State of the Union (and Republican response)

[myp]

Obama just presented the State of the Union, emphasizing the number one issue on everyone's mind: the economy. He talked about increasing exports, freezing spending, and improving America's competitiveness.

Rep. Paul Ryan made the Republican response in which he heavily stressed debt reduction and spending cuts.

Thoughts on either?

 

[David]

Obama just presented the State of the Union, emphasizing the number one issue on everyone's mind: the economy. He talked about increasing exports, freezing spending, and improving America's competitiveness.

Rep. Paul Ryan made the Republican response in which he heavily stressed debt reduction and spending cuts.

Thoughts on either?

My problem with the Right's 'cut spending' rhetoric is if you actually ask them what needs cutting you'll usually get 1 of 3 responses, 1. they don't know, 2. they don't know but rather then manning up to the fact they're talking out of their asses, they'll give you the runaround or 3. they'll list stuff that shouldn't be cut (like economic development programs).

Now on a case by case I could find a rightist that knows a little something about economics and can give a real list but the big mouths in DC and at the TP rallies know about as much about economics as a creationist does evolution.

 

[myp]

My problem with the Right's 'cut spending' rhetoric is if you actually ask them what needs cutting you'll usually get 1 of 3 responses, 1. they don't know, 2. they don't know but rather then manning up to the fact they're talking out of their asses, they'll give you the runaround or 3. they'll list stuff that shouldn't be cut (like economic development programs).

Now on a case by case I could find a rightist that knows a little something about economics and can give a real list but the big mouths in DC and at the TP rallies know about as much about economics as a creationist does evolution.

There have been some specific proposals, but many of them hit entitlement programs, which the Democrats don't want to cut.

As for "knowing" economics, I find both sides are equally inept in understanding markets and even basic economic theories. The other problem is they care more about who can fill their campaign coffers than actually improving things.

 

[DodgeFB]

It went about as I expected. I hope they can get something good done. But when they use "buzz" words like "investment" it seems they really should just say "spending". I think it will go as usual, each side getting in the others way.

Only time will tell.:unsure:

 

[obtuseobserver]

My problem with the Right's 'cut spending' rhetoric is if you actually ask them what needs cutting you'll usually get 1 of 3 responses, 1. they don't know, 2. they don't know but rather then manning up to the fact they're talking out of their asses, they'll give you the runaround or 3. they'll list stuff that shouldn't be cut (like economic development programs).

I've actually never heard any of those three responses. Maybe you could cite some examples to clarify.

Now on a case by case I could find a rightist that knows a little something about economics and can give a real list but the big mouths in DC and at the TP rallies know about as much about economics as a creationist does evolution.

Ah, so who are those non-neanderthal "rightists" who actually know something about economics?

Your post is quite long on vague assertions and condemnations and conspicuously absent in fact or example.

Obama in his first year took the national debt from 65% of GDP to 83% and Obama in his second year took it to 94% of GDP. Now there are brilliant leftist nobel prize winning economists who said that the Obama stimulus spending failed because it didn't spend enough! Does that sound sane to you?

George Bush's administration spent WAY too much and the democrats fairly campaigned on that excess spending... then what did they do? They made the GOP look like rank amateurs.

Let's look at the deficit shall we... George Bush's highest deficit as a rate of GDP was 3.5%. Those stupid Republicans huh? 3.5% is absurd. Obama in 2009 9.91% and pver 10% in 2010. See the Democrats were much better. Bush only got it up to 3.5%... what a fool.

In anticipation of your claim of but but but... the neo-cons... the neo-cons and tea-baggers.... start thinking more and swallowing propaganda less. The Dems have controlled spending since 2006 when they took the House. All spending bills originate in the House. True, they had 2 years w/GW but when they took both houses and the oval office is when those ratios went to hell.

 

[obtuseobserver]

There have been some specific proposals, but many of them hit entitlement programs, which the Democrats don't want to cut.

As for "knowing" economics, I find both sides are equally inept in understanding markets and even basic economic theories. The other problem is they care more about who can fill their campaign coffers than actually improving things.

Entitlement programs are the most costly programs for the federal government. That's why they are prime targets.

Further, entitlements have the least constitutional foundation justifying their expense. Those programs were motivated out of a real, decent and compassioate drivce to help the less unfortunate. Sadly many have had the exact opposite effect. To get a good picture one needs to familiarize one's self with the Moynihan Report and its predictions. Tghe report and its reception encapsulated the past 40 years of social programs during the pendancy of the controversy it caused. His (Moynihan's) predictions were thought to be absurd or racist and maybe both. Turns out he undersold his dire warnings. The short version is that social welfare for communities at risk, especially african american communities would lead to wide spread unemployment, higher crime and sky-rockjeting rates of illegitimacy. The problem isn't race. The problem is subsidizing unwanted behavior... you get more of it.


72% unwed mother rate
Unemployment rate projections

 

[David]

Obtuse, killing the US Trade Development Agency isn't going to do this country any good. De-funding Energy Star, a power conservation program, isn't going to save money.

They posted a list of cuts, vary little of which would actually do any good (and much of which would do harm). and cutting 'entitlements' and 'pork spending' is just rhetoric. All of that is simply funding distribution, cutting it wouldn't reduce spending, only free it up for something else. That's not a bad thing as our money could be spent better but it's not saving so much as a penny.

 

[DodgeFB]

How can anyone trust the same people that used tax money to destroy "good" cars and trucks? I can't afford a new one. Maybe I could have bought one better than what I have. But "cash for clunkers" drove the price of those out of my reach.

 

[obtuseobserver]

Obtuse, killing the US Trade Development Agency isn't going to do this country any good. De-funding Energy Star, a power conservation program, isn't going to save money.

Permit my to analogize... the first step in getting out of a hole is to stop digging.

The first step in spending less is .. you got it .. spending less.

Axing those departments would eliminate spending on those departments.

The end of spending on those departments would reduce federal spending by the amount no longer spent on them.

They posted a list of cuts, vary little of which would actually do any good (and much of which would do harm). and cutting 'entitlements' and 'pork spending' is just rhetoric. All of that is simply funding distribution, cutting it wouldn't reduce spending, only free it up for something else. That's not a bad thing as our money could be spent better but it's not saving so much as a penny.

The cuts are intended to eliminate spending.

Reducing entitlement funding is in many cases impossible because the courts have found that "entitlements" are a property right. Its more complicated than that of course but it is possible to reduce spending on discretionary social welfare programs. That's generally what is meant by reducing entitlement spending - though not specifically.

Pork: Look how many GOPers signed onto the "No Earmarks" pledge. It isn't rhetoric. Lefties believe that because they were aware that many of Obama's promises were so much hot air to secure enough votes. They just don't mind being lied to by their guy.

Eliminating spending doesn't mean shifting where the money goes. It means not spending it.

 

[myp]

Entitlement programs are the most costly programs for the federal government. That's why they are prime targets.

Further, entitlements have the least constitutional foundation justifying their expense. Those programs were motivated out of a real, decent and compassioate drivce to help the less unfortunate. Sadly many have had the exact opposite effect. To get a good picture one needs to familiarize one's self with the Moynihan Report and its predictions. Tghe report and its reception encapsulated the past 40 years of social programs during the pendancy of the controversy it caused. His (Moynihan's) predictions were thought to be absurd or racist and maybe both. Turns out he undersold his dire warnings. The short version is that social welfare for communities at risk, especially african american communities would lead to wide spread unemployment, higher crime and sky-rockjeting rates of illegitimacy. The problem isn't race. The problem is subsidizing unwanted behavior... you get more of it.


72% unwed mother rate
Unemployment rate projections

I'm not arguing they shouldn't be cut, just noting the problem with trying to cut them. Furthermore, there are other substantial spending bills out there that could be cut to reduce the deficit- subsidies for ethanol, oil, agriculture, and other products are some of them.

 

[obtuseobserver]

I'm not arguing they shouldn't be cut, just noting the problem with trying to cut them. Furthermore, there are other substantial spending bills out there that could be cut to reduce the deficit- subsidies for ethanol, oil, agriculture, and other products are some of them.

The difficulty is the legality - it is the political risk.

I mentioned this in another forum but this over burdening of a society is a commonly repeated cycle. I cited to the Ottoman Empire (and others) where the janissaries became more and more entrenched and powerful and their demands grew to a point where they could nearly dictate policy. As it continued the cost of paying them off so over burdened the treasury that the state could no longer sustain itself. It weakened their military, infrastructure etc and lead to the collapse of the state. Obviously more complicated than that but their role in undermininmg the state cannot be overlooked.

edit... the difficulty ISN'T legality - it is political risk

 

[myp]

In my opinion it really needs to be a combination of entitlements, military spending and subsidies- preferably to the point where the other big expense- interest payments- also goes down in the long run.

 

[obtuseobserver]

the military will take a haircut but spending on the military as a rate of GDP has been dropping

spending will boil down to whose spending opinions have to clout to carry the day