President Obama will deliver his next State of the Union address tomorrow evening. Rebublicans have taken and passed a measure to return government spending to 2008 levels. It is intended to force the Democrats to show where they stand on government spending. Democrats, of course, think that it will further harm the economic recovery. (See article)http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/23/congress.spending/index.html
My question(s) is this: Do you think the partisan bickering is getting in the way of our economic recovery more than actual economics? Don't you think we should have some say in the programs that get cut? It seems easy to cut welfare when you have never needed it.......
You make a really good point, Richard. The part of the article that jumped out at me was when McConnell said,
ReplyDelete"Everything should be under consideration for cuts, he said, including Social Security and other government-run entitlement programs."
Seems outrageous to me. A quick wikipedia search on social security says that it keeps roughly 40% of Americans 65 or older out of poverty. It is mind boggling to think that our government could cut these types of programs and leave our elderly in poverty.
Although it may seem like this partisan bickering is slowing things down, I think it is good in the sense that it is forcing these budget issues to be addressed now. It is scary to think that everything, even social security, should be under considerations for cuts; but reality is that we're spending way too much. I beleive social security simply can not be cut today (too many people would suffer and our economy would suffer), but we need to develop a process now of how we can cut back social security spending over the long run. I'm really curious to see what spending cuts are agreed on by both the republicans and the democrats.
ReplyDeleteGood decisiosn don't always come with great haste, so the bickering isn't exactly the worst thing to happen. The discussion and hold up should only be because congressman are truly trying to do what's best for the people.
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of irked me was the criticism of "investment". Investment we know, is critical to growth. Intelligent investment will keep us out of further financial trouble, and I'm sure that's what Obama is proposing.
I have a firm stance that our national debt is out of control and should be an urgent priority but to a certain extent, government spending can help stimulate the economy. An example of this would be the WPA from the great depression. However, I accept that certain programs will have to be cut. When Clinton cut the Regan era defense spending, the budget experienced a rapid surplus. Why is the military held in more esteem when our infrastructure is crumbling and US students are scoring lower on aptitude tests than any other developed nations. Taxes will have to go up if the government is to ever decrease the deficit, that is just a tough pill everyone has to swallow.
ReplyDeleteThe arguing will go on forever it seems on if they should cut certain things, what to cut and how much to cut it by. It will be very interesting to see what happens tomorrow at the State of the Union address. It is a little frightening to think that social security or cancer research will be cut due to lack of funds. Can you imagine what else may be deemed 'cutable' in a few more months? Nothing seems to be safe in terms of cut funding, so better prepare for the worst. The problem is is that there is no good solution; they are all bandaids for a long-term problem we do not have an answer for just yet.
ReplyDeleteThe following quote made me so angry: "McConnell blamed "excessive government spending of the last two years" for a sluggish economic recovery and unemployment above 9%, as well as a growing federal deficit."
ReplyDeleteYes, the government is spending a lot on the stimulus package. But can we forget where we spend a, excuse my English, a butt-load of money? Defense? Who is against cutting defense spending?
Hypocrites.
It’s hard to say which direction will benefit America more. Is it more important for the government to cut spending to lower the debt so that the US doesn’t reach a state of poor credit? Or is it more important that the government continues to spend until we are fully recovered from the recession? Our country is in one tough dilemma to say the least. Personally, I’m in favor of cutting defense spending, and I wonder if “reworking the tax codes to end some of the existing deductions and credits, as well as phasing in over decades a higher retirement age for Social Security eligibility,” like Durbin mentioned in the article, will help to lower the deficit significantly while still allowing funding in areas such as education.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to have an all-incomapassing oppinion on what our nation should decrease spending on. Like Richard said, what may be unecessary to some, may mean the world to another. If cancer has not had a large impact in my life, or anyone particularly close to me, I might think that could take the back seat for the time being. But I'm sure cancer plays a HUGE role for thousands, if not, millions of people around the US. I don't have a great understanding of our current military situation, but I remember hearing some crazy statistics on how much our government spends on "defense" every second. It's mind boggling.
ReplyDeleteI would think that educaion and remaining competitive in the international market would be two of the top priority "investments" Obama focusesn on tonight
The US's defense spending really is ridiculous but then again it has to maintain its security interests in light of loosing economic dominance to China in the near future and fighting a war on two foreign fronts is not without costs. While one can debate days about the war, that is not the point here. America is fighting two wars and it will cost it billions (maybe trillions) in the years to come.
ReplyDeleteThe dilemma the US govt is facing today seems to be one that we have been speaking about in class - efficiency vs. equity. Welfare programs, as we discussed, are there for everyone to benefit from if and when the need arises - Rawlsian Veil of Ignorance - and these programs are aimed at greater equity in society. It seems to me that the Dems are trying to find a common ground b/w maintaining current investment now AND a more equitable society now and in the future (and not wanting to cut the crucial welfare programs) whereas the Reps are arguing for efficiency now with a surplus or at least a balance in the budget.
This should be an eye opener to the US about its strategic security aims and it needs to realize that defense spending is good to some extent but when you start fighting a war funded on loans - never a good idea!