Comments on: Fact-free fiscal farce http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2011/08/02/fact-free-fiscal-farce/ Sat, 23 Mar 2013 13:49:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: gooms http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2011/08/02/fact-free-fiscal-farce/#comment-122 Wed, 10 Aug 2011 09:07:38 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/?p=29#comment-122 The author weakens his argument by including Obama in his numbers. Actually, by doing so, he furthers the Tea Party argument about this President’s spending.

According to his chart, Obama has added 26.4% of federal debt in a little over two years while GWB added just 8.4% more than Obama’s debt in EIGHT years.

In addition, all spending is appropriated and issued by Congress, not the President. It seems that if you look at the chart, the highest percentage amount and dollar amount increases occurred during the democrats majority rule of congress (during Reagan and GWB terms).

]]>
By: Anonymous http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2011/08/02/fact-free-fiscal-farce/#comment-89 Wed, 03 Aug 2011 05:21:49 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/?p=29#comment-89 All good facts, analysis and argument… but, thank goodness we have enough Tea Party members in Congress to stop the rush to a huge increase in the debt limit, demand equal or greater reductions in spending, and get this country refocused on managing our budget. The budget battle is right around the corner. We have a representative Congress and for the first time in a long time, it brought enough of a third point of view representation to cause this Government to try and redirect it’s out of control growth and spending addiction toward a more fiscally responsible direction.

]]>
By: Checksbalances http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2011/08/02/fact-free-fiscal-farce/#comment-87 Tue, 02 Aug 2011 20:15:20 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/?p=29#comment-87 Sorry, I missed a bit when pasting:
Wrong,

It will take ages for us to be competitive with China again.

They work in a way that capitalism (our capitalist greed)supports communism, in fact they handle their economy in a proper Marxist based way, Marx is still very popular in China, he has helped them a lot…his analyses were always right, but until the current Chinese way of supporting their people, his ideas have always been interpreted incorrectly.

The government there strongly promotes (with the support of the IMF and our..multi nationals’.. low cost/high profit attitude) low inflation (maximum 10%)

At a salary difference of 1:10 that means that if our incomes stand still, it would still take at least 25 years for them to come along side this country…Can we wait that long?

]]>
By: sfrmyk http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2011/08/02/fact-free-fiscal-farce/#comment-86 Tue, 02 Aug 2011 20:08:12 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/?p=29#comment-86 The goal of ‘every’ politician is REELECTION, ‘every’ interest group IS selfserving to the exclusion of ALL! The ‘only’ way to facilitate this ‘cabal’ in these times of instant information? Muddy the waters! AMERICA, you can’t clean up the water till you get the pigs out of the creek!!!

]]>
By: Unintended http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2011/08/02/fact-free-fiscal-farce/#comment-85 Tue, 02 Aug 2011 20:08:04 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/?p=29#comment-85 Just…wow.

It is one thing to have a debate about spending, the size of government, etc…

But no, facts can NOT be used to “say anything.” Facts are FACTS.

For those trying to blame Congress for the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003…they are called the “Bush tax cuts” for a reason! That was HIS fiscal policy. They were passed by the 107th & 108th Congresses, respectively. BOTH of these Congresses had REPUBLICAN majorities. These are all FACTS. Look it up if you doubt me–it’s information that is very easily attainable.

So, since the Bush tax cuts, passed at the same time we were waging two wars!!–created the deficit in the first place (and that is a FACT–look it up), it is indeed Republicans who created the deficit–and Vice-President Dick Cheney (a REPUBLICAN) who said “Deficits don’t matter.”

It IS a fact that Republicans have only recently gotten religion on deficits.

Oh, and one more thing–who was President when they had to add an extra digit to the National Debt Clock, because the number got so huge it wouldn’t fit on the old one?? One guess. (Look it up!)

]]>
By: Checksbalances http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2011/08/02/fact-free-fiscal-farce/#comment-84 Tue, 02 Aug 2011 20:05:07 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/?p=29#comment-84 @ jambrytay
Marxuist way, Marx is still very popul;ar in China, he has helped them a lot…his analyses were always right butb until the current Chinese way of supporting their people his ideas have always been interpreted incorectly.

The government there strongly promotes (with the support of the IMF)low inflation (maximum 10%)

At a salary difference of 1:10 that means that if our incomes stand still, it would still take at least 25 years for them to come along side this country…Can we wait that long?

]]>
By: Checksbalances http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2011/08/02/fact-free-fiscal-farce/#comment-83 Tue, 02 Aug 2011 19:55:26 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/?p=29#comment-83 A very good piece indeed!

Some of the contributors, seem to aim at the houses instead of blaming the president of the day in the building op of earlier deficits…and indeed look at the current situation …, do we see any of President Obama’s ideas in this solution…no….he had to give in to because of the blackmailing … from the side of conservatives in politics. In the current situation his ideas would have been far better for the country.

Have the Democrats been street fighting for their cause in the past, like the right wingers have done this time?..no, there was reasonable for and against and, generally speaking, an intelligent political climate also from the elephant’s side. Things have changed for the worse in a terrible way since the rise of the tea party.

Regrettably we all in the West seem to be going insane because of this crisis, look at Europe, that, with a far better running economy, is still being pushed over the brink by financial manipulators like Standard and Poor, Moody’s and the like, after all these companies are paid by investors, who, WANT TO MAKE MONEY, at any cost (for the people) and that all because also there populist run the anti progressive show.

Of course the big problem in economics is not the deficit in the budget, which is only a consequence of other far more important factors, the non ability for lots of people to make a decent living.

I wrote down earlier on the discussion about the difference in opinion between economists:

“Is not there a conflict of interest between business economy (outsourcing…cheapest location for labor)/financial economy (profit for the shareholder) and the national (social) economy.

The latter demanding proper wages, based on our level of cost, allowing us to buy goods…that are currently made by our companies on foreign shores?… Hence, the impossibility of significantly creating jobs out of QE?

Was the problem of a high tech and liberalized future probably overseen when Reaganomics started to grab hold of the economic thinking?

In that period China was still an isolated country, Russia was badly governed, Brazil was more or less a banana republic….this all changed since the end of the Reagan era, big milestones 1989 (Eastern European and Russian “revolutions” 1995 opening up of China and since of course India has to be added as well and so has Brazil.

Reallocating exported jobs (good example of money made by workers outside the country working for American companies…I-Pod, I-Mac) would actually need stronger government, more jobs to create more jobs, because effective change must be “promoted”
i.e.

1)Import tariffs of 50-100% on the production (FOB) price of imported too cheaply produced goods (difference in wage level of up from 3:1) produced for home based as well as for competing foreign companies . (countries’ traditional produce should be exempt) and ban the lobbying on behalf of outsourcing businesses. (In an ideal world all lobbying should of course be banned.)

2)Only in case the low wage countries increase the salary’s for industrial workers substantially (25%) per year (Fordism), in order to create more home consumption…this tariff should be reviewed.

3) Investment in solar energy and, for instance, desalination plants to recreate fresh water. Solar energy would strongly help to improve our trade balance. (no import of oil) and would create a lot of profit making jobs

4) Re-introduce reasonable taxation for the very high earners. (quit often these profits result from profits, made on outsourcing/ boundaryless thinking, or financial manipulation of other men’s earnings)

5) Create new industries cradle to cradle for instance. And invest more in our existing advanced technology base, space techniques for instance.

]]>
By: elusivesolution http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2011/08/02/fact-free-fiscal-farce/#comment-81 Tue, 02 Aug 2011 18:50:47 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/?p=29#comment-81 David, David, David — come on, who controls the budget? Congress? Then let’s see your pie chart percentages re-done to reflect who was ACTUALLY in control of the budget by political PARTY, not President. FYI – From 1981-89 Democrats controlled the house when Reagan was President, as well as when George W. was President.

As for growth of national debt by “percentage”, would you quantify that number in dollars, and also state it by who was in CONTROL of the budget.

Yes, David the “facts” can prove anything. Please have the integrity to re-post your blog with who was ACTUALLY in control of the budget, and then re-state your arguments.

]]>
By: jambrytay http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2011/08/02/fact-free-fiscal-farce/#comment-80 Tue, 02 Aug 2011 18:32:37 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/?p=29#comment-80 to LEEDDAP-

1. wrong, business cycle will always be with us in some form; it’s not a linear animal.

2. wrong, multiple causes.

3. china starting from such a low place 20 yrs ago economically, all they can do is grow. you’re comparison is like comparing growth rates of a start-up v. an established company.

4. it’s not just about tax rates, it’s about the change in tax rates and the impact that has on forward looking business planning.

5. if you don’t like offshoring, stop demanding cheaper, faster, better when you shop. companies are just doing what the consumer is pushing them to do. over the long haul (the correct lens to judge economic performance) the % of families in the lower income group has dropped i.e. poorer households are becoming middle class households.

]]>
By: LEEDAP http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2011/08/02/fact-free-fiscal-farce/#comment-78 Tue, 02 Aug 2011 18:07:08 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/?p=29#comment-78 @seattlesh has it right, its all about ideology. Do we believe the private sector will get us out of this mess, or do we think that Government must play a role. @jambrytay seems to think that socialism gets in the way of the free market. I would just like to remind the free market idealogs that an unregulated free market:

1. Regulations would have prevented the great depression.
2. Deregulation lead to this horrible recession.
3. China grows over 10% a year in a blend of free-market and central-government control.
4. America’s growth in the 1950’s and 1960’s was largely funded by Government policy and programs that taxed the rich at over 50%.
5. Bush’s tax cuts have not created jobs and may have contributed to off-shoring.

Since the private sector with all the tax cuts, still is ineffective at producing a recovery, it is time to recognize that Government has an important roll to play. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Isn’t that fact cause enough to question our blind faith in the free market? I think it is time for a reasonable approach to the situation based on sound economic principals and facts – not ideology.

]]>