing market create jobs?
If you think an extra $13.6 billion is justified in a so-called Stimulus bill, you do the research and tell us why.
Last edited by Quick Enough; 07-06-2011 at 11:21 AM..
Every single democrat in that legislative body has no intent to balance the budget this decade.
You didn't answer his question.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
