0

LETTERS: Another take on debt

I appreciate Richard Bane's thoughtful dialogue about Eugene Robinson's column ("Too Juvenile to govern, May 31, 6A.).

So how is the deficit more manageable if it adds to itself, just at slower rates? It becomes more manageable as long as the growth of the debt is less than the growth of the economy.

Driving for even lower growth in the deficit at this time is self-destructive because it lowers "demand" that drives job growth. Driving for lower debt will become an appropriate goal once we get the economy on a stronger footing, with a greater number of people re-employed.

On the other hand, sequestration will account for a loss of 700,000 jobs this year. This exacerbates the deficit problem by preventing those and others from contributing to the growth of the economy, making it harder for us to manage the debt that, in the short-term, fuels our return to a stronger economic position.

-- Brad Burns

Dacula

Comments

Jan 1 year, 2 months ago

Excellent points! Those 700,000 job losses will also be very expensive for states and hurt state budgets. States will lose income tax dollars from these workers. In addition, expenses for auxiliary services such as unemployment and food stamps, will increase. All this while House Republicans are insisting on paying for additional tanks that the Pentagon does not want.

0

CD 1 year, 2 months ago

The job losses above added to the 51498498419811169 job losses and the 984894851851481185 in additional daily tax revenue the airport would generate if only simpletons would look the other way while our "leadership" feeds from the trough.

Why, in just a mere millisecond or two, Gwinnett could solve all of the economic woes of the entire US if we just beg Brett to come back and save us.

2

jack 1 year, 2 months ago

“Let me say that unemployment insurance… is one of the biggest stimuluses to our economy. Economists will tell you, this money is spent quickly. It injects demand into the economy, and it’s job creating. It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name.”
Nancy Pelosi
July 1, 2010

So any loss of jobs through sequestration should be a boon to the economy.

2

Jan 1 year, 2 months ago

Jack, I can tell from your previous writings that you are not stupid. That is something that cannot be said about a lot of the right wing respondents. Why do you act stupid now? Of course she was referring to continuing unemployment benefits for those that had lost their jobs, not to firing additional people so we could spend more on unemployment.

0

FordGalaxy 1 year, 2 months ago

Jan - I can understand Jack's approach. Nancy Pelosi is not exactly the figurehead you want leading an economic effort. Her comments over the last few years reveal that she is just as much smoke-and-mirrors as any other politician. From Jack's quote to her saying that we had to pass the healthcare bill to find out what was in it, to her quote (albeit a misspeak and a funny one at that) that 500 million American jobs were lost every month, Pelosi does not have a good track record for commenting on the political goings-on.


Of course, I've been told time and again that we cannot and should not expect the government to be as responsible as a family, business, or individual must be when it comes to finances. I'm not going to try and defend the standard Republican talking point that tax breaks create jobs. It's obvious that this is not always the case. But on the flip side, raising taxes won't create jobs either. How can you take more money out of the hands of the citizenry and expect them to stimulate the economy? You can't, unless you subscribe to the Keynesian school of thought, which states that government is the only entity strong enough to stimulate the economy. If you or I or any family or business were in debt, the answer is not spending more money. You can't spend money and hope more money magically appears. (I'll grant that you have to spend money to make money, but there is a fine line and a strong business sense required to do so. Our current crop of politicians is lacking greatly in the latter.

3

jack 1 year, 2 months ago

Jan-

Ms. Pelosi has claimed that every $1 spent on unemployment creates $1.73 of work output.

How then, does the logic of my statement escape you?

BTW, I am not a right winger.
I am just as dismayed at mindless Republican cheerleaders as I am with myopic Democrat myrmidons.
Liberals and pedagogues are just easier to pick on due to their over-inflated sense of the value of their own opinions

2

Jan 1 year, 2 months ago

Simple mathematics. Below is how the numbers work. Using Rep Pelosi's ratio, someone getting $1000 in unemployment creates $1730. Someone still working would get net pay larger, thus spending more and paying taxes. If such working person were earning $1700 and spending $1400, he would thus create $2422. $2422 is higher than $1730. When you include the taxes paid, this is significantly better than the person loosing his/her job.

0

jack 1 year, 2 months ago

But...but....but Ms. Pelosi said paying unemployment was good for the economy and now you suggest that it's better for people to be working?!?

Maybe there's hope for you after all!

2

Haughton 1 year, 2 months ago

Ms. Jan's talking point: House Republicans are insisting on paying for additional tanks that the Pentagon does not want.

The link below from Huffington Post (excerpt): Lawmakers from both parties have devoted nearly half a billion dollars in taxpayer money over the past two years to build improved versions of the 70-ton Abrams.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/28/abrams-tank-congress-army_n_3173717.html

...........................................................................................................................................

The Sequester (700,000 job losses) is the responsibility of Barrack Obama. Would you like me to provide you a link on who is President and Chief Executive of the United States?

...........................................................................................................................................

Mr. Jack, I am the "rightwinger" that Jan now loves to hate. My links / sources that consistently refute the false claims makes me an "extremist". Oh well, I say bring it on ...

3

FordGalaxy 1 year, 2 months ago

Haughton - Just a bit of information for you: Jan is a man. You should say Mr. Jan. Like I said, just FYI...

1

Jan 1 year, 2 months ago

Thank you for telling him once again. He has been told directly at least 3 times. I think he knows and somehow thinks such a reference is an insult. Personally, I see it as a futile attempt to distract from the misinformation that he (don't think a female would see the Ms. as an insult) prints, such as the absurdity that somehow Obama is responsible for the Sequester which had to pass the House and Senate before coming to his office for a signature. While he is partially to blame by accepting this compromise, it is far from his responsibility, especially since house Republicans are blocking any effort to correct it.

0

Haughton 1 year, 2 months ago

the absurdity that somehow Obama is responsible for the Sequester

Mostly False ...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/24/barack-obama/obama-says-congress-owns-sequestration-cuts/

Jan, please let me know if I can be of further assistance in helping your research.

Thank You and Good Day!

3

kevin 1 year, 2 months ago

Obama is the person who first gave it the name "sequester." Maybe you missed that news clip.

3

Haughton 1 year, 2 months ago

Thank You, Ford Galaxy. I am well aware of the fact that Jan is a "he". I will address him with the proper salutation when he stops passing off his posts as fact (example @ 2:00 am). Since he readily ignores the continual evidence we "rightwing extremists" present in counterpoint, then no harm on me getting one little factoid wrong.

There is even evidence that Jan's avatar photo is a hoax:

http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=51710

http://islamgreatreligion.wordpress.com/2010/07/07/flying-floating-stone-in-jerusalem-fake-miracle-fake-image-hoax/

http://www.al-habib.info/review/floating-rock-jerussalem-hoax.htm

3

Jan 1 year, 2 months ago

Of course my avatar is a hoax! When I changed to the "Floating rock", I never imagined that anyone would really believe that a rock could float! Interesting how you felt the need to research to see if it was real.

1

Jan 1 year, 2 months ago

Haughton; I don't hate you. I even enjoy reading your rantings, they are good for a chuckle or two.

1

Sign in to comment