Why do the liberals insist on more deficit spending when the nation is BROKE?

1. 60

   SheriSappposted 12 years ago

   Why do the liberals insist on more deficit spending when the nation is BROKE?
   
   Why do the liberals REFUSE to understand that the deficit spending MUST be stopped or the nation will become premanently bankrupt?

   replyreport
2. 92

   Jean Bakulaposted 12 years ago

   Why must Republican hypocrites not realize that they started two wars (also without approval from Congress) and refuse to stop overfunding the military? Don't you think we could use our national guard in the US to help our own countrymen and women in the Midwest who are now homeless? Our own country is woefully undefended. And R's want to invest our Medicare in a risky plan, when much fat could be trimmed from it and it could still continue to function. It must, if R's won't stop calling any kind of change to healthcare "Obamacare" and just vote "no" to everything our POTUS wants just to be spiteful, like little kids on the playground.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      bn9900posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Well if the Pres is so great, why hasn't he followed through on any promises, except programs that dig us deeper? IE the so called Affordable health care act?
      It's scary to think that people still believe in this guy.

      replyreport
   2. 57

      stanfrommariettaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      He hasn't been able to follow through because the GOP in the Congress (Senate and House) have blocked nearly all attempts to implement his promises through legislation. The fault is the GOP.

      replyreport
3. 88

   BizGenGirlposted 12 years ago

   It's liberals and conservatives. We can no longer blame one side over the other, because they are all on the same team these days. They just pretend they are opposed to each other, to keep people interested and distracted.
   
   Both libs and cons have brought our nation down on it's knees as we are today, and they both continue to dig us down even further.
   
   As to the reason they do it - it's because they can continually print out more money. We no longer have the gold standard or anything in place that actually makes paper money worth anything. It's valueless except as a political play toy and a way to oppress people. On top of that, most of the politicians will never have to deal with the consequences of their actions, so they have no compassion for what they are doing to real people.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      stanfrommariettaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Fiat money is worth whatever values you judge it to have when you negotiate prices with other parties in exchanges of goods and services. Values of units are not uniform over different goods and services. Money has no intrinsic value.

      replyreport
4. 60

   scauthor1969posted 12 years ago

   If we are really being honest with ourselves we must admit that defecit spending is a systemic problem carried out by BOTH parties. The greatest increases in the national debt came under Ronald Reagan when he cut taxes (national income) and hugely increased defense spending (expenditures). If we ran our personal budgets like either the Republican or Democratic parties they would throw us in jail.
   
   Politicians in general are concerned with getting re-elected. Spending money to aid your constituents is one thing they assume will win them votes. The issues seem to differ between parties with Democrats favoring spending money on social programs and Republicans spending money on defense related issues but the end result is the same - defecit spending no matter who is in power.

   replyreport
5. 61

   KK Trainorposted 12 years ago

   As feenix said, Democrats are really socialists and communists for the most part. They believe in keeping people dependent on government so that they can get more and more control over personal behaviors. If you are dependent on food stamps, then they can limit what you can buy with them so that your behaviors change. This means spending, spending and more spending on these social programs, yes including medicare. If they make cuts then they lose some of their control and that's just not acceptable.
   
   More importantly though, re-election is the most important part of a politicians life, whether Democrat or Republican. We can't blame either side for the deficit, it's everyone in Washington's fault. But it's also our fault for insisting that they not make cuts to the programs that we want in our home districts. If we didn't show up to town halls or write angry letters to our congressmen, then the cuts would be easier for them to support. They work for us. And unfortuately a lot of us don't want those cuts made. (not me...I say abolish medicare and social security altogether!)

   replyreport
   1. 93

      GoldenRod LMposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Wise person.

      replyreport
6. 61

   uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years ago

   A liberal has been President now for over two years.  For most of that time he had an overwhelming majority in Congress.  He said time and again he was focused on job creation like a laser.  He said he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term.  Our country is broke.  Our national debt is $14 trillion dollars.  This is a sum so astronomical that few people comprehend what 14 trillion represents as atoms let alone dollars.  The government has no money that it does not take from us as taxes. Or borrow with a promise to take from us the money to pay it back in the form of treasury security sales. Or inflates away to make all money worth less and current debt, therefore, smaller relative to the original value of the debt backed by older treasure securities.
   
   For a liberal to accept and acknowledge that government cannot continue to grow and take more and more responsibility away from businesses and individuals is like admitting that one's own child is a murderer.  Liberal governance has resulted in a collapsing economy.  To the liberal this is the fault of the "rich."  If the government took everything owned by every citizen and spent it at the rate it has for the last 2 years it could run for a few years longer but who will they go to when they run out of our money.  Good liberals like Robert Mugabe have shown the direction we are headed.
   
   There is nothing more important for the future of America than discipline government to live with in the means we permit it rather than raise the debt ceiling every time Congress and the President want to spend more.  There is no more and it is time to slap the hand that government keeps shoving into our wallets.  It is our money not theirs.
   
   That having been said, I think we are Greece and it is just a matter of time before Democrats get their dearest wish and the rest of us are waiting in line for our potato ration, Comrade.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      stanfrommariettaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Where did your money come from?  It came from the government. Government first has to create and spend money for you to have it and use it and pay your taxes with it.  So you are just a user not the owner of the money. We are not like Greece!

      replyreport
7. 59

   yoker8686posted 12 years ago

   Keynesian economics has lead to the current philosophy of fixing an economy through government spending and the federal reserve impacting the money supply. The belief is that for every dollar the banks have they can lend out more and thus the multiplier effect is born. This is what Obama has used to justify the stimulus. In turn it generates more money in the short run and more debt in the long run. This has been the dominant force since the Great Depression and if you look back you will notice that Ronald Reagan and Bush senior raised the national debt at a rapid rate doubling it. Then Clinton the national debt three times faster than Reagan, G.W. Bush raised the national debt three times faster than clinton and Obama has raised it three times faster than Bush! It isn't Democrats or Republicans it is our view of economics. Until we use a more Hayek approach the deficit will escalate and the boom and bust cycle will get worse along with inflation and wealth inequality.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      stanfrommariettaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      There are Keynesians, neo-Keynesians, neo-classical conceptions of Keynes, etc., most of which are not what Keynes really believed.
      Debt is not a problem: it is either rolled over at the Treasury or completely redeemed by the Fed--all going on now.

      replyreport
8. 59

   American Viewposted 12 years ago

   If we could figure that out, we would no longer be broke.

   replyreport
9. 59

   FranYoposted 12 years ago

   Republicans GOT us into these wars, and insisted the US had the political and moral reasons to do so.  Lies, lies and more lies -- No weapons of mass destruction, no threats from Afghanistan, and bin Laden wasn't from either country.  Saudi Arabia our ally?  A lie.  More lies when W. prematurely claimed we had "won" the war, as if the thousands who afterward died in the name of their nation can rest in peace.
   
   Ridiculous that now, conservatives are crying about deficits caused by two wars that we cannot afford both in loss of world respect and stature, plus criticism of our knee-jerk policies AND our current debt to nations such as China while we can't handle our own s*#t, can't manufacture our own quality products, no longer care about workers or their health or their childrens' education. 
   
   We'd just better hope that China doesn't call in its debt anytime too soon.  Compare THAT to the Clinton legacy, the prosperity that came so crashing down after W. took office.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      stanfrommariettaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      We are not borrowing from China to get money to run our federal govt.
      They are investing their dollars from selling us imports in securities at the Fed, which are like CD's at  banks. Their money is held in time deposits to be returned at maturity.

      replyreport
   2. 93

      GoldenRod LMposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      China isn't stupid. The slow growth you see in the world is because capitalism has limits. When the whole world supplies goods and services for less, margins go down. Get used to it - more socialism doesn't fix anything.

      replyreport
10. 80

    Wayne Brownposted 12 years ago

    Liberals are "heart thinkers"...actually they think very little at all but they feel a lot.  They want to cure everyone's ills and they want to do it with the taxpayer's money.  They love big government because it makes them feel safe in that they empathize so much with those who are down and out, etc., they feel good to know that the government will be there to take care of them.  Their thought process says that if you don't have enough money to pay for the social programs, you simply raise taxes on the public until you do have enough.  Of course that generates a large revenue stream and the liberals in Washington start looking for new ways to spend more money and the process reverts right back to the same disaster that it was.  Liberals canot comprehend the logic that you cannot spend yourself out of debt.  The debt situation with America always takes a second seat to their feeling good about trying to take care of every social and environment ill in the country.  WB

    replyreport
    1. 57

       stanfrommariettaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Many liberals are intellectuals and not bleeding hearts. They analyze problems and seek solutions.  The Constitution says that the government was founded to promote the general welfare. That does not mean practical solutions are always mindless.

       replyreport
11. 69

    rjsadowskiposted 12 years ago

    For the same reasons that the conservatives insist on giving tax breaks to the wealthy even though the gap between the rich and the poor is increasing each year and the trickle down theory doesn't work.

    replyreport
    1. 93

       GoldenRod LMposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       It works, just not fast enough for all of those who would rather complain.

       replyreport
12. 61

    dodecadudeposted 12 years ago

    One tactic the number crunchers like to use to obscure the truth is the use of percentages or GDP instead of actual dollar amounts.
    
    When Obama took office the total Debt was $9,238,008,000,000*
    When G.H.W Bush took office, the debt was $5,610,117,000,000*
    An increase of $3,627,891,000,000 during his watch over 8 years.
    As of September Obama, the debt was $14,790,340,000,000*
    An increase of $5,552,332,000,000 during his watch so far over 3 years, 7 months.
    
    *These numbers taken from "Total Public Debt Outstanding" figures given in the monthly reports available at http://www.treasurydirect.gov/
    
    Historically when it comes to monetary policy, Andrew Jackson was the BEST, He started off with a debt of $58,421,413.67 in 1829, and ended with a debt of $336,957.83 in 1837, with a low debt of $33,733.05 in 1835.
    
    Jackson warned us against having a central bank.
    
    http://www.ourrepubliconline.com/OurRepublic/Author/110
    
    And look where we're at now, the banks controlling everything.
    
    The main problem with our broken nation is the Fed. Not liberals vs. conservatives, none of those nincompoops are even considering reducing the debt (except for maybe Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, but we see how effective their charisma is.)

    replyreport
    1. 93

       GoldenRod LMposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       There will always be a huge number of folks who work the system. This has been going on since the time or the Romans. Look at what Greece has gone through. The only answer for a Greek is fiscal collapse, the start over. It is always the answer.

       replyreport
    2. 57

       stanfrommariettaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Most of the increase in national debt is due to the Chinese, Japanese, Saudis, English, Luxemburgese, etc. having trade surpluses with the United States, and they take these surplus dollars and invest them in US Treasury securities not for govt spnd

       replyreport
13. 69

    onegoodwomanposted 12 years ago

    After decades..........the very best " simple" explanation that I  can offer, is this.........
    
    
    Liberals...........we must have these things, and we must tax people to pay for them
    
    Conservatives..........we can not tax people more beyond this current burden, we must learn to do with out, or to  improvise.
    
    
    
    Guess, what mindset that I favor?
    
    
    PS.........dollar for    dollar.........."WAR" is NOT the most expensive program or " effort" that we , the taxpayer, pays for.............it is not.
    
    
    
    Ask yourself,  as a legal citizen, is another child, more worthy of an education than your own child is?
    
    Ask, if YOUR child was ill, with the same "illness" that an illegal immagrant child was.........WHAT child would you treat?
    
    ASK, yourself, the HARD questions..........
    
    
    ASK YOURSELF...........yes,  ASK.............MY FAMILY, OR AN ILLEGAL FAMILY?
    
    Then, come and speak to me of tax payer dollars.......  I will then,,  speak to you, in terms of Billons,.

    replyreport
    1. 57

       stanfrommariettaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I regret seeing comments like this that think in terms of oversimplified categories: liberals vs. conservatives, thinking with the heart. The issues are far more complex than that.

       replyreport
14. 0

    icountthetimesposted 12 years ago

    Any "why do liberals" or "why do conservatives" statement is woefully sweeping. People have different ideas about things. It's tempting and comforting to group people up in such a way, but it simply doesn't reflect reality.

    replyreport
    1. 93

       GoldenRod LMposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Everybody is right. That is how we got in this mess.

       replyreport
15. 84

    Laura Schneiderposted 11 years ago

    Let me guess, you're not a liberal... That means you voted in the two presidents who started wars. I suspect these wars, and the corresponding costs of supporting and getting out of them and aftercare for the combatants and their families and the countries themselves, are a good-sized chunk of that deficit, if not the biggest chunk (I haven't seen the stats, sorry). Note also that deficit spending is what got us out of The Great Depression--The New Deal.
    
    I think what we all should be focusing on as a nation of equals is where the money is going versus where it SHOULD be going. This, to me, is NOT a partisan issue--liberals vs. conservatives. The last thing we need is to do nothing. If we do nothing, nothing will change the current course and indeed bad things could happen, as you suggest. Only by cooperating as a nation of equals can we fix the mess we're in. We all need to look at history (not just American history) and learn from it, and look at and study the long-term effects of certain types of spending: sure it costs money today, but will it help in the long run? If yes, then vote for it regardless of your partyline. (How many people have mortgages on their houses? That's deficit spending, too.) If no, then vote against it.
    
    Simply digging our heels in and blaming each other is resulting in disaster. We're supposed to be "...one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Let's all start ACTING like an indivisible nation, rather than fracturing into extremist groups with special agendas that don't serve the majority of the people at all. Not everyone can have their own way, obviously! Basic schoolyard politics: there are only so many swings and slides on the playground. Fighting and refusing to yield any point, instead of taking turns or negotiating or drawing straws (voting), is NOT the sensible solution. Negotiation and a reality check IS the solution.
    
    (Yes, I left out, "under God", from the Pledge of Allegience quote because it was NOT in the original Pledge of Allegiance--separation of church and state is one of the basic tenets of our society, remember? "Under God", from what I've researched, was added by some attorney/chaplain in 1948 at a meeting he was leading. Thanks a lot, buddy, but most people worship their own deities/Gods, not his specific "God". Apparently he hadn't heard about separation of church and state being key to survival of our nation--either that or he ignored it to suit his own needs.)

    replyreport
    1. 93

       GoldenRod LMposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       This comment was amazing.And I quote,"Fighting and refusing to yield any point, instead of taking turns or negotiating or drawing straws (voting), is NOT the sensible solution.Negotiation and a reality check IS the solution."
       History teaches nothing.

       replyreport
16. 84

    gmwilliamsposted 9 years ago

    
    
    Because of insanity and utter delusion.  An intelligent, logical person, even a person with sound commonsense realize that NO money means no spending.  If one has  no money, one have to economize.  Smart people realize that when they're broke, they simply CAN'T spend money that they do not have.  They often have to learn to budget the little money that they have left for only the necessities, nothing else.
    
    However, there are LIEberals who believe that there IS money somewhere.  They refuse to believe that America is in a deficit.  They strongly insist that there is money for social programs to elevate the disadvantaged and the more oppressed/downtrodden in our society.  They refuse to believe that such people are there by their own mindset and conditioning but I digress.   They believe that it is their preordained mantra to save America by any means necessary.
    
    An example of this is the "brilliant" amnesty program initiated by Obumbler and his MADministration.   It is their contention that these illegals, although they have NO SKILLS/EDUCATION, should be allowed in America.  Of course, these illegals are going to drain our social systems but that does not matter to this MADministration in the least.  They feel that it is the illegals right to come here even though they have no contributable skill nor education.  Of course, the American economy is in shambles.  No problem to this MADministration, they feel that there "is money".  Well, there ISN'T and America will be in deeper #$%^ very soon.

    replyreport
17. 57

    stanfrommariettaposted 8 years ago

    The nation is not broke.  The preponderance of the so-called national debt consists of securities held by investors who do not fund government operations when they buy the securities.  The securities are kept in time-deposit security accounts at the Fed.  Only US banks fund deficit spending, and they hold a very small portion of the national debt securities. 
    When the securities mature, the Fed will either create interest and return the dollar equivalent to the investors (created out of thin air if need be), or see if the investor wants to roll over the securities (like rolling over a CD at your bank).
    When the securities for deficit spending mature, the banks can also opt to cash them in (and the Treasury can borrow with other securities to pay them or the Fed may even create the money to return to the banks), or the banks can just roll over the securities for new ones with new future maturity fates, while collecting interest from the Treasury (obtained by borrowing from other banks).
    The Treasury can go on doing this forever.  The banks can also try to sell their mature securities, and only the Fed will buy them with money it creates out of thin air.  None of this is inflationary since buying the securities cancels the government's debt on them to the banks, and that money is extinguished, as
    with all paid off loans.  The money that is potentially inflationary is the money spent by the Treasury from deficit spending borrowing. 
    On the potential for inflation and deflation, we must see that prices change only when the money is put forth to buy something and more money is competing for the same goods and services, or there are more goods than money to clear them, in circulation.  Mere printing money by itself has no impact on inflation, since the money could be shipped to the moon and not enter circulation. Only money in circulation relative to goods and services produced and the level of employment (full- versus under-) effect prices.

    replyreport