READER COMMENTS ON
"Since the GOP Isn't Telling You: Federal Budget Deficit Shrinks by Half Since Obama Took Office"
(12 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 5/17/2013 @ 4:46 pm PT...
"Deficits don't matter, Reagan proved that"
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 5/17/2013 @ 8:11 pm PT...
Anyone who thinks debt doesn't matter is living in some parallel universe where money grows on trees.
A reduction in the "Budget" deficit still leaves the country with a "Deficit".
While both the Left and the Right are fighting over who spilled the milk and if it really even matters the banks are enslaving our children.
Have you taken a look at our National Debt lately? While a budget deficit reduction may be a bragging point the Debt Clock is still ticking away at neck breaking speed.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 5/18/2013 @ 4:32 am PT...
Get a job.
First of all: get a name.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
D Gary Grady
said on 5/18/2013 @ 10:16 am PT...
The deficit is dropping rapidly but has not "all but disappeared." (The bar chart misleadingly starts at $500 billion.) Junior: Before you get too panicked over the debt clock, look at the long-run history. We came out of WW2 with debt much bigger than GDP and had no trouble cutting it to 1/3 GDP by the time Carter left office. Unfortunately Reagan's embrace of voodoo tax cuts led to a debt explosion only briefly reversed by Clinton's record surplusses. When the economy is fully back on track we can address the debt again as we successfully have in the past.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 5/18/2013 @ 11:03 am PT...
Larry - I have never seen a post like yours on a bradblog message board. Not that there haven't been such posts, but I haven't seen one before.
Regarding the article, I see two misleading statements. first is the chart, which I would surmise was created by Rachel Maddow's organization. It truncates the bottom of the chart, making it look like the projected debt for 2013 is miniscule compared to 2009. But it is actually in the range of half of the first year debt.
The second misleading part of the article is the headline, which states the deficit has "all but disappeared" when it is projected to be half of an enormous amount. Many people recognize that enormous by half is still... enormous.
Bill Clinton cut the deficit from about 300B (enormous at the time) to surplus over six years, mostly by the grace of China opening their markets, but also by "reforming" welfare programs, and from tricks like opening up Roth IRAs to investors. It turned out in his era that those reforms, along with the temporary economic stimulus of a growing Chinese market, turned out fine for most people.
Even if you consider that inflation will put those high deficits at the beginning of Clinton's term into a similar range to the 2013 projection, the deficit has not "all but disappeared."
It's another question whether the deficits are what is needed now. Generally, we should be borrowing in downturns, and saving in upturns. But Americans don't seem to like to do that. Instead, they don't pay attention and ignorantly give away the store in good times, then try to work their asses off when things go sour. Maybe it isn't just Americans.
But at some point, we have to realize that the global warming and the economic situation are related, and with the worldwide economies maturing to a point there are fewer potential coerced labor forces (like those in China and, say, Bangladesh), Americans are going to have to either:
1) share the wealth, which means a more permanent cooling of our general economy (fewer clothes, smaller homes and cars, less fancy dining), or
2) kill a lot of people who would otherwise take away our prized privilege.
Don't worry, if we are to choose no. 1, we don't have to give up our iphones, those can mostly be made by machines, and they are small, so they should be cheap as hell. But if we were to choose no. 1, maybe we should consider that the economy is where it ought to be in the long term right now, and so the deficit should be lower as well.
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 5/19/2013 @ 4:45 pm PT...
That the deficit is down is of no importance to the Christofascist GOP. It never was. Their intent is to replay the Civil War and bring down the Federal government by any means possible. If there was no deficit what so ever the Cons would just find another excuse to rant.
Brad I wish you and the rest of the media would be honest about their intentions. That is all that matters if we want to win the propaganda war.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 5/19/2013 @ 4:52 pm PT...
Silat @6 said:
Their intent is to replay the Civil War and bring down the Federal government by any means possible. Brad I wish you and the rest of the media would be honest about their intentions. That is all that matters if we want to win the propaganda war.
If I had compelling evidence that that was their purpose, I'd report it as such. I don't think they want to "bring down the Federal government", I think they want to take control of it again, so they can use it for an ATM for their friends again.
They may tell you they hate "Big Government", but the evidence is quite the opposite. They love it. They just don't care for government when it's run by Democrats because they don't get as much free stuff out of it.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 5/20/2013 @ 8:33 am PT...
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 5/20/2013 @ 10:37 am PT...
Cutting it to a "mere" $642,000,000,000.00 ($650 billion) per year, hardly counts as "almost disappeared." Particularly since that's more than 1/3 of what it was.
And, given that we have repeatedly complained about "misleading graphs" from Fox and others, the deliberately misleading graph above is purest hypocrisy.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 5/20/2013 @ 12:58 pm PT...
Dexter: WTF are you talking about WRT Larry Bergan? Larry's been around for a long time and is infinitely more cool than you (or me).
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 5/20/2013 @ 3:16 pm PT...
Re: comment (3) and (10)
Larry felt threatened by a reasoned comment at (2), so chose to deride the commenter's name and purportedly his choice of how he spends his free time at (3). I don't know Larry, so I don't know how cool he is, but the comment seems infantile. I haven't seen that type of comment on Bradblog.
The deficit is created by a difference in revenue vs. spending. We can have a discussion about all these things, but the hating over reasoned comments because it doesn't stick with "our team's" flavor of the moment is ignorant thinking.
If, as a nation, we chose to repeal the tax breaks from the Iraq War era, our deficit would be much lower now, in fact, probably a reasonable amount. Income taxes are good for stimulus spending, because it takes from those with a safe situation (a job) and transfers it to those needing help. It takes from savers, who are sequestering their cash, to spenders, who are turning around and putting it right back into the economy.
Wanting to reduce deficits is not an indicator that a person hates black people, and beats their children, or is a stupid cow, or an unemployed lazy dolt. Wanting to hamstring a president to create economic stress in an attempt at grabbing power, that sounds like treason, if there is such a crime.
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 5/20/2013 @ 8:51 pm PT...
To those pointing out the misleading chart and error in our original headline on this article, please see the CORRECTION/CLARIFICATION now added at the bottom of the article. Thanks for making noise about it, and my apologies I was unable to correct it until now!