Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

frazzled

(18,402 posts)
34. Not so easy an answer
Thu Jan 3, 2013, 05:54 PM
Jan 2013

The so-called "crisis" involved a number of things:

(1) taxes going up on everyone (not just the wealthy) during a period where the economy was still in a fragile state; people having less money to spend could have put the economy back into a slide.
(2) automatic sequestration that had been enacted by Congress in 2011 kicking in, which was tantamount to a severe austerity budget--another thing that would be bad for the economy in the short term.

It's really the austerity part of the budget, still to come, that is the most dangerous. All the cuts, with insufficient increased revenues, would have been hurtful not only to individuals (especially the poor) but to the recovering economy as well. As it stands now, no new spending cuts have been enacted that could affect the deficit. We just kicked that can down the road.

All I was saying above is that the interpretation of the deficit is (a) a relative one, since it is being measured against a total and permanent lapse of all the tax cuts, which neither Congress or the White House was ever going to let happen; and (b) an incomplete one, since no grand bargain was made in which spending cuts and further revenues were decided on.

The harder part of this deficit reduction thing is going to come in two months: spending cuts will be decided (whether they are the ones the WH wants, such as letting Medicare negotiate drug prices, or Republican ones, such as cutting everything that isn't nailed down and isn't defense), and additional revenues gained from closing loopholes and dealing with corporate taxes. This thing is simply only about 1/3 done at this point. So it's too early to be getting our knickers in knots about final deficit projections.

Just throwing this out there Capt. Obvious Jan 2013 #1
Does it do us any good to pretend that debt isn't a long term issue? No. el_bryanto Jan 2013 #2
Misleading frazzled Jan 2013 #3
The baseline assumed the bush cuts would lapse. dkf Jan 2013 #10
But not a single person believed they would permanently lapse frazzled Jan 2013 #14
And the nation elected to increase projected debts by $3.6 trillion dkf Jan 2013 #26
So are you saying the crisis was mythical since it was a non-possibility? NoOneMan Jan 2013 #32
Not so easy an answer frazzled Jan 2013 #34
the debt problem started under Reagan, was solved under Clinton, and really skyrocketed under Bush samsingh Jan 2013 #4
Bingo Liberalynn Jan 2013 #5
I used to think so til we kept the vast majority of the Bush cuts. dkf Jan 2013 #6
only for those earning less than $400k. samsingh Jan 2013 #11
Not really...at least not in the scheme of things. dkf Jan 2013 #27
That's utter bullshit Dreamer Tatum Jan 2013 #8
are we reading the same chart? the diagram shows exactly what i said samsingh Jan 2013 #9
If it was "solved" under Clinton, there'd be no debt. Dreamer Tatum Jan 2013 #13
Simple minded and wrong headed conclusion. phleshdef Jan 2013 #17
thank you. and the poster has the audicity to start calling me names without understanding the math samsingh Jan 2013 #20
He/she also has no clue how to properly interpret the data in their own posted graph. phleshdef Jan 2013 #22
thanks for the thoughtful response samsingh Jan 2013 #24
That wasn't what was said, thanks. Dreamer Tatum Jan 2013 #28
Why do you misrepresent the poster? Viking12 Jan 2013 #35
Sorry, but it's not true Tempest Jan 2013 #37
The poster never claimed that and the value of the debt in 2000 is IRRELEVANT. phleshdef Jan 2013 #40
N seriously, we were projected to have a surplus & zero debt by 2010. JaneyVee Jan 2013 #51
i think you're obtuse for starting to name call. if you can't have a conversation, don't comment samsingh Jan 2013 #19
don't you see the steepness of the curve? samsingh Jan 2013 #12
You are being terribly misleading and you are far from sticking to anything resembling a fact. phleshdef Jan 2013 #15
We had a 5-year recession? Dreamer Tatum Jan 2013 #16
Every credible economist would back up everything I've said. You are just ignorant on this topic. phleshdef Jan 2013 #18
great and thoughtful response samsingh Jan 2013 #21
Why do you continue to be wrong and arrogant? Tempest Jan 2013 #38
There is no need to reduce debt to zero taught_me_patience Jan 2013 #41
Good cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #7
If I get it correctly, that means 3.6 Trillions more in circulation... Amonester Jan 2013 #23
Thats why middle class tax cuts are stimulative, while tax cuts for wealthy folks aren't. phleshdef Jan 2013 #25
So it should be good for the economy. Amonester Jan 2013 #29
It probably will not do too much either way NoOneMan Jan 2013 #31
Its not mythical when you are talking about tax cuts for middle and lower incomes. phleshdef Jan 2013 #39
Its never zero-sum NoOneMan Jan 2013 #42
Your hoarding equals others investing. dkf Jan 2013 #45
Once again I am so not shocked that you would make this kind of rightwing pedantic argument. nt stevenleser Jan 2013 #46
I owe my job to the fact that someone invested capital. dkf Jan 2013 #47
Do you understand the meaning of the word 'pedantic'? You are still doing it. nt stevenleser Jan 2013 #50
Sorry, I don't believe in free market fairies trickling down job creating fairy dust. phleshdef Jan 2013 #48
I'm curious what kind of job you have... dkf Jan 2013 #49
Republicans hate debt but love spending. nt bemildred Jan 2013 #30
They only use the debt to scare their shrinking base into electing them locally. Amonester Jan 2013 #33
Correct. nt bemildred Jan 2013 #36
Okay. Rex Jan 2013 #43
Not concerned. JoePhilly Jan 2013 #44
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»We've just added $3.6 tri...»Reply #34