Since 2010 President Obama has been rhetorically on board with closing the deficit,
much to the chagrin of liberals who think he pivoted too soon. He's agreed to
numerous cuts in spending in budget deals since then. He supports tax hikes
that would help close the deficit. He is known to have offered, in 2011, even
bigger cuts in exchange for tax increases (both sides of that deal would reduce
the deficit), which pissed off liberals a lot; the deal was rejected by the
House.
Obama is pretty clearly on record as being in favor of reducing the
deficit, but only if "the rich pay their fair share", i.e. he won't make a deal
that balances the budget only through screwing the Poor.... which is the only
way Republicans will do it. So it hasn't gotten done.
Look at it this way- I think this puts it in a way that's fair to both
sides- both Republican and Democrat leaders want to reduce the deficit. But
Republicans are even more interested in low taxes. And Democrats are even more
interested in making sure the Safety Net is retained. So for both parties, the
deficit is priority number 2, not number 1. Since there are two parties that
have to agree, and since both parties can get priority number 1 if they give up
on number 2, the deficit hasn't gotten solved.
The Right wants to blame Obama for this. And I guess it's true that if Obama
would agree to destroy the welfare state, the deficit would go down. But it's
also true that if Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan would agree to raise revenues the
deficit would go down too. I want to blame them, but as a Keynesian I'm OK with
deficits right now so I don't stress about it.
If the Deficit Hawks want to stress about it, though, I wish they'd acknowledge the above context. They can't have it both ways: if the deficit is to go down, tax revenue has to go up. Otherwise liberals aren't going to sign on.
Stupid Americans, Smart Democrats.
ReplyDeleteAll across America, STUPID families are balancing their budgets and even paying off debt. Since the financial panic of 2008, personal debt has fallen as STUPID Americans tighten their belts and pay back loans. Some, SMART PEOPLE had to declare bankruptcy because their debts got too big. Washington cannot declare bankruptcy; it must instead STUPIDLY follow the example of millions of STUPID Americans and cut spending to live within its means.
Incredibly, the “fiscal cliff” deal actually SMARTLY increased spending on net by $47 billion, SMARTLY letting 13 new or higher taxes take effect.
The SMART President also called for a “balanced” approach. So far he’s 0 for 2—no halving the deficit and no balance. THANK GOD!
Most STUPID state governments have managed to balance their budgets, even during these hard times. A few SMART states, notably California and Illinois, continue to follow the very SMART federal government’s example. A few raised taxes to get their fiscal houses in order, but most STUPIDLY reduced spending. Several very large states with financial challenges, like Texas and Florida, STUPIDLY balanced their budgets without any income tax at all by reducing spending. They are showing HOW NOT TO DO IT.
Washington could not use the guidance. President Obama STUPIDLY promised to cut the annual deficit in half in his first term. Instead, his SMART budgets include near-trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. Unlike most STUPID state governments, and unlike STUPID America’s families, President Obama has to this point refused to do the serious work of STUPIDLY cutting spending.
Bottom line: Debt and Deficits are SMART, Balanced Budgets are STUPID!
A proud Democrat speaks up for his President.
ReplyDeleteMy President, the President I so proudly voted for said he was going to cut the Deficit in half by now and he really meant it. He said passing Debt on the the next Generation was Irresponsible and Un-Patriotic and he meant that as well. He means what he says and he does what he promises. He said the War in Afghanistan was the just war and he's kicking their butts with the drones, the Afghans love us. He said if we gave him the $800 Billion Stimulus that unemployment would stay below 6%, another promise kept. He said Jobs was his number one priority when he ran in 2008 and for the first two years when he had 100% power he created millions of new jobs and unemployment dropped. He said no one making under $250,000.00 would see any tax increase,,he meant that as well. He said raising taxes in a down economy was bad, another promise kept. I love the way this guy is taking charge and leading us toward a Balanced Budget and Fiscal Sanity.
Mark my words,,"This man will go down in History as the man who fundamentally changed America, a man of his word."
A proud (but slightly confused) Democrat
It is one thing when conservative leaders like Ronald Reagan in America and Margaret Thatcher in Britain declared central planning a failure. But what really puts the nails in the coffin is that, before the end of the 20th century, both socialist and communist governments around the world began abandoning central planning.
ReplyDeleteIndia and China are the biggest examples. In both countries, cutbacks on government control of the economy were followed by dramatically increased economic growth rates, lifting millions of people out of poverty in both countries.
The ultimate irony is that the most recent international survey of free markets found the world's freest market to be in Hong Kong— in a country still ruled by communists! But the Chinese communists have at least learned, the hard way, a lesson that Barack Obama seems oblivious to.
We are going "forward" to a repeatedly failed past, following a charismatic leader, after a 20th century in which charismatic leaders led countries into unprecedented catastrophes.