Posted on 12/06/2017 7:00:41 AM PST by Kaslin
If you're a normal person who pays attention to politics, you'd be forgiven for thinking that Washington can't decide whether deficits are bad or not. Well, I have one easy trick that will help you make sense of it all.
In Washington, when you hear people complain that this or that piece of legislation will "explode" the deficit, what they are really telling you is that they don't like the legislation.
It's really that simple. Good legislation, like good food, movies, novels and pretty much everything else except for dogs (they're all good), is in the eye of the beholder. A politician or partisan who thinks a proposal is worth doing will think it's worth doing even if it increases the deficit. If he thinks a proposal is bad, he might argue that it's bad on the merits. But you can be sure that if it also increases the deficit, he will cite this fact as a major reason why it is bad.
That is the role deficits -- and the national debt -- play in our politics. Anti-debt talk serves as dye marker for some more fundamental objection.
Almost everyone thinks deficits are bad in the abstract, but that their badness should only be a problem for the other side. In 2008, for example, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama said that the $4 trillion in debt rung up under George W. Bush was "unpatriotic." But his actual complaint wasn't about the debt but what that money was spent on -- the Iraq war and tax cuts.
Under Obama, the national debt soared from $11 trillion to just under $20 trillion, but that deficit spending was justifiable, according to Democrats, because it went to combating the financial crisis and paying for various other domestic programs.
The source of the apparent inconsistency isn't simply partisan hypocrisy (though that's a factor as well), but a good-faith ideological disagreement.
As a matter of economic policy, conservatives believe that the people themselves are better at spending their money than the government is. Cutting taxes and regulations drives economic growth. Liberals, meanwhile, believe that the government is the prime, or at least an indispensable, driver of economic growth.
This is why liberals tend to talk about spending on everything from infrastructure to education as an "investment." The Obama stimulus was sold as an investment that would pay huge dividends, thanks in part to Keynesian "multipliers" -- the idea that every dollar of government spending results in more than a dollar in economic growth. Obamacare, we were told, would reduce the deficit by cutting health care spending and improving economic growth.
Conservatives make similar arguments about tax cuts. Over the weekend, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told Fox News that the tax cuts would yield more than enough economic growth to make up for the deficit the bill creates on paper.
On the philosophical side, there's an even starker conflict of visions. Liberals tend to start from the assumption that the government is entitled to as much revenue as it needs, and so tax cuts amount to giving people money.
Earlier this year, Sen. Bernie Sanders proposed a budget that would add at least $21 trillion to the debt over a decade. But when the Senate passed the GOP tax bill, he tweeted, "Historians will look back on Dec. 1, 2017 and conclude this was one of the great robberies in US history because Republicans are looting the Treasury." For Sanders, letting people keep more of their own money is theft -- because it's really the government's money.
Conservatives, on the other hand, start from the assumption that money belongs to the people and businesses who earn it. Letting people and businesses keep more of their money isn't a handout or giveaway, never mind a robbery: It's fairness.
The ultimate problem is that everyone says they care about the deficit, but few people care about it enough. Democrats think spending is more important than the deficit, and Republicans think cutting taxes is more important. And that's why the national debt is more than $20 trillion, and growing.
More specifically, the only time the media cares about deficits is when a tax cut is being discussed.
And the homeless, and the jobless rate, and sexual molestation......
I keep hoping they fail to pass the debt ceiling and president Trump gets the chance to run the country only on current receipts and not on borrowed money. I think he could actually do it. He’d have to stop spending money on some departments and agencies and cut others drastically but I think he could fairly do it.
If we could run the country without borrowing but everyone across the board would have to take a 25% cut on whatever they were expecting would you do it? I would.
I won't say that's wrong, but it misses the importance of political party.
At one point when George W. Bush was president, he was projecting a $160B deficit. Horrors! That was massive! It would destroy us! Republicans were spending too much and taxing too little! We were all going to die!
Fortunately, the country replaced Bush with Obama and he gave us $1T annual deficits. Which was fine. Because government spending is always helpful, ya know?
Indeed. But people have blinders on. I’m old enough to have come to the conclusion that collapse is inevitable, I just want then to do whatever is necessary to keep the scam going until I’m dead.
George Washington hated political parties.
he was right to do so.
Where was that extra almost-one-trillion-dollars spent each Obama year? Republicans had the House for 6 of those years, but chose to go along with a continuing resolution, never passing a budget. Most people think that the 900+ billion stimulous was a one time thing, but it just got repeated every year (with a percent increase across the board) since there was no budget passed. Did they even try?
How many bridges, new highways, hospitals, aircraft carriers, etc could be built with one trillion dollars?
I was listening to NPRetards the other day, and two commentators were discussing how this terrible tax plan would increase the deficit by $500B over TEN YEARS.
They made no mention of how their beloved ex-president increased the deficit by nearly ten trillion dollars over 8 years.
Politicians get together every four
years to exchange talking points.
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.