(CNSNews.com) – When Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) gave her inaugural address as speaker of the House in 2007, she vowed there would be “no new deficit spending.” Since that day, the national debt has increased by $5 trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.
“After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: Pay as you go, no new deficit spending,” Pelosi said in her speech from the speaker’s podium. “Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.”
Pelosi has served as speaker in the 110th and 111th Congresses.
At the close of business on Jan. 4, 2007, Pelosi’s first day as speaker, the national debt was $8,670,596,242,973.04 (8.67 trillion), according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, a division of the U.S. Treasury Department. At the close of business on Oct. 22, it stood at $13,667,983,325,978.31 (13.67 trillion), an increase of 4,997,387,083,005.27 (or approximately $5 trillion).
Pelosi, the 60th speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, has added more to the national debt than the first 57 House speakers combined.
Words do have meaning… to some of us.
#12, bobbo, disappointed in you…
Do they think rich people create jobs with their windfall profits
Please define a “windfall” profit as it relates to “rich” people, why you think it is bad, and how your attack is relevant. Investment is an extremely important component of economic growth as it allows for accumulation of new capital and replacement of depreciated capital. It also funds technological innovation. Savings are the primary source of investment funds, and the rich are the largest source of savings.
Do they think cutting taxes always results in additional income?
Additional income to whom? The government? All a tax does is transfer wealth from one group to another group. The outcome can only be considered neutral since you have to take away from somebody to give to another. You have no way of determining what the opportunity cost of that transfer is because you can’t measure the value of what it would have been used for otherwise.
Do they think that minimum wage reduces the number of jobs available?
The minimum wage has many effects that have been shown through empirical study. First, it does decrease the number of entry-level jobs available to unskilled, mostly young workers. This doesn’t necessarily happen in the short-run, but is much more pronounced in the long-run, because small businesses who pay these minimum salaries are oftentimes not able to afford the higher labor costs and are driven out of the market, resulting in a net loss of those jobs. Of course, large chains love the minimum wage for that exact reason because it reduces competition . The minimum wage also decreases the cost to employers of discrimination, and so minority workers are often injured by the minimum wage.
Do they think that providing tax credits to move jobs offshore helps establish free trade?
Tax credits are a transfer, and are generally inefficient because they hide the true costs of production and so lead to market failure. They also create opportunities for political corruption through rent seeking activities.
Do they think children should be given the freedom to work for free/reduced wages/experience as interns?
They already enjoy that luxury, if they work on a farm.
#26
We shouldn’t have been running deficits in 2007. We should be running them in 2010. This is conservative economics which, these days, only the Democrats seem to believe in.
First, this is not “conservative” economics; this is Keynesian economics which is generally endorsed by people that consider themselves liberal. It is not difficult to understand why. Any philosophy that endorses heavy spending to “save” the economy during a recession is going to be endorsed by anyone that is also a proponent of big government.
Second, the theory itself has (at least one) a fundamental flaw. For Keynes theory to work, during propserous times, Congress, a body rarely known to restrain spending, has to, of its own volition, focus its attention on reducing the debt. Said another way, during times when tax revenue is at its highest, Congress has to not spend it. Even if for a moment, we entertain the idea that Keynes’ theory works adademically (which I do not accept), in practice it relies upon motivations that are in direct contrast to human nature.
Why? Because the stimulus package worked and increased revenue – just as it is supposed to under (real) conservative economics.
You don’t get it. No one disputes that tax revenue will go up with government spending. The question is whether it harms the economy more than it hurts. Since the multipliers of government spending are all below one, it means that for every dollar they spend, they take more out of the economy than put into it. I.e. robbing Peter to pay Paul. Then there is the fact that we still have 10-20%+ unemployment…
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704751304575079260144504040.html
Thomas,
You brought up Milton Friedman. Milton Friedman has been demonstrated to be completely, and foolishly wrong. The idea that markets regulate themselves via consumer pressure on providers is silly.
After how many accounting scandals do you conclude that businesses are not immune the the same pressures that make thieves of individuals?
Second, our government has been stimulating the economy for decades, and it has been working just fine. Fly on a plane, use a computer, or get an advanced medical procedure? Government money behind that.
You just need to deal with taxes. They suck, but how are you special enough not to pay?
Thomas–I apologize. You are not a low level thinker. You just espouse the same policies they do. Why you think the way you do is a mystery to me, probably something in your childhood or even later developmental years. Yes: “I’ve got mine, screw you.” Hard to really criticize you when about 50% of the voting public has the same attitude. And thats why the spiral goes down. Smart, but too self centered to see the value in having a healthy broad middle class. Make money the object of worship rather than skill, expertise, and accomplishment. I think Heinlein wrote several Sci-Fi books that dealt with “banking.” Seems to be on the order of dealing with Atomic Energy as to whether or not a society will prosper and thrive or be done asunder.
Sea Lawyer–I looked with interest on what your criticisms might be. You just copied Thomas. Another bad upbringing? I’d go into detail/repetition. My guiding light would be “what actually works?” To bad even with all our history and theories, there is no scientific consensus. Makes Global Warming look easy.
The joy of wisdom is coming to want the best for your fellow man-or at least their kiddies. It takes practice and certainly doesn’t include being snarly on a blog. We all have our faults.
Bobbo says: 50% of the voting public has the attitude:
“I’ve got mine, screw you.”
And the other 50% has the attitude:
“You got yours, and I want it”
if they believe any of the stuff spewed by bobbo, they are definitely morons
Pelosi is a mess. So is the country. Since the post is economic in nature, I think the following words are pertinent:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/222206
Pelosi is a mess. So is the country. Since the post is economic in nature, I think the following words are pertinent:
http://rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/222206
#33
Friedman would be the first to say that our current markets are not actually free. Further, the vast majority of notable economists in the past 30 years are all monetarists. Both Bernanke and Greenspan are monetarists.
Fly on a plane, use a computer, or get an advanced medical procedure? Government money behind that.
Airlines, computer manufacturers and medical equipment makers are all private enterprises. I’m not say that government money for research is necessary bad. However, government money for the express intent of stimulating the economy is an abject failure and has been in every case when it has been tried. Proof of the current stimulus: 20% unemployment in some places and a (conservatively estimated) 13 trillion dollar debt.
Government stimulus can only work if amount of money it puts into the economy is more than the amount of money it takes out of the economy through taxation. That’s the multiplier. If it’s less than one, as it is for the stimulus package, then the government hurts the economy more than helps it through government expenditure. Again, remember that all that stimulus money that was pissed away has to be repaid at some point with interest.
You just need to deal with taxes. They suck, but how are you special enough not to pay?
You seem to love them so why don’t you give 100% of your income to the government? Why keep any of it? No one argues that some level of taxation is necessary. The question as always is “how much”?
#34
At no time did I ever state that I ascribe by the policy of “I’ve got yours screw you.” That is your own misguided interpretation. Furthermore, no economist espouses those sentiments.
Make money the object of worship rather than skill, expertise, and accomplishment.
Again, at no time have I ever said that one should worship money. However, money is clearly a driving force in people’s decisions because it is a necessity resource in order to function is modern society.
I fully ascribe to the idea that people should strive to be the best at whatever it is they wish to be. However, not everyone can make a living doing whatever they want. Just because someone wants to be the best NFL quarterback that ever played doesn’t mean they will even have the skills to even play. Life is not fair that way; get over it. Fundamentally, people’s individual talents and the current market conditions will dictate what people can do. Just because you can craft the finest wagon wheels does not mean you will be able to cover your rent doing it.
You wonder where Sea Laywer and I get our point of view? Economics. The study of economics (microeconomics specifically) is the study of how people make decisions in the face of scarcity. I’m assuming that Sea Laywer has taken more than a few classes on economics because I recognize the manner in which he formulates his responses. Microeconomics gives you clearer perspective on the effects of actions like minimum wages, subsidies and yes even taxes.
#33 Thomas
Of course, problems which appear to arise from a lack of quality and security controls in the top tier of the financial sector actually come from government interference, right?
With circular logic anything is possible. Actors in a non-perfect free market commit fraud in order to obtain continued high salaries. Rather sending cops or acting to align the interests of the agent and the customer we should free the, obviously, corrupt agent of painful restraints.
You talk about debt, but direction is more important. After 8 years of being the global idiot now we have pissed away 2 more years because things are too complicated.
That’s crap.
The government built the computer industry by ordering supercomputers for defense. A good civil aviation sector came out of WWII. The cutting edge of medical improvements come out of either the military(trauma) or government funded research.
The government can help create the next big thing. The debt stuff will work itself out if we have a new game.
If we made a serious effort at one of:
*lower healthcare costs by nationalizing the health insurance industry
*a big program to provide jobs tied to creating an improved national energy infrastructure
*do something with tech ip rights so more effort is spent on innovation and less on legal bullshit
#41
Of course, problems which appear to arise from a lack of quality and security controls in the top tier of the financial sector actually come from government interference, right?
Of course, government interference in the market had no hand in the financial crisis right? This is a common ploy. You want to ignore all the bad things that government does and only focus on the bad things that happen as part of the market.
You talk about debt, but direction is more important.
Yes, let’s talk about direction. In the past two years has the debt done up or down? Has the deficit gotten better or worse? Has unemployment gotten better or worse? If you think we’ve pissed away two years (if only) and you support the Democrats, then you have no one to blame but yourself.
The government built the computer industry by ordering supercomputers for defense. A good civil aviation sector came out of WWII. The cutting edge of medical improvements come out of either the military(trauma) or government funded research.
You cannot seem to differentiate research with specific goals and specific stakeholders from wild spending in the vain attempt to stimulate the economy. They are not the same. Assuming we do not go back further than WWII, the computer was designed to help the military crack enemy codes. Developments in aviation primarily came because the military wanted better aircraft. Medical improvements came to help the military fight specific ailments. Do you notice a trend? All of the research you mentioned was funded by the military with very specific goals. Only later (many years later) did that research morph into something that was commercially viable. That type of spending is entirely different than trying to fix a few roads or bridges in a vain attempt to stimulate the economy.
Either you are a hypocrite or you are unlike most on the left that go into conniptions at the first hint of military spending. As many economists have been saying, the types of government spending that actually can translate into new industries can take years or decades (or sometimes never happens). However, the type of spending that the current administration is doing only makes things worse. It’s the difference between spending money on something that appreciates vs something that is disposable.
The debt stuff will work itself out if we have a new game.
Lovely. That’s the ostrich approach. If we don’t look at the steaming pile of crap in the living room, it will all work itself out on its own. After all, “someone” will pay for it. Who cares about future generations, we need to just keep spending money we don’t have, right? Interest sminterest. FFS.
lower healthcare costs by nationalizing the health insurance industry
IMO, we should leave that up to the States to implement before we try something at the Federal level. The risk of screwing it up, especially with this President and Congress, are simply too high are exponentially high given that it has never been tried in this country. There is no reason the States cannot provide universal health care coverage for their constituents.
*a big program to provide jobs tied to creating an improved national energy infrastructure
First, if the government puts money into energy research it will provide researcher jobs. I’m sure you have heard of them. They are people with college degrees. Now, I’m all for doing research but you do realize the number of jobs in question is tiny?
Second, the government needs to find a way of helping small businesses expand so that *they* can hire more people. Right now, the most significant factor that is stopping that is uncertainty with respect to the government. Specifically, the current President is a loose cannon and no one is sure what is going to do next.
*do something with tech ip rights so more effort is spent on innovation and less on legal bullshit
I’m not sure how that relates to the problems of the recession. Besides, politicians are nothing if not made up of legal bullshit.
Thomas: you studied microeconomics and think you know something huh? Our current financial wreck is the result of an unregulated market: the securitization of mortgages and the debt swaps, insurance instruments that flowed therefrom. Dimwits will like to blame the Freddies for “requiring” loans be made to unqualified poor people but even to the degree that is true, that issue is irrelevant to the cause stated above. An unregulated market is a license to steal. Silly to think otherwise. And you studied microeconomics huh?
Ha, ha. Give them books, and they eat the covers.
So, because the problems we face relate to finance and economics, anyone that studied either of those two fields now instantly knows nothing and all theories of those fields should be completely ignored or perhaps you attempting to imply that anyone that studied economics by definition must believe that all markets should be 100% unregulated in any form or fashion? That’s a new level of ostrich. You are akin to the ignorant fools that think that all doctors “know nothing” when new information is discovered that shows that previous diagnoses were incorrect.
There is no question that governments had a direct hand in this financial crisis. This due in some part to lack of regulation but more significantly due to lack of enforcement. Where was the Congressional oversight committee created after Enron? No economist would argue that markets should be 100% unregulated even though they would all argue that over regulation will dampen the output of a market.
Give them books, and they eat the covers.
Written by someone that clearly relishes their ignorance. You must think it a crazy notion that people that read books might know a thing or two.
perhaps you attempting to imply that anyone that studied economics by definition must believe that all markets should be 100% unregulated in any form or fashion? That’s a new level of ostrich.
Ha! Considering that even Hayak, one of the 20th Century’s most important free-market thinkers, was a critic of laissez-faire.