A huge part of the problem is that un-like other modern countries – who
export fruits and vegetables, automobiles, consumer goods -- America is the
world’s #1 export of weapons and weapon systems.Therefore
– a huge sector of our economy is driven only when we are at war, or are
stirring things up all over the world so we have customers to sell too.Republicans know this – and see the answer of improving, stimulating and
growing the economy of via the huge American Military Industrial
complex….either with our forces, or by selling to foreign countries.This is a sad reflection our national priorities, as gives forces like
Al Qaeda plenty of evidence that America is not really being a Peace loving
The choice for Utah voters has always been easy, and predictable. They will
vote for whomever the GOP tells them too. Its just easier this year since its
Mitt Romney. Personally I hope Mitt wins, I have my doubts, it can't
be bad to have someone in the white house who at least pretends to like Utah.
There's no question that the economy is going to be the central issue in
this campaign. This requires that we carefully examine precisely what the real
problems are in this economy, and think carefully about what solutions to those
problems might be.The country is in recession right now, a recession
caused by a decline in aggregate demand. One symptom of this recession--and it
is a symptom, not a cause--is a rise in the national debt. Overreacting to that
symptom is more likely to harm the economy than help it, as we've seen in
Spain, Ireland, Great Britain. The response in those countries has been
austerity, budget cuts. All those cuts have done is take money out of the
economy, exacerbating the demand decline. And unemployment has soared.In the US economy, the private sector has been creating jobs pretty well.
Unemployment has risen in those states who laid off state workers--teachers,
firemen, other state employees--in a fruitless effort to cut spending.
Absolutely nothing in the Romney plan suggests that he even understands
the nature of the problem. Certainly the preposterous and mendacious Ryan
budget, which Romney has embraced, will accomplish nothing positive.
The economy has failed because government has overstepped its duties.Government requires that we contribute 15% to Social Security and then they
spent the money, leaving a worthless I.O.U. in its place.Government
seized two car companies and then outsourced design to Mexico.Government locked up oil drilling and then sends $1 billion per day to the Mid
East for oil.Government spent $500 million on Solyndra, and then
Solyndra closed its doors.None of those self-assigned
"duties" are authorized. Add to that the 2,776,000
non-military federal employees and you have paper-pushers who have to justify
their jobs.We cannot compete with other nations because of
government regulations. No other country can afford to buy from us, which has
caused all (formerly) high-paying jobs to be outsourced where regulations are
less severe. Now Obama wants to force us to pay union wages to
further increase the cost of goods sold.Put an adult in the White
House. Mitt Romney knows business. Barack Obama has never even had a job in
business - and it shows.
The biggest problem is that the Federal Government regularly ignores the
Constitution. This is what has led to the serious problems we're facing
with the economy, unemployment, the national debt, over-regulation, poor quality
education, government corruption, etc. When we return to the Constitution,
we'll return to a strong nation of prosperity, opportunity, freedom, lower
taxes, and smaller government.
I do not agree with Eric Samuelsen that the rise in government debt is just a
symptom instead of a cause of the recession. The debt is a reflection of a
general culture that has developed over the years where people consistently try
to live beyond their means. Easy credit has made that possible. This is
especially true in government since those spending the money are not personally
responsible for the debt they incur. They can pass that debt onto the
taxpayers.Instead of working hard, saving up, and making prudent
buying decisions, everyone wants to party like there is no tomorrow and
doesn't seem concerned about the impact the debt will have against future
happiness. Buy now...pay later, is not just a car commercial. It has become a
way of life.Until we get responsible leaders in office that show
common fiscal sense and set a positive example for others to follow, the ship is
going to continue sailing toward the iceberg. This ship is huge and won't
stop on a dime or turn quickly. The closer we get to the iceberg before turning,
the harder it will be to avoid it.
Eric,budget cuts do not take money out of the economy. TAXES take money
out of the economy and then redistributes some of it.
The economy,, At the end of G.W.'s term in 2009 we were losing almost a
million jobs a month. He and the GOP trashed the best economy in the world, left
to him by Bill Clinton. In the last 2 years Obama's administration has
created jobs every month. Not losing them like the GOP. The economy is
recovering, thanks to president Obama. No Thanks to the obstructionists in the
>Mike RichardsThe economy hasn't failed, and is on the way to
recovery,though slowly. Nor does government send money to the Middle East for
oil. Oil companies do that, and profit thereby. The government did not seize car
companies--it lent them money, with strings attached, and a good thing too.
Solyndra was a mistake--fortunately, not a very expensive one. >Joe There's simply no evidence suggesting that the Bush budget
deficits caused the current recession, which began in 2008. Inadequate
regulation caused them, leading to bank failures, uncertainty, unemployment,and
a decline in aggregate demand. Government spending has no relation to consumer
spending--governments can borrow at low interest, in times of national
emergency, like a major recession. The Bush tax cuts were not a response to
national emergency, and were a major proximate cause for the deficit.
Obama's spending is an effort to solve a national crisis.>Lost in DCWhen budget cuts result in layoffs, yes, that takes money
out of the economy, and adds to the numbers of unemployed. When taxes are spent
on stimulus, multipliers kick in--every dollar spent, results in two point four
dollars in private sector growth.
I'd like to point out one GOP fact....IF GW Bush did such a
great job, while Obama sucks at it...Why doesn't Mitt Romney have or
use GWBush endorsement?Would it add to or subtract from the GOP
ticket?Be HONEST Republicans.
"Add to that the 2,776,000 non-military federal employees and you have
paper-pushers who have to justify their jobs."If you go into the
DEA offices in downtown SLC you will notice on one wall a large number of
photos, both men and women. Some are only black silhouettes. All of these, both
photos and silhouettes, are Federal DEA officers who have been killed in the
line of duty.I see no need for any of them to justify their jobs to
an ungrateful blowhard posting on a comment board. Paper-pushers, indeed.I imagine many of these photos are of officers that were undercover, and
the silhouettes represent officers that were in missions that are still ongoing
with officers that are still in harms way. Many of these undercover
officers must also have met brutal deaths inflicted by merciless drug dealers.
It sickens me to think of the end that some of these men and women would have
had. And to think that some would dismiss their sacrifice for a
talking point.I'd like to deeply thank them and their families.
As well as all federal employees that work hard doing jobs without
"and he knows how to do it".. Where in the world did that conclusion
come from. Romney has scarfed assets from failing companies but Romney has a
poor record on creating wealth. Others have done better. His idea of helping GM
after bankruptcy, not during bankruptcy, would have left the industry in peril,
especially since no private investors would have been interested. Must
economists know that.
@Samuelsen: Your precious Keynesian multipliers are a mathematical fantasy. They
are impossible to measure objectively and good studies and theory suggest that
the magnitude and even direction of the multiplier may vary with the level of
government debt. At extremely high debt levels, the multiplier is actually
negative. What works at low debt to GDP is actually counterproductive at high
debt to GDP. You and Krugman don't believe deficits matter and that we can
forever borrow our way to prosperity with no limit ever. Sorry, but eventually
the bond market will impose its discipline and those low teaser rates on
treasuries that must be rolled over ever 90 days will become an unforgiving drag
on the economy.
I don't believe these fear mongering talking points,and I'm
comfortable voting Obama again.
I do believe that Romney has the experience and the intelligence to help the
economy.Unfortunately, he must pander to the far right rather than
to do what his experience and knowledge might tell him.You want to
know why Romney flip flops so much?It is because he has said or done
things in the past that he thought were best.And he has to walk them
back in favor of the party line. It would be no different if he gets elected.
Eric,BO blew nearly a trillion dollars in his porkulus of 2009. Those
multipliers you speak of failed to kcik in and we have had the slowest, longest
drawn out, weakest recovery since the depression. I have a very hard time
seeing any validity to your argument given the results of the last 3 years.LDS Lib,who said bush did such a great job? The only ones trying
to compare the current republican nominee to bush are the liberals because BO
has such a horrendous record to try and run from.
>Invisible HandI have never said deficits don't matter. Neither
did Paul Krugman, not once, not ever. Neither, for that matter did John Maynard
Keynes. By the way, you've put me in the company of two Nobel laureates:
I'm flattered.President Bush ran deficits for frivolous reasons: a
useless tax cut for rich people, an unfunded expansion of Medicare, an
unnecessary war of choice. Paul Krugman condemned all those decisions, as did
I. Deficits are a serious problem, and our current debt is unsustainable. Keynes argued that deficit spending could be justified under two
circumstances, and only two. The Second World War. And a massive recession
caused by a decline in aggregate demand. That happens to be where we are right
now. So yes, under the current rare, unusual circumstances, stimulative
spending is not just a solution, it's THE solution. As for Keynesian
multipliers, they absolutely are possible to measure objectively, and the
studies that suggest they don't exist are methodologically flawed. We also
don't have extremely high debt limits. Just moderately high. Look at
the world. Other countries share our problems. Stimulus works. Austerity does
The right wing does not want the economy to improve in order to take power. This
Eric,The economy has failed. Obama added $5 trillion to the debt
which is 33% of the entire deficit. He did that in just three years.The government locked up drilling in the West. Instead of pumping OUR oil, $1
billion PER DAY goes to the Middle East and another $2 billion PER DAY goes to
the military. Want to guess how much of the military "presence" is used
to protect oil shipments. Yes, the GOVERNMENT is responsible. Until Obama puts
the needs of the people ahead of the radical environmentalists, HE is
responsible for that $1 billion PER DAY. The government seized GM
and Chrysler. $60 billion of OUR money went into GM, giving the government 61%
ownership of GM. Canada received 12%. The union received 17.5%. The bond
holders (which includes the retirement funds of policemen and teachers) received
NOTHING.Solyndra was graft - pure and simple graft. Obama was told
that the company could not survive, but he gave his political supporters half a
BILLION dollars of OUR money anyway. You may call that a mistake, but I call it
stealing from the treasury. Treasury money does not belong to Obama's
While Republican candidates seek ways to castigate President Obama, they spent
the last couple of months yelling about how he caused gasoline prices to rise --
devastating the economy -- and causing ruin to all of us. According to Mitt and
the others, it was all Obama's fault. He did it single-handedly.Now gas prices are falling. The economy is said to be slowly improving.But notice the silence among the hypocrites?Shouldn't
they be thanking him if it's all his doing?
For all you nay sayers such as Mike Richards, please give us an example of a
successful economy in history based on austerity. Please demonstrate an example
in U.S. history. The key to success and economists concur that to pull out of
this we need to invest in building not warring. Never in the history of the
readers of this post has a congress been so bent on the destruction of a nation
as this one. This includes your friend Mike Lee, Jason Chaffetz, Rob Bishop and
most of all Orrin Hatch. They govern at the pleasure of those that would destroy
default and defunct for the benefit of a few rather than the whole and this is
what disturbs me. Until we empower the middle class there will be absolutely no
flourishing economy for everyone. There are no scraps from the table of the 1%
for the rest of us and without the 99% the 1% would cease to exist.
Uottabkidnsuccessful economy based on austerity - Utahdismal economy
laden with deficits - Californialove your play on class warfare. Your
standard of living is really worse than your father's or your
Nice try lost in DC. Utah is hardly an example of austerity However if the real
DC ever cut Utah off then we would really see austerity. Utah is also the 14th
highest tax state in the union so next time the word austerity is used, look it
up. If you were a real fiscal conservative then you would be screaming about
giving 13 mill to contractors and frilvous law suits instead of repeating the
tea party talking points.
re:Lost in DCCA gross state product in 2010 was about $1.9 trillion, the
largest in the United States. California is responsible for 13 percent of the
United States' gross domestic product. As of 2006, California's GDP is
larger than all but eight countries in the world by purchasing power. Legislative gridlock=CAeconomic diversity=CA uniformity/homogeneity=UTemployment LDS Church/govt.=UT
“The economy has failed. Obama added $5 trillion to the debt which is 33%
of the entire deficit. He did that in just three years.”
“But if you’re a deficit-obsessed voter, the clock doesn’t
answer the key question: How much has Obama added to the debt, anyway? . .
.There are two answers: more than $4 trillion, or about $983 billion.
The first answer is simple and wrong. The second answer is more complicated but
a lot closer to being right. . . . The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
was kind enough to help me come up with a comprehensive estimate of
Obama’s effect on the deficit.”-Ezra Klein, The Washington Post,
Doing the Math on Obama’s Deficit, Jan 31, 2012
"successful economy based on austerity - Utah"Utah spent
$5,424 per capita in 2010. That put Utah 24 on the list of per capita spending
in the United States. (StateHealthFacts) Right in the middle of the pack. This
number does not take into account Utah's large (non-working) child
population. Hardly austerity.
truthseeker,you mean CA is in better fiscal shape than Utah?
REALLY!?!?!?!?Mark,you admit you sources IGNORES Utah's
large (children) non-working segment. When you consider that, it definitely IS
austere. Or do I need to point out Utah's per pupils public school
expenditures, which are either dead last or next to last, yet our test scores
are in the upper half. So you say last in spending is NOT austere?
REALLY!?!?!?OK Mark, truthseeker, et al,please explain to us
all how Greece and Spain have spent themselves into prosperity.Oh,
and Mark,if you go to the treasurydirect webpage, you can get the history
of the gross federal debt by day. Enter 1/19/09 (when BO was inagurated, and
5/1/12 (latest date available), and you will see that BO has increased the debt
by 5.044 trillion. No fancy left-wing estimates or qualifiers needed. Buah only
increased the debt by 4.901 trillion in EIGHT years. And since $258 Billion
paid out in bush's last year was repaid in BO's first and second year
(TARP CPP) you can transfer $258B of bush's debt to BO.
Re:lost in DCPreceding the economic crisis, Spain had low debt and a
budget SURPLUS. But, as with everyone else, they had a huge housing bubble.
So, Europe, Spain included, has undertaken harsh austerity measures which has
merely deepened the recession and pushed Spain into a depression.Which is why any plan to significantly cut govt spending before we fully
recover from the recession is foolhardy. Private sector job creation has
improved, but the public sector, especially at the state level, has consistently
declined, holding down the recovery. Here in CA, teachers are losing their
jobs. I found it quite interesting on a recent trip to UT, the numerous school
building projects going on, including completely building a new school right
next to the old one. So please point out where I said CA is in
better shape than UT financially. CA actually is a smaller example of the
U.S.'s increasing inability to address fiscal problems due to legislative
and budgetary gridlock.
I encourage all of you to watch the latest Frontline documentary, parts 1-4 on
the breakdown of the Ameircan financial system and the failure of either Bush or
Obama to deal with it. It has become a giant blackbox where the goal is to make
money, not from making useful things, but from money itself. It's too
scarey for words.