Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dems defend Obama on debt, say balancing budget now a bad idea
foxnews.com ^ | 9/2/12 | foxnews.com

Posted on 09/02/2012 8:49:51 AM PDT by ColdOne

But, when pressed, Axelrod would not say when the president's plan could bring the budget into balance. With the deficit clocking in at more than $1 trillion once again this year, he suggested that's not the goal in the near-term.

"What's necessary is to stabilize the debt and then work from there," he said. "You can't balance the budget in the short term, because to do that would be to ratchet down the economy."

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 09/02/2012 8:49:58 AM PDT by ColdOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

So, then, good Democrats such as Obama explode our debt and deficit, then will say that it would be too difficult and cause too many problems to balance the budget??? What the heck???


2 posted on 09/02/2012 8:51:32 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

No time to read the entire article, but this in the excerpt set me off: “You can’t balance the budget in the short term, because to do that would be to ratchet down the economy.”

To a Democrat “ratchet down the economy” means to quit spending. NO REAL DEMOCRAT knows how to do that.


3 posted on 09/02/2012 8:57:00 AM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; EricTheRed_VocalMinority; ...

The list, Ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list


4 posted on 09/02/2012 8:59:49 AM PDT by Nachum (The List was hacked- www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne
"You can't balance the budget in the short term, because to do that would be to ratchet down the economy."

So the economy just fails if the government spends less? ROFLMBO!! They really and truly believe that we can't do it without them. Stunning and appalling.

5 posted on 09/02/2012 9:02:28 AM PDT by Teacher317 ('Tis time to fear when tyrants seem to kiss.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Imagine if every business, organization,family and individual followed the example of these conflicted Dems and declared they will not adhere to a balanced budget because its a bad idea.
What fools they play us for.


6 posted on 09/02/2012 9:04:51 AM PDT by tflabo (Truth or Tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rockinqsranch

The DemocRats are the spouse who doesn’t pay the bills.

The Republicans were the spouse who paid the bills.

Sadly, we’ve come to the place where neither spouse is paying the bills.

And guess what. That doesn’t generally work out too well. Who knew?


7 posted on 09/02/2012 9:05:43 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (Americans want what Americans always wanted: Better lives for families; little government authority.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne
Lol. So spend like crazy even though your credit cards are maxed out?

Doesn't work for the rest of us.

8 posted on 09/02/2012 9:06:41 AM PDT by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317

Actually, he’s right about that.

Balance the budget, and there’s at least a trillion dollars that people all of a sudden can’t spend.

And, the places they would have spent that trillion dollars all of a sudden don’t have that revenue to spend on whatever they would spend it on.

Plus, some of that trillion would come back to the government as taxes.

Which means that to balance the budget the feds have to cut spending by more than a trillion.

Which shrinks the economy even more.

For a demonstration of what this looks like on a small scale, look at Greece.

I’m not by any means saying the budget shouldn’t be balanced; I’m saying it’s going to involve a lot of pain.

At this point, no matter what anyone does, there is much unpleasantness that lies ahead.


9 posted on 09/02/2012 9:09:12 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne
"What's necessary is to stabilize the debt and then work from there," he said. "You can't balance the budget in the short term, because to do that would be to ratchet down the economy."

What kind of doubletalk is this -- stabilize the debt and then work from there? Is Axelrod trying to muddy the water with nonsensical talk?

What happened to freezing spending and then methodically working through spending programs to eliminate the inefficient, corrupt, crony inspired, useless, and ineffective, counter-productive line items?

More than freeze, withdraw funding from questionable spending areas, but provide some funding for an orderly shut down.

Billions of dollars, if not much more, could be saved almost immediately.

10 posted on 09/02/2012 9:16:44 AM PDT by olezip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

How about at least following a disciplined plan that gets us to a balanced budget in the future? Can start by instituting a federal govt hiring freeze and cut the uber fat pork out of the budget. So what if there is a ‘little pain’ with budget cuts? Stitches hurt but they ultimately stop the massive bleeding. No pain, no gain and its way past time to apply the fix. Bring on the Dave Ramsey solution.


11 posted on 09/02/2012 9:18:49 AM PDT by tflabo (Truth or Tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

To Axe the economy is the government. To all sane people the government is a drag on the economy.


12 posted on 09/02/2012 9:22:03 AM PDT by OrioleFan (Republicans believe every day is July 4th, Democrats believe every day is April 15th.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring
Balance the budget, and there’s at least a trillion dollars that people all of a sudden can’t spend.

Or there's at least a trillion dollars no longer being confiscated from people to be spent as bureaucrats see fit--the same bureaucrats who line their own pockets with so much of the money that it causes anything the government buys to be more expensive than the same transaction when it takes place between private citizens.

Greece isn't in trouble because they all of a sudden decided to cut spending. The spending cuts were forced on them because there simply weren't enough producers any more to feed the government spending addiction.

13 posted on 09/02/2012 9:23:43 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring
However, you forgot the other part of government economic overhaul: fixing the economy-sapping income tax system.

Indeed, one of the biggest problems with the current income tax code is that it encourages the "offshoring" of millions of jobs, thousands of factories, hundreds of corporate headquarters, and maybe up to US$15 TRILLION in American-owned liquid assets for income tax avoidance reasons. (Care to explain all those "banks" in various Caribbean island nations, why Apple has US$70 billion of its US$100 billion in liquid assets sitting in foreign banks, and why Google is using the highly complex Double Irish with Dutch Sandwich accounting system to reduce its tax burden?)

This is why I think the Romney campaign is ready to spring a nasty surprise on the Obama campaign: the biggest overhaul in the income tax code since the passage of the 16th Amendment. And it may involve something as radical as the flat tax plan Steve Forbes proposed some 16 years ago. If we had the Forbes tax plan in place right now, our economy would be explosively booming because it would make the USA one of the most attractive places on Earth to run a business in terms of tax law.

14 posted on 09/02/2012 9:24:19 AM PDT by RayChuang88 (FairTax: America's economic cure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tflabo

My plan would be to cut $500 billion a year out of the budget until it’s balanced, and at the same time do everything possible to get government out of the way of economic activity in this country, and encouraging those companies that have moved production overseas to move it back here.

Even that would involve excruciating economic pain, but, ultimately, it has to be done.


15 posted on 09/02/2012 9:24:31 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

pretty sure the national debt will hit 16TRILLION today...

http://www.usdebtclock.org/


16 posted on 09/02/2012 9:29:52 AM PDT by freedommom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Balancing the budget is ALWAYS a bad idea with the Dims - fiscal responsibility hinders their crippling of the People and would seriously dent their vote-buying abilities. If we have a surplus - they need to spend it “for the people”. If we are in debt up to our eyes, tehy need to spend more because they are so close to their end game.


17 posted on 09/02/2012 9:31:24 AM PDT by trebb ("If a man will not work, he should not eat" From 2 Thes 3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

No Axelrod, balancing the budget would not mean ratcheting down the economy. It means ratcheting down government. Government isn’t the economy. The problem with commies like Axelrod is that they think government is everything. Get government out of the economy’s way, and let it grow.


18 posted on 09/02/2012 9:31:42 AM PDT by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

This has been the extent of democrat economic theory for 100 years - flood the country with money and we’ll all be better off.


19 posted on 09/02/2012 9:39:29 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RayChuang88

Very well said.


20 posted on 09/02/2012 9:39:52 AM PDT by sanjuanbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

...so business as usual then eh?


21 posted on 09/02/2012 9:43:45 AM PDT by Tzimisce (THIS SUCKS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
Greece isn't in trouble because they all of a sudden decided to cut spending.

The reason for cutting spending is irrelevant - the point is that the government cut spending, and the economy contracted.

22 posted on 09/02/2012 9:45:04 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: freedommom

The official figure for Thursday was $15,990,541,092,391.91.

Treasury hasn’t published the Friday figure yet; it may very well have crossed 16 terabucks on Friday.


23 posted on 09/02/2012 9:48:48 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne
The Dems are right, but that's not relevant. In the real world, even the most Tea Party friendly Congress imaginable would not balance the 2013 budget as soon as they convened. The right answer is to start moving toward a balanced budget - and to start now. I would like to see the budget cut by $600B in real spending relative to the previous year for 2013, another $500B for 2014, and $400B for 2015. Even doing all of that and cutting $300B in 2016 would still leave our federal government a little too large, but that is probably the best overall strategy we could follow. By spreading the cuts over several years, we avoid a single terrible economic blow. Also, but cutting sooner, we make the cuts before the federal government fully grows into its current inflated spending scale.

The Dems are right in a sense, and we should agree to follow their lead. We shouldn't cut real spending by $1.5B a year in the next fiscal year. Rather we should cut spending by at least $1.8B a year, but we should phase in those cuts over four years, with the phase in slightly front loaded.

24 posted on 09/02/2012 10:09:22 AM PDT by Pollster1 (Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

An idea that is on topic and should be spread to R’s campaign. Remember the movie “Dave”. Any decent accountant could balance a budget. Problem is the politicians don’t want to cut anything. In the instant case, Dems refuse to cut anything. Obama is still handing out money to friends as fast as Big Ben can print it. Cut every program, authority etc... to the bare bones. Eliminate if neccessary.. Just cutting BO’s travel and vacations would save a nice percentage and show the way.


25 posted on 09/02/2012 10:09:50 AM PDT by DrDude (OBAMA/BIDEN=DUMB & DUMBER 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.


26 posted on 09/03/2012 12:13:18 PM PDT by ronnyquest (I spent 20 years in the Army fighting the enemies of freedom only to see marxism elected at home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson