Viewpoint: When will our legislators end their spending spree at state Capitol?

Joyce D.
02/27/2010 10:39 AM

TT C. wrote: "I am surprised that you like to fault Bush for spending too much: thought that public sector spending and more spending is a good thing in your Keynesian world. " Actually, TT C., government spending, per se, is not a bad thing; it depends on the kind of spending, or the kinds of revenue reductions - tax cuts for the wealthiest 2%, for example, versus extending unemployment benefits, or waging an unnecessary war (with the funding kept out of the budget, making the deficit look smaller than it actually is) versus investing in infrastructure.

Report a Violation

Joyce D.
02/27/2010 9:21 AM

I would remind TT C. that before President Obama took office or signed any legislation, the Congressional Budget Office projected that, based on actions taken by President Bush and economic conditions at the time, the deficit for fiscal year 2009 would reach $1.2 trillion - those numbers were released on Jan. 7, 2009: http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/07/news/economy/cbo_2009_budget_outlook/ Currently, the "CBO projects, that if current laws and policies remained unchanged, the federal budget would show a deficit of $1.35 trillion for fiscal year 2010. At 9.2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), that deficit would be slightly smaller than the shortfall of 9.9 percent of GDP ($1.4 trillion) posted in 2009." http://www.ombwatch.org/node/10732/

Report a Violation

Jack M.
02/26/2010 2:53 PM

"I hear almost daily about friends, neighbors and relatives who have lost their jobs." The hell you do...

Report a Violation

Joyce D.
02/26/2010 11:48 AM

TBA b. (TBA = "to be announced"?), first you need to realize that the national debt and the national deficit are two different things. Historically, our deficit has been higher, as a percentage of GDP, than it is now. One of the main things driving the current deficit is high unemployment - the unemployed do not pay taxes. Once the economy is improved and the unemployment numbers start going down, the deficit will also start to decrease. Allowing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% to expire will also help decrease the deficit.

Report a Violation

TBA b.
02/26/2010 11:07 AM

How much more debt is going to be racked up in the name of "saving the economy". It seems to me, the tipping point is here. We have more debt than is possible for america to responsibly pay off. Since there is no way to pay it off, in our lifetime, we are ultimately passing that debt off to the children, and grandchildren to follow. I do not see the benefit of saving our own skins when we put at risk the future generations ability to prosper. At what point is too much government too much for some?

Report a Violation

Joyce D.
02/26/2010 10:54 AM

TT C. wrote: "I could point out that Keneyian[sic] economics did little to pull Japan out of it's[sic] 1990s recession. But Japan is not the U.S. I could argue that spending did not end the 1930s Great Depression: it may, arguably, have prolonged it." Actually, I believe the majority of economists agree that the reason Japan had such a prolonged recession (the so-called "lost decade") was because the government did not spend enough, and because, when the economy started improving, Japan tried to reduce deficit spending too soon. It wasn't that "Keynesian economics did little to pull Japan out of its 1990s recession," but, rather, that Keynesian principles were not adequately applied. As for the Great Depression of the 1930s, certain revisionist economic historians, notably Amity Schlaes, claim that the New Deal policies did not end the Great Depression and, they claim, may have prolonged it. However, history shows that the depression was easing up and employment was improving from the time the New Deal policies took effect until 1937, when FDR succumbed to pressure from the right and tried to balance the budget. The economy didn't start to recover again until WWII when - yes - increased government spending, with a deficit of over 100% of GDP, pulled the economy out of the depression.

Report a Violation

Alice P.
02/25/2010 4:12 PM

I returned to this page too late to see the offending post, for which I am grateful. Michelle V., while I disagree with you politically, I am sad that an apparently vile post attacked you personally. It was because I was afraid of nasty attacks that I hesitated, at first, to put my own political opinions out there. I hope we can all look forward to civil discussions here in the future.

Report a Violation

hank L.
02/25/2010 3:46 PM

Hi, this is Woodbury Bulletin managing editor Hank Long. I had a comment that was previously on this thread deleted bc the name associated with the comment contained a vulgar reference and because the content of the comment was directed as an ad hominem attack against another person who had previously commented. This comment thread presents an excellent opportunity for a forum of opinions on the subject at hand. It is not a good place to make personal attacks against other commenters. I'll ask those that want to participate to stick to the issues and not gravitate toward defaming others through insults and vulgar language.

Report a Violation

michelle v.
02/25/2010 2:20 PM

TTc and CT. thank you for responding to the vileness of mike littoris l. i do not know this person, i dont know how he knows anything about my faith or what church i attend, since i have said nothing about either. i feel like my privacy has been breached and i no longer feel safe being on this forum

Report a Violation

Carol T.
02/25/2010 12:29 PM

While anyone who reads these comments pages likely knows how much love is NOT lost between Michelle V. and myself- I really have to object (believe it or not) to Mike's comments. He seems to know way more than I do about who Michelle actually is - or what church she attends. However, Mike, her church or religious views didn't enter into her posting here. I think she presented her feelings in quite a rational manner. There was no mention of the Constitution, or hateful words for the rest of us (only that we "amuse and frighten" her). So, if Michelle is willing to clean up her act, so should we. There are clearly two widely divergent points of view about what we should do in a tough economy. There is no doubt the government, and individuals, have been spending beyond their means for a long time. And yes, there is a big difference between buying a "mansion" (probably not too smart for anyone these days) or going on a personal spending spree at the mall (like George Bush told us to do after 911), and with overnment keeping up with its spending on necessary/important items. We would not, for example, put off fixing a broken furnace in MN in February, and then have to heat the house with our oven. That's not smart. The Governor's veto of the transportation bill - after our bridge fell in the river, and it was brought to light how much of our infrastructure was falling apart - was so not smart. Thank goodness for those legislators (inc. from his own party) who overrode the veto. We also need to keep our state not only functioning, but attractive to those businesses we want to stay, or move here. There are, of course, differences of opinion on what constitutes necessary/important spending for the state at this time. They will hash that out. Alice P, thank you for your thoughtful and courteous comments. We can sometimes be totally right, but destroy a good deal of our credibility in everyone's eyes by being nasty. (Not that I'm always perfect in that regard, mind you :\

Report a Violation