An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Public Worried About Deficit
According to a new poll from MSNBC the public is getting increasingly concerned about the amount of debt that is being incurred by the administration. As mentioned in the MSNBC article this may be a sign we are moving past the honeymoon phase to where the public starts to split between how they feel about the person and how they feel about the policies.
It’s actually pretty common for a President to be personally popular even if his policies are not and Obama may be dealing with that now. While we certainly have problems we need to take care of there is a limit to how many of them we can throw money at in one budget year, or even one adminstration.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
15 Responses to “Public Worried About Deficit”
In my opinion, nothing would be worse than reversing course on stimulus just to drive down the deficit. That's EXACTLY what FDR did in 1937 and it caused the great recession. Wait until next year to make sure the economy is on surer footing and then start pulling back on government spending.
I will say, however, that Obama should commit to a longterm fix on Medicare and Social Security. The government debt is driven not by stimulus spending but on long-term entitlements. At some point he will have to raise taxes – and he SHOULD raise taxes.
Well, I think we should see a massive cut in spending, and a modest increase in taxes. Better a recession with little government intervention than more and more government spending to bankrupt myself, and my progeny.
What would you massively cut, PJB? Specifically.
The public should be worried. No matter how people try to spin it you can't spend yourself out of debt in the long run. Even Obama's own projections indicate he is sacrificing long term growth for short term stimulus. I don't necessarily have a problem with that since a “soft landing” is desirable for most people, but the excessive spending has to be short term. Will Obama, Pelosi and Reid have the self-control to rein in the budget later?
It should be pointed out the 1937-38 recession was also felt to be due to tax increases, not just decreased government spending.
Social Security – We had a long term fix in 1983, led by Mr Greenspan and signed into law by Reagan, it raised rates, increased retirement age and made benefits taxable. Social Security is now sitting on $2.4 Trillion of assets.
We have been using the Trust-Fund to pay for the Billionaires tax-cuts, when the benefits are due to be payed out start raising taxes on the Billionaires.
And don't touch my Social Security, it's the only retirement plan I can count on, I like million of Americans do not have a Defined Pension Plan, and my 401k is looking like a 201k.
Not Being PJB, I can't say what he would cut, but I would suggest we cut our Military Expenses by at least 70%, which will still leave us with the world's largest military.
And we can start this process by getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately, closing all our European Military bases over the next couple of years, closing our Japanese & Korean military bases over the next 5 years, dismantling the greater part of our Nuclear Arsenal, adding a couple of Divisions to the Marine Corps downsizing the Army & Air Force to pre-WWII size and getting rid of at least a couple of Aircraft Carriers( Why in heavens name do we need a fleet in the Mediterranean).
Funny the public nor the media didn't seem to care all that deeply about Shrub's deficits when he was starting pointless wars and giving away the store to his buddies but now that a Democrat is in the house and the benefits of Government might actually start flowing towards the citizenry at large, Deficits are a real problem..
Actually Democrats did profess to care about deficits during the GWB years. It seems like deficits are OK as long as you're in the party worsening them, be it GOP or Democrats.
Well, if you fixed the deficit, the Public would be concerned about high taxes or low spending instead. You can't really win the game, since the Public does not have coherent goals in mind.
The object is not to win the game of public opinion, it's to practice fiscal responsibility.
“The object is not to win the game of public opinion, it's to practice fiscal responsibility.”
Aside from the near-term miracle (a real one, from our Messiah) of seeing Obama suddenly becoming fiscally responsible, and getting the Dems in Congress also to be that way (a _real_ miracle), I'll have more faith (pun intended) in these people if they require the federal government to conform to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) sometime soon. (Won't those unfunded liabilities look great?)
“Even Obama's own projections indicate he is sacrificing long term growth for short term stimulus. I don't necessarily have a problem with that since a “soft landing” is desirable for most people, but the excessive spending has to be short term.”
History shows it won't be, but will function in an incrementalist way and raise childish people's expectations for that level to be maintained and for them to see even more.
Yes, we could honestly try more stimulus first, even though to date the results have been laughable or pathetic (150,000 jobs, not 3.5 million new or saved jobs, original boast 4 million new jobs). One reason is that not all the money available to spent has been spent, so as monstrous as the Obama deficits and debts are right now, it can be claimed with a straight face that we are able to do more and should try more.
ROTFLMAO…
We could make the Republican Party and it's supporter happy, we could raise taxes, radically cut expenses and watch the economy crater and in 2012 when Sarah Palin gets elected, she will get the chance to do the same thing Bush & Cheney did: Cut taxes on millionaires and tell us that DEFICITS DON”T MATTER.
You guys must really think that the Democrats are stupid suckers… You may be right.
I would start by ordering a 10% pay cut for all federal employees, as well as cutting the pay of all but Article III judges by 20%, and a 15-20% reduction in the employment of all federal agencies. I would cut subsidies, especially agricultural ones, by 70%. I would require all agencies to take a 10% spending cut, and some, like the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and HUD, to take a larger cut, say 50, 30 and 30% respectively. I would demand that all defense contracts either be actually negotiated, or re-negotiated in a market-friendly model. I would re-write welfare, medicare, and medicaid to make them more economically efficient. I would merge positions. I would unravel most of the Department of Homeland Security, leaving intact only a few things, including communication between the intelligence agencies. I would issue a stop-haemorrhage order, stopping the dismissal of people under DADT, thus reducing the amount required to spend on training, recruiting and administrative costs. I would cut foreign aid by 90%.
I would also put aside ideas like a government-run healthcare plan, and would pretty summarily withdraw from Iraq, and let the civil war sort itself out there.
Only when that didn't stanch the bleeding would I raise taxes, to cover what we are unable to pay for with those cuts.
Who Gets U.S. Foreign Aid ?
Foreign Policy – Think Again: U.S. Foreign Aid
So you want to cut the $30 Billion of Foreign aid that we are expecting to give down to $3 Billion ( less than 1 week's military spending in Iraq).
You do realize the we are talking about a $3.1 trillion ($3100 Billion ) federal budget…