US Deficits and US govts

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Just a picture on which I just fell. Not posted for making a point, just to share the material.

[Bo]

Thanks for sharing. I saw that before. Man, those Republicans are real fiscal conservatives.

[opebo]

The point here is that deficits result from the political power of the elite - they keep their own taxes too low to fund their government.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The teabaggers are too brainwashed to understand that chart.

[opebo]

The teabaggers are too brainwashed to understand that chart.

Well I doubt they're capable of understanding any chart, regardless of ideology.

[Bo]

The teabaggers are too brainwashed to understand that chart.

Well I doubt they're capable of understanding any chart, regardless of ideology.

They can understand the job creation and unemployment rate change by president charts if those charts are flipped upside down.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

I wonder what this chart will look like in four years.

[Beet]

Democrats, Republicans, it doesn't matter. They were all neoliberals. This baloney has been going on in the private sector ever since the "Reagan recovery" of 1983. That "recovery" [which is also what made Paul Volcker look like a genius, btw] was powered by debt and the economy has been powered by debt ever since.

In 1980, the country was facing a choice. They were at a dead end. On the one hand, there was industrial policy, advocated by some such as Robert Reich. On the other hand, there was neoliberalism. They chose neoliberalism [I say they because this was before my time]. We are now dealing with the potentially catastrophic consequences.

[Sam Spade]

An industrial-centered policy wouldn't have worked.  Not at that time.  It's a nice thought, though. 

[Beet]

I would have to disagree.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Democrats, Republicans, it doesn't matter. They were all neoliberals. This baloney has been going on in the private sector ever since the "Reagan recovery" of 1983. That "recovery" [which is also what made Paul Volcker look like a genius, btw] was powered by debt and the economy has been powered by debt ever since.

In 1980, the country was facing a choice. They were at a dead end. On the one hand, there was industrial policy, advocated by some such as Robert Reich. On the other hand, there was neoliberalism. They chose neoliberalism [I say they because this was before my time]. We are now dealing with the potentially catastrophic consequences.

I am not sure what pursuing and industrial policy would have done, but if you you show me robert reich's idea i'll exam it. One thing that you have to keep in mind is that we shouldn't rely on type of industry because diversifying the market is one of they keys to keeping an economy stable. For example look at greece, and how they have invested too heavily in one kind of market!

[phk]

Democrats, Republicans, it doesn't matter. They were all neoliberals. This baloney has been going on in the private sector ever since the "Reagan recovery" of 1983. That "recovery" [which is also what made Paul Volcker look like a genius, btw] was powered by debt and the economy has been powered by debt ever since.

In 1980, the country was facing a choice. They were at a dead end. On the one hand, there was industrial policy, advocated by some such as Robert Reich. On the other hand, there was neoliberalism. They chose neoliberalism [I say they because this was before my time]. We are now dealing with the potentially catastrophic consequences.

I am not sure what pursuing and industrial policy would have done, but if you you show me robert reich's idea i'll exam it. One thing that you have to keep in mind is that we shouldn't rely on type of industry because diversifying the market is one of they keys to keeping an economy stable. For example look at greece, and how they have invested too heavily in one kind of market!

Yeah kind of like macro-centralized portfolio theory.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Democrats, Republicans, it doesn't matter. They were all neoliberals. This baloney has been going on in the private sector ever since the "Reagan recovery" of 1983. That "recovery" [which is also what made Paul Volcker look like a genius, btw] was powered by debt and the economy has been powered by debt ever since.

In 1980, the country was facing a choice. They were at a dead end. On the one hand, there was industrial policy, advocated by some such as Robert Reich. On the other hand, there was neoliberalism. They chose neoliberalism [I say they because this was before my time]. We are now dealing with the potentially catastrophic consequences.

I am not sure what pursuing and industrial policy would have done, but if you you show me robert reich's idea i'll exam it. One thing that you have to keep in mind is that we shouldn't rely on type of industry because diversifying the market is one of they keys to keeping an economy stable. For example look at greece, and how they have invested too heavily in one kind of market!

Yeah kind of like macro-centralized portfolio theory.

Well obviously you cant just only invest in one area of the market,but I doubt Reich would be arguing for a such a policy. Perhaps he meant that we should simply invest more into industry than what was already being done.

[opebo]

In 1980, the country was facing a choice. They were at a dead end.

Absolutely false.  The country was in great shape in 1980, at least compared to anything since, nor was there anything systemically wrong with it that more good old fashioned Keynesian redistribution wouldn't have cured. 

What we were facing in 1980 was not some kind of 'natural' economic phenomenon, but simply the resurgence of the absolute political dominance of the plutocratic elite.

[KeeptheChange]

Over-simplified and deceiving.  The chart does not reflect several things...

1.    In some cases, spending increased despite a President's best efforts.  Reagan wanted to cut spending and end entitlements for the indolent.  But Congress refused to cooperate.

2.   In other cases, spending increased because of war.  I stand by my criticism of George W. Bush for increasing domestic spending.  And I actually agree with liberals who opposed the Iraq war.  But the war against Al Quaeda was very much necessary and that spending had to be.

What is Obama's excuse for spending more in the first year of his Presidency than all other U.S. Presidents combined? 

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Over-simplified and deceiving.  The chart does not reflect several things...

1.    In some cases, spending increased despite a President's best efforts.  Reagan wanted to cut spending and end entitlements for the indolent.  But Congress refused to cooperate.

2.   In other cases, spending increased because of war.  I stand by my criticism of George W. Bush for increasing domestic spending.  And I actually agree with liberals who opposed the Iraq war.  But the war against Al Quaeda was very much necessary and that spending had to be.

What is Obama's excuse for spending more in the first year of his Presidency than all other U.S. Presidents combined? 

one of the biggest reasons as for why a budget deficit increases is usually because of a fall in government revenue that ensues during a recession. For example George Bush would have kept that surplus longer if a recession did not occur in 2001.
http://baselinescenario.com/2010/02/08/whose-fault/#more-6330

This fact is something that both sides ignore, but for different reasons.