Hot Air: "Surprise CBO report: United States on an "unsustainable" budget course."
In this report, the CBO also hints at a "death spiral" as higher interest rates suppress liquidity and thus economic output leading to reduced revenues and...more debt. Under what possible scenario does this end well for America?
15 comments:
"This is not some distant pain in the neck we can worry about in the future — we need to worry about this now." Sounds an awful lot like what everyone else is saying about climate change. Too bad the Right's ability to think about the long term is restricted to purely financial matters.
Although I agree that rampant deficit spending is a serious problem, I don't understand the preoccupation with specific numbers. When the debt hit $16 trillion, there was a cry of panic, as though that was somehow much, much worse than a debt of $15.9 trillion. Now it's all about whether the deficit will hit 100% of GDP. If we can stipulate that huge deficits are bad, what is the great significance of 100%? The government would be spending money that the economy wouldn't generate for another 12 months. Is that really a big jump over 11 months? Or the 8-9 months we're at now?
Your problem is with the CBO, not the GOP.
Today's Daily Beast, on Ben Bernanke's announcement that the Fed will continue pumping money into the economy:
Hard money types— libertarians, gold bugs, inflationphobes, many Republicans— have wanted the Fed to stop doing what it’s doing. Bernanke had words for these folks, too, though they were characteristically indirect. Essentially, he said, “You’re part of the problem.”...
In essence, Bernanke was saying that Republicans’ increasingly pathetic efforts to link a budget or a debt-ceiling increase to a repeal of Obamacare was hampering his ability to start tapering. And here’s where we veer into irony. Bernanke, a Republican, has become something of a hate object on the right. Remember Rick Perry’s comments about “treasonous” actions? Or Mitt Romney’s promise that he’d replace Bernanke? The reality is that Bernanke can’t do what many Republicans want him to do until they stop behaving the way they behave. In effect, on Wednesday he told Republicans they have a very painful choice. They can continue to call for needless cuts to government spending and brinksmanship and speak cavalierly about not boosting the debt ceiling. Or they can have less expansionary monetary policy. But they can’t have both.
Senator Votes Present: "Raising the debt ceiling is a failure of leadership."
Candidate Blank State: "Adding $4 trillion to the national debt is unpatriotic."
President Says Stuff: "I'm not going to negotiate my unlimited credit card."
Check, and mate!
Ah me, ah my, if only the Republicans also had earlier statements and actions which, if cited, would be in conflict with their current economic rhetoric and actions. If only they had a recent history of poorer policies and worse results which could be be used as a counterargument.
But they do not, and that means you are the winner!
Do you mean poorer policies and worse results than Obama's?
We're trying to live in reality here.
The premise: Obama's economic policies and results have done more damage than Bush's.
Gee, close one. And it's not like there's a national consensus on the subject.
Let's ask President Romney.
Can we ask Christine Romer where the unemployment rate would be today thanks to Obama's "stimulus"?
In other news: Obama's economic policies have done more damage than Bush's.
I'm trying to be fair. I voted for Obama twice and for W. Bush zero times, but I think it's an open question as to who has harmed the economy more. The problem is that the Right's hysterical rhetoric makes them difficult to take seriously, and their refusal to consider tax hikes as part of the solution sends a clear signal that they're no more sincerely interested in addressing the problem than the Dems are. Each side wants to say that the other is more responsible for the problem, and therefore more compelled to suffer at the hands of the eventual solution -- or lack of one.
Can we ask Christine Romer where the unemployment rate would be today thanks to Obama's "stimulus"?
Yeah! And my grandpa went on dialysis a year ago, but today he still has bad kidneys. That machine didn't do anything!
Eric: after 2012, the Republicans agreed to tax hikes on the top bracket and got exactly nothing in return.
The top 1% pay as much in taxes as the bottom 95%. It's an open question: What is the "fair" amount of taxes to be borne by every American?
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/12/top-1-of-american-taxpayers-pay-almost-as-much-in-taxes-as-bottom-95-and-half-of-that-group-paid-nothing-in-2010/
Your Grandpa's dialysis was refused by Obamacare.
Where's your God now?
He's busy making hurricanes because of same-sex marriage.
He's busy making hurricanes? Do you mean the slowest hurricane season since records were started?
Geez, Nietzsche was right.
Bush ate cake with McCain while New Orleans drowned, but hurricanes have stopped under the leadership of President Obama.
Post a Comment