PDA

View Full Version : Democrats call for new stimulus



Parkbandit
06-22-2011, 05:35 PM
WASHINGTON, June 22 (Reuters) - Democratic leaders called on Wednesday for additional spending to boost the sluggish U.S. economy, setting up a fresh hurdle for bipartisan efforts in Washington to head off a government debt default this summer.

Democrats' demand for new stimulus spending is at odds with the work of negotiators, led by Vice President Joe Biden, who are trying to find trillions of dollars in savings as part of a deal that would allow Congress to sign off on new government borrowing before the U.S. runs out of money to pay its bills.

Those talks, which resumed on Wednesday, have largely focused on spending cuts over the next 10 years. Senate Democrats want the deal to include more money for highway construction, a payroll tax cut and clean-energy subsidies to bring down the 9.1 percent unemployment rate.

"Get the recovery right before you get in this deficit-cutting mode," Assistant Senate Democratic Leader Dick Durbin told reporters. "Get people back to work. Let's start moving in that direction."

Republicans, who favor deep spending cuts, said that idea was not likely to go far in the Biden-led talks.

"They're not talking about spending money in there. That's not what they're trying to do," said Ryan Patrimina, spokesman for Senator Jon Kyl, one of two Republicans participating in the talks. Many Republicans view President Barack Obama's 2009 stimulus package as an $830 billion failure.

But as negotiators met for the second day this week, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke called into question a key part of the Republican approach for healing the economy.

"I don't think that sharp, immediate cuts in the deficit would create more jobs," Bernanke told reporters. "In the short run ... fiscal tightening is at best neutral and probably somewhat negative for job creation," he added.

PRECARIOUS FINANCES

The conflict between stimulus and austerity underscores the precarious state of U.S. finances. The country faces unsustainable health and retirement costs even as it struggles to emerge from the deepest recession since the 1930s.

A new report outlined the grim fiscal realities that are forcing lawmakers to consider deep cuts in everything from farm subsidies to student aid.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the rising cost of health and retirement benefits will swamp the economy unless Congress boosts taxes or slashes spending.

"If policymakers are to put the federal government on a sustainable budgetary path, they will need to increase revenues substantially as a percentage of GDP, decrease spending significantly from projected levels, or adopt some combination of those two approaches," the report said.

The Biden group, which includes six Republican and Democratic lawmakers, is racing to complete a deal by next week, but negotiators are at odds over the big-ticket items.

Republicans say they will not consider tax increases, while Democrats have said they won't back cuts to expensive health care benefit programs.

The group is trying to find a way to reduce stubborn budget deficits by $4 trillion over the next 10 years to give lawmakers the political cover to raise the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling by a large enough increment to cover borrowing needs through the 2012 elections.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has warned that the country could default on its loans if Congress doesn't act by Aug. 2, a scenario that could push the country back into recession and upend financial markets.

Obama and House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner, the top Republican in Washington, want the Biden group to wrap up its work by July 1 to give them time to hammer out the final details. Any new stimulus efforts could enter the discussion at that point, a congressional aide said.

The deal would then have to win approval from the Republican-controlled House and the Democratic-controlled Senate -- a tough task for party leaders. Many House Republicans have said they won't back a deal unless it includes deep, immediate spending cuts that are likely to be unacceptable to Democrats.

Some Republicans have suggested that Congress may have to approve a short-term fix if the Biden group fails to reach agreement soon, which would allow more time to reach a broad deal to help ensure the budget gets under control.

Durbin told reporters he thought that effort could become a "two-step" process containing a "serious downpayment on the deficit" followed by more work on long-term savings.

But others in Congress do not want to focus on the issue any longer than necessary, particularly in an election year.

Investors see a temporary fix that delayed a long-term budget plan until 2012 would be seen as a bad move. They said it would likely cost the United States its coveted AAA credit rating, raising borrowing costs and hurting the fragile economic recovery.

Budget deficits in recent years have hovered at their highest levels relative to the economy since World War Two. The deficit for the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, is projected to come in at $1.4 trillion.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/22/usa-debt-idUSN1E75L0GC20110622

Seriously... how dumb are some Democrats at this point?

Rinualdo
06-22-2011, 05:49 PM
Idiots.

Suppa Hobbit Mage
06-22-2011, 06:24 PM
I get the concept and concerns of government cuts resulting in lost jobs, but how would devaluing the dollar more improve the economy?

Kembal
06-22-2011, 06:37 PM
I get the concept and concerns of government cuts resulting in lost jobs, but how would devaluing the dollar more improve the economy?

Increased exports to other countries, and raising the cost of goods being imported to the U.S., which means companies may opt to manufacture more here instead.

And government job cuts (at all levels of government) have pretty much offset private sector job gains. That isn't exactly helpful in reviving economic growth.

WRoss
06-22-2011, 06:39 PM
Increased exports to other countries, and raising the cost of goods being imported to the U.S., which means companies may opt to manufacture more here instead.

And government job cuts (at all levels of government) have pretty much offset private sector job gains. That isn't exactly helpful in reviving economic growth.

While I get what you are saying, they need to look at remittances before they even think about this.

Kembal
06-22-2011, 06:46 PM
While I get what you are saying, they need to look at remittances before they even think about this.

As in corporations keeping profits overseas? Or individual remittances?

WRoss
06-22-2011, 06:56 PM
Either works. The US having the highest corporate tax rate or the largest rate of individual remittances.

TheEschaton
06-22-2011, 07:09 PM
Again with the "highest corporate tax rate" line, which, in practice, isn't even near true.

WRoss
06-22-2011, 07:20 PM
Again with the "highest corporate tax rate" line, which, in practice, isn't even near true.

Last I read, which could have changed, it has changed from year to year, but in the past 10 years, we have averaged the highest. Currently, I believe Japan and.....I forget who else, but one other country, has a higher corporate tax than the US. The fact is that the amount that is paid to our workers is high, very high. So high that businesses have gone to other countries to operate much of their businesses in order to be successful and profitable. We also pay so much that immigrants from all over the world come here to send money home, because the amount of money they can make for minimum wage far exceeds what they could make in their country of origin. There are many trade agreements which have been passed that have promoted free trade, which could bring jobs back into America and/or keep workers in their country of origin, if only the US market superiority could be equated for or investment barriers could be overcome in order to set up similar industries in other countries. Without getting into further detail, high corporate taxes stand in the way from benefiting this process.

Parkbandit
06-22-2011, 07:39 PM
Again with the "highest corporate tax rate" line, which, in practice, isn't even near true.

Again with the "Corporations don't even pay taxes close to the corporate tax rate".

Then why have it? Lower the corporate tax rate DRASTICALLY.. and then close the current loopholes.

~Rocktar~
06-22-2011, 09:22 PM
Again with the "highest corporate tax rate" line, which, in practice, isn't even near true.

Keep burying your head in the sand, it works for you. No matter what you may wish to believe, the corporate tax rate, employee benefit rate and pay scale in the US, regardless of any ill-conceived notions you may, has and does dramatically affect our trade. Higher minimum wage drives inflation, reduces employment and closes many entry level/part time jobs for those beginning their working career or simply seeking supplemental income. Higher tax rates on business, regardless of loopholes or other considerations, hinders the establishment of new or import of existing business.

Add that to the mush headed thinking of "if we make free trade for others as an example, they will open their markets to us" and you have a recipe for economic decline which is exactly what we have. Japan has tariffs to protect their farmers from imports, South Korea has such limits on heavy equipment for the same reason, France and Europe in general limit and restrict American aircraft sales to protect Airbus and others, we pretty much don't and we are paying the price for it. Corporate tax rates are simply one facet of the problem and one pretty easily fixed.

Why do you hate the American worker so much as to object to such a simple action to protect American jobs and perhaps grow employment?

Tgo01
06-22-2011, 09:38 PM
Add that to the mush headed thinking of "if we make free trade for others as an example, they will open their markets to us" and you have a recipe for economic decline which is exactly what we have. Japan has tariffs to protect their farmers from imports, South Korea has such limits on heavy equipment for the same reason, France and Europe in general limit and restrict American aircraft sales to protect Airbus and others, we pretty much don't and we are paying the price for it.

We pretty much don't protect American companies? We give farmers billions of dollars a year in subsidies. In fact Brazil filed a case against the US a few years ago about the subsidies the American government gives to cotton farmers. Brazil won, the US government pretty much said fuck you so Brazil threatened to start taxing American imports. The US is still subsidizing American cotton farmers and is also subsidizing Brazilian cotton farmers in the amount of 147 million dollars a year.

The US government also gives billions of dollars to Boeing in subsidies.

~Rocktar~
06-22-2011, 11:46 PM
We pretty much don't protect American companies? We give farmers billions of dollars a year in subsidies. In fact Brazil filed a case against the US a few years ago about the subsidies the American government gives to cotton farmers. Brazil won, the US government pretty much said fuck you so Brazil threatened to start taxing American imports. The US is still subsidizing American cotton farmers and is also subsidizing Brazilian cotton farmers in the amount of 147 million dollars a year.

The US government also gives billions of dollars to Boeing in subsidies.

As opposed to the over all taxation of imports that places like Japan do to raise the price of things to well past domestic levels. We subsidize our own to support them against outside import, AND to assure that they earn enough for their product to attempt to sustain themselves, instead of blocking the import completely. No, we don't really protect our companies despite a few aberrant examples.

It would be my belief that foreign governments should not be able to sue us any more than we can sue them, such things should be done in the arena of tariffs and such. Yes, I know the WTO and World Court were set up to try and reduce the damage of trade wars but in reality, all the do is insulate Europe even more from the rest of the world. If we taxed imports as much as other countries did, then pretty much the rest of the world would fall into a pit as Americans stopped buying the rest of the world's production. It might be interesting to see how countries with 30+ percent of their GDP going to trade with the US manage if that dried up.

As to Boeing vs Airbus, you have x amount of dollars vs x amount of euros given PLUS suppressed markets, fixed supply pricing, import tariffs and faked/changed/changing specs and single vs multiple submissions of bids. I am pretty sure that Boeing comes out on the short end of the stick.

Inspire
06-23-2011, 10:27 AM
We shouldn't be relying on people to spend money to boost our economy when a large portion of American's can't even find a job.

I feel like our whole system is a pyramid scheme that's ready to crumble.


I don't know about any of you, but if I can't afford something, I don't buy it.

Parkbandit
06-23-2011, 02:44 PM
We shouldn't be relying on people to spend money to boost our economy when a large portion of American's can't even find a job.

I feel like our whole system is a pyramid scheme that's ready to crumble.


I don't know about any of you, but if I can't afford something, I scam people out of their money using a text based game.. so I can.

FTFY

WRoss
06-23-2011, 06:53 PM
Democrats call for new... 06-23-2011 05:24 PM moran

How dare you call me an Italian!