Obama admits he is not for a balanced budget

Thanks to basic human intelligence and people's experiences in this nation over the last 30+ years... it isn't difficult to know that you are correct.

 

Considering the 'wealth' our system has funneled UP to these alleged job creators over the last few decades... I have to ask:

Where are those 'jobs'?

 

And where do you have evidence that you can create SUSTAINABLE growth without balancing the budget?

I would submit that you can't. In fact, it seems to me that spending more than you take in is the definitive reason that growth would be UNsustainable.

It seems to me that your logic is like saying to your wife when you're on vacation, "Yes, sweetheart I realize that we're going to run out of gas here in the middle of the desert, but this trip isn't about gas, it's about getting to Disneyland".

 

And you think that GovernmentNomics is the right system? Really?

That's not how our country grew from nothing to great. I don't care whether Reaganomics is the answer or not. The GovernmentNomics surely is NOT the answer. It's a crutch for those who are scared that they won't be taken care of, isn't it?

 

There are many opportunities for government to intervene in capitalism that produce benefit.

 

We haven't had a balanced budget since Clinton, and before that we went quite some time without one. We have had several peroids of growth without a balaced budget.

 

Well, if that had actually been what had happened, you'd have a case. As that's a complete fabrication of reality, however, I can't really help explain it to you, any more than I can help explain how Obama's Egypt politics is intended to cause the global sugarplum fairy uprising.

- - - Updated - - -

And now I remember why I had you on ignore.

 

The American economy grew on a steady basis from the end of WWII until 1979, and had a balanced budget during exactly ONE of those years.

 

So, dispite the evidence, you continue to claim that Reaganomics "gave us a great economy", apparantly for no other reason than it made " people feel patriotic and exceptional again for both our country and for personal well being"

In an odd way, this makes sense, as it is a very typical response from many modern conservatives.

Perception trumps reality.

You can't support your claim with fact, and both of the people who contradicted your claim will have no trouble at all substantiating theirs. Reaganonic was an economic failure and a political success.

It did not revive the economy, but much of the tax cuts, huge debt, and lax regulation set the stage for the recession that began in the early 1990's.

Having learned that lesson, I wasn't about to support Bush's tax cuts, or his regulatory policies.

But enough people did to allow the GOP to mortgage the future one more time, and beget us the worst economic collapse in the living memory of most Americans.

The GOP would go right back to it in a heartbeat, given half a chance.

It's odd that the same sort of people who cheer the myth or Reaganomics out of one side of their mouths, yell about deficits.

No one in US history added more debt porportionally to the US economy than Ronald Reagan.

 

Actually, I'm saying that the economic view commonly referred to as "Reaganomics", isn't anywhere 'close' to all that many have promised and played-it-up to be.

And surely, it's not as if we haven't tried Supply-Side Economics for a good long time. It simply isn't as good as some prefer to 'say' that it is.

The substantial evidence for what I'm saying, isn't far from the experiences and minds of those who wish to see/know (better).

 

Amen to that!!

 

Amen and LOL!!

 

And once we let the GREEDY take the reins too much and for too long... our economy began to implode. As the President said:

 

This is exactly what the President said in the context of the interview itself:

The President was speaking with regards to Paul Ryan's proposed budget, which calls for drastic, more immediate fiscal consolidation, as opposed to incremental, calculated fiscal consolidation. The President is incorrect, but not because Paul Ryan budget proposal is rational and correct. The President is wrong because the kind of fiscal austerity found in Paul Ryan's budget proposal would have short-term consequences upon job creation, unemployment, and GDP growth with the perception that fiscal consolidation can render medium-term to long-run economic stability and growth. This is a false hope as fiscal consolidation now does not make for a faster, robuster economic recovery later, but a slower, more anemic one as a whole. To use IMF statistics on US output gap, currently at around a 7 years difference, based upon my understanding of Paul Ryan's budget proposal, the US output gap could increase to an 8, 9, or 10 years difference, guaranteeing a 'lost decade'. In order to counteract such disastrous policies, the current or a future President would have to enact new stimulus measures, that would include tax cuts on the middle class, not tax increases. So, yes, the President's line of reasoning is wrong, but it lies in his inability to recognize the idiocy in Paul Ryan's fiscal policy. At the same time, the President is correct for not being for a budget operating on the loony economic hypothesis that is expansionary fiscal contraction (EFC).

 

This man may not agree with everyone or have 'perfect' answers... but I think he is pointing out a LOT of things that people need to hear and consider.

 

If Obama doesn't care about a balanced budget, then why do we need tax increases?

 

Okay, and now I dare you to make the next step down this logical path. Go on, let's see. If Obama doesn't care about a balanced budget, then an insistence on tax increases would make no sense. So, therefore...

...

It's kind of sad that conservatives will take this and come out with "He just wants to steal our money" rather than "Maybe he does have interest in a balanced budget and we're just intentionally misinterpreting what he's saying because it makes our side look better". Well, not kind of. Really, really, really sad.

 

sounds like cheney is his advisor

 

Since when has either party actually been interested in advancing this country?

 

I already took it down the path. If Obama doesn't care about the deficit, yet he keeps piping that he wants tax increases, that means he just simply wants more money from people all while adding more to the debt.

He's a fool.

 

I repeat myself:

It's kind of sad that conservatives will take this and come out with "He just wants to steal our money" rather than "Maybe he does have interest in a balanced budget and we're just intentionally misinterpreting what he's saying because it makes our side look better". Well, not kind of. Really, really, really sad.

 

He wants higher taxes so he has more money to buy voters with via governmental handouts.

 

And that doesn't make any sense if he doesn't care about a balanced budget, because he can just keep borrowing without raising any taxes whatsoever.

 

Indeed. I'd like to have the printing press take care of my debts for me.

What's funny is that it's a federal offense for anyone but the federal government (or should I say, the rather Orwellian-named "federal reserve"?) to do just that

It's a crime that continues to rob the rest of us through inflation on top of our rising costs and taxes for the benefit of banksters and other financial crooks.