Hillary's Deficit Terrorism Must Stop
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Almost the entire Democratic economic intellectual establishment is in favor of new deficit spending for infrastructure. A virtual who's who of policy wonks, including Clintonites Larry Summers and Paul Krugman, are adamant in their proposals. There is virtually no one in the economic liberal establishment against it. Yet, Hillary insists that she will pay for new spending with a variety of tax increases on the wealthy and broader tax reforms. She concedes that the deficit is a problem per se, and requires tax increases that the wealthy will reject and campaign against, so when the tax revenue side of reforms doesn't materialize, neither does the new spending. Meanwhile, the financial news media is overwrought with articles and editorials calling for new infrastructure deficit spending to boost aggregate demand, and all kinds of major corporations and businesses have voiced their opinion in favor. This progressive path is what the American people want and it is a bipartisan political winner. Today I read this article in the Washington Post: "Why Hillary Clinton should stop worrying and learn to love the deficit." Democrats thinking about the future need to read this. By claiming to be the "fiscally responsible ones" instead of calling out Republicans for their Deficit Terrorist bullshit and hypocrisy, Democrats vastly limit themselves to that nonsense, and instead of letting Republicans take a walk off a plank by being the ones to propose vastly unpopular spending cuts, Democrats join them and provide political cover. This is a politically destructive cycle, which traps Democrats in "tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend" type criticism from the right, while selling out the interests of the Democratic constituency. We need to elect quality Democrats who are committed to fighting Republican nonsense, not compromising with them or adopting it. Combining Deficit Terrorists ideological restraints to progressive spending proposals is a recipe for disaster. Hillary's Deficit Terrorism Must Stop.
-
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Carlitos Wrote:Almost the entire Democratic economic intellectual establishment is in favor of new deficit spending for infrastructure. A virtual who's who of policy wonks, including Clintonites Larry Summers and Paul Krugman, are adamant in their proposals. There is virtually no one in the economic liberal establishment against it. Yet, Hillary insists that she will pay for new spending with a variety of tax increases on the wealthy and broader tax reforms. She concedes that the deficit is a problem per se, and requires tax increases that the wealthy will reject and campaign against, so when the tax revenue side of reforms doesn't materialize, neither does the new spending. Meanwhile, the financial news media is overwrought with articles and editorials calling for new infrastructure deficit spending to boost aggregate demand, and all kinds of major corporations and businesses have voiced their opinion in favor. This progressive path is what the American people want and it is a bipartisan political winner. Today I read this article in the Washington Post: "Why Hillary Clinton should stop worrying and learn to love the deficit." Democrats thinking about the future need to read this. By claiming to be the "fiscally responsible ones" instead of calling out Republicans for their Deficit Terrorist bullshit and hypocrisy, Democrats vastly limit themselves to that nonsense, and instead of letting Republicans take a walk off a plank by being the ones to propose vastly unpopular spending cuts, Democrats join them and provide political cover. This is a politically destructive cycle, which traps Democrats in "tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend" type criticism from the right, while selling out the interests of the Democratic constituency. We need to elect quality Democrats who are committed to fighting Republican nonsense, not compromising with them or adopting it. Combining Deficit Terrorists ideological restraints to progressive spending proposals is a recipe for disaster. Hillary's Deficit Terrorism Must Stop. Hillary is totally consistent with my 22 year assessment that the Clintons are absorbed with taking the world under their wings more than they are concerned with the welfare of the USA. Her spending funding net zero is totally consistent with the thinking of the controllers of world money. She is aligning herself with the austerity solution to defaulting debt maintained by the big banks. There is no more deficit terrorism than in the stock market preferring to invest in non growth income producing investments. They are not willing to entertain labor, union and market problems when they can thrive on oversight free speculative trading legalized and supported by political leaders. Economics is obviated by nano second profiteering. The physics of low temperature conductivity supercedes marketing and GDP. If you can devise a self cooling cable you will embarrass any aggregate improving study.
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Carlitos Wrote:Almost the entire Democratic economic intellectual establishment is in favor of new deficit spending for infrastructure. A virtual who's who of policy wonks, including Clintonites Larry Summers and Paul Krugman, are adamant in their proposals. There is virtually no one in the economic liberal establishment against it. Yet, Hillary insists that she will pay for new spending with a variety of tax increases on the wealthy and broader tax reforms. She concedes that the deficit is a problem per se, and requires tax increases that the wealthy will reject and campaign against, so when the tax revenue side of reforms doesn't materialize, neither does the new spending. Meanwhile, the financial news media is overwrought with articles and editorials calling for new infrastructure deficit spending to boost aggregate demand, and all kinds of major corporations and businesses have voiced their opinion in favor. This progressive path is what the American people want and it is a bipartisan political winner. Today I read this article in the Washington Post: "Why Hillary Clinton should stop worrying and learn to love the deficit." Democrats thinking about the future need to read this. By claiming to be the "fiscally responsible ones" instead of calling out Republicans for their Deficit Terrorist bullshit and hypocrisy, Democrats vastly limit themselves to that nonsense, and instead of letting Republicans take a walk off a plank by being the ones to propose vastly unpopular spending cuts, Democrats join them and provide political cover. This is a politically destructive cycle, which traps Democrats in "tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend" type criticism from the right, while selling out the interests of the Democratic constituency. We need to elect quality Democrats who are committed to fighting Republican nonsense, not compromising with them or adopting it. Combining Deficit Terrorists ideological restraints to progressive spending proposals is a recipe for disaster. Hillary's Deficit Terrorism Must Stop. Carlitos -- Okay, let's say Hillary Clinton was to come out and say that all this "God Bless the United States of America" stuff we hear from President Obama at the end of every speech is just bullshit --- she's going to drop that from her speeches. What would happen? She would be blasted by just about every Christian in America. It perhaps would make Donald Trump the favorite for the Presidency although that is a big hurdle in itself. However, Dutch would say, "way to go girl." Likewise when it comes to the deficit, if she were to come out and say "deficits don't matter" Republicans would be comparing her to the Weimar Republic. 
A picture is worth a thousand votes, and Hillary's campaign for the presidency would soon be dead in the water. Having said that I absolutely agree with the MMT view on deficits. But you and I and few hundred other people do not have the power to overcome populists beliefs so ingrained into the American psyche. It's the same with the TPP. Once the populist rhetoric became entrenched, Hillary Clinton was forced to retract her prior stance, at least for the public consumption. Populist myths are so hard to change because it requires changing people brains. Ignorance rules. As I said before, I think that 99 percent of the population equates federal budgets with household budgets. I don't have any sources to prove that point. I just feel it. For any politician to come out of the closet and propose spending without revenue additions, it will spell defeat. Sorry, that's the way politics works in America. It doesn't matter what you believe. It what the masses believe...whether it's deficits or your religious beliefs....like Godless liberals.
-
-
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Schmidt Wrote:Carlitos Wrote:Almost the entire Democratic economic intellectual establishment is in favor of new deficit spending for infrastructure. A virtual who's who of policy wonks, including Clintonites Larry Summers and Paul Krugman, are adamant in their proposals. There is virtually no one in the economic liberal establishment against it. Yet, Hillary insists that she will pay for new spending with a variety of tax increases on the wealthy and broader tax reforms. She concedes that the deficit is a problem per se, and requires tax increases that the wealthy will reject and campaign against, so when the tax revenue side of reforms doesn't materialize, neither does the new spending. Meanwhile, the financial news media is overwrought with articles and editorials calling for new infrastructure deficit spending to boost aggregate demand, and all kinds of major corporations and businesses have voiced their opinion in favor. This progressive path is what the American people want and it is a bipartisan political winner. Today I read this article in the Washington Post: "Why Hillary Clinton should stop worrying and learn to love the deficit." Democrats thinking about the future need to read this. By claiming to be the "fiscally responsible ones" instead of calling out Republicans for their Deficit Terrorist bullshit and hypocrisy, Democrats vastly limit themselves to that nonsense, and instead of letting Republicans take a walk off a plank by being the ones to propose vastly unpopular spending cuts, Democrats join them and provide political cover. This is a politically destructive cycle, which traps Democrats in "tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend" type criticism from the right, while selling out the interests of the Democratic constituency. We need to elect quality Democrats who are committed to fighting Republican nonsense, not compromising with them or adopting it. Combining Deficit Terrorists ideological restraints to progressive spending proposals is a recipe for disaster. Hillary's Deficit Terrorism Must Stop. Carlitos -- Okay, let's say Hillary Clinton was to come out and say that all this "God Bless the United States of America" stuff we hear from President Obama at the end of every speech is just bullshit --- she's going to drop that from her speeches. What would happen? She would be blasted by just about every Christian in America. It perhaps would make Donald Trump the favorite for the Presidency although that is a big hurdle in itself. However, Dutch would say, "way to go girl." Likewise when it comes to the deficit, if she were to come out and say "deficits don't matter" Republicans would be comparing her to the Weimar Republic.
A picture is worth a thousand votes, and Hillary's campaign for the presidency would soon be dead in the water. Having said that I absolutely agree with the MMT view on deficits. But you and I and few hundred other people do not have the power to overcome populists beliefs so ingrained into the American psyche. It's the same with the TPP. Once the populist rhetoric became entrenched, Hillary Clinton was forced to retract her prior stance, at least for the public consumption. Populist myths are so hard to change because it requires changing people brains. Ignorance rules. As I said before, I think that 99 percent of the population equates federal budgets with household budgets. I don't have any sources to prove that point. I just feel it. For any politician to come out of the closet and propose spending without revenue additions, it will spell defeat. Sorry, that's the way politics works in America. It doesn't matter what you believe. It what that masses believe...whether it's deficits or your religious beliefs....like Godless liberals. Schmidt, Hillary should never say the "deficit doesn't matter." It does matter; just not the way we think. That's what the MMT'ers say. The public equates the federal government with a household budget because that's what the so-called elites say, that's what the politicians say, and that's what they have drilled into the heads of the public over the last 40 years. Then the elites poll the public and say that's what voters want. So you have this "infinite regression." "For any politician to come out of the closet and propose spending without revenue additions, it will spell defeat." Republicans do this all the time. Meanwhile, since Democrats started down the Deficit Terrorist path Democrats have lost political power. Hillary Clinton is not going to lose to Donald Trump over government deficits.
-
-
-
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Chet Ruminski Wrote: Why not look at deficit policy purely objectively. First MMT says don't worry about paying for deficits yet at the same time the spending is aimed at something that gives the impression of a good return on deficit spending. Since deficit money is free then why not apply it where you would get the most return for the buck. Start a QE program for the poor. Pay qualified poor people $75,000 a year to go to school, train and work for the government. That is the most direct way to insert money into the economy. Infrastructure is good but it is slow and profits would mainly benefit large corporations and overseas corporations. The top Caterpillar dozer cost $1.5 million. But there is no guarantee infrastructure money would be spent with Caterpillar. A lot of infrastructure money would immediately go overseas to Komatsu, Volvo and other heavy equipment manufacturers. Almost all small construction equipment including Caterpillar use Japanese and other foreign motors and parts. The best return for the buck would be to give the money to the poor. We still need to fix the roads and bridges, regardless of the current state of employment and output. So while infrastructure spending is not an economic cure-all to a deficiency in employment and output, it still needs to get done. There are many proposals along similar lines to your school, training, work program. Original ELR proposal by Hyman Minsky was to split the day of ELR workers into classroom education and public project type work.
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Schmidt Wrote:Jill Stein on Deficits and Debt "Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama have irresponsibly expanded our national debt by trillions of dollars to finance tax cuts for savings of our workers are wealthiest citizens, war, corporate welfare and bailouts of Wall Street and the automotive industry. This debt and the interest that must be paid on it is not sustainable. "For many years the federal government borrowed trillions of dollars. Money that should have been going into a better "safety net" for the poor, homes for the homeless, environmental and public lands conservation, sustainable jobs, research and development, roads and bridges, schools and the technologies of tomorrow, has been lost to servicing the national debt. We cannot ignore the consequences of our nation's past deficits and the related costs of debt service." Carlitos -- This is the narrative on the left. This is the narrative on the right. This is the narrative in the center. And you single out Hilary Clinton as a "deficit terrorist"? Hillary seems to have a different bar to be measured by. That was from 2012. Greens hadn't got the MMT message yet. I've trashed Obama for years because of his Deficit Terrorism, which we can't blame on Republicans. He started that nonsense before they took over. The Deficit Terrorist myths have always been around, but they have never done as much damage they have done during the Obama years. Hillary is running against a Republican who says "now is the time to borrow." So Trump has adopted the Democratic economic establishment view, whereas Clinton is still entrapped by the Republican nonsense. I don't expect Hillary to make some dramatic showing and start talking MMT to voters on the campaign trail. But she is going to have to do a U-Turn in office and back away from her Deficit Terrorist plans, or her Presidency and Democrats political ambitions are going to be ruined.
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Carlitos Wrote:Dutch Wrote: Carlitos, actually "deficits" makes only sense if the public got something for it. Right now most of our tax money is sqandered, by either having these wasted for our forever wars, for which you get nothing back, (except VA "cripples" who need then again money) or projects which neither do anything good or efficient or fix our economy or infrastructure or proper healthcare or the right education etc.. The word "efficient" is not found in any government library. Quite a lot of our tax money ends up in "pockets" of people without any merits to others. Often the money travels in all kind of directions to hide all this corruption, but in the end always disappears. Ask the Pentagon how much money they wasted and spread all over the world or put into certain dictators pockets. Let alone all the "secret" budgets. The easy way out is always" we are missing money" but can't locate where it went. This country is as corrupt as any third world country. So you can talk economics all you like, but as long as this is the case none of any numbers will add up. Ever seen any government branch which stayed within their fake "budget"? Dutch, If you want to cut the Pentagon or defense budgets, that's great......that means we can cut taxes further or do even more other government spending. It's never a question of "running out of dollars"....it's always about running out of real resources. Carlitos, you nor others get it , about what I'm saying. Simple: If you waste "money" and get nothing back for it, what does it help any society. The main problem here in this country is the "greed" and because of that none of all the economics in the world will help anyone but the only certain people who have an masters degree in stupidity and greed. What did we ever get back for all our trillions lost in all our wars? NOTHING at all, only new wars.
|