Skip to comments.Dems defend Obama on debt, say balancing budget now a bad idea
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 ...
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???
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.
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
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.
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.
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?
Doesn't work for the rest of us.
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.
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.
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.
To Axe the economy is the government. To all sane people the government is a drag on the economy.
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.
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.
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.
pretty sure the national debt will hit 16TRILLION today...
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.
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.
This has been the extent of democrat economic theory for 100 years - flood the country with money and we’ll all be better off.
Very well said.
...so business as usual then eh?
The reason for cutting spending is irrelevant - the point is that the government cut spending, and the economy contracted.
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.
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.
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.
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
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.