Log in

View Full Version : Deficit battle literally a scam to fully neo-liberalize the US....



RadioRaheem84
15th July 2011, 22:18
http://media.lclark.edu/content/hart-landsberg/2011/07/12/the-deficit-battle/



Those who are eager to generate fears of such a crisis normally cite a different debt statistic, gross federal debt as a percentage of GDP. Gross federal debt is equal to the total federal debt held by the public plus the total federal debt the government owes to itself. Examples of the latter include Treasury debt held by the Federal Reserve and by the Social Security System. This gross federal debt figure has little to do with fiscal sustainability. In the words (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12103/FederalDebt.pdf) of the Congressional Budget Office:

Gross federal debt is not a good indicator of the governments future obligations . . . those securities represent internal transactions of the government and thus have no direct effect on credit markets.
Unfortunately, our national debt ceiling is defined in terms of gross federal debt rather than the more appropriate total debt held by the public. At the same time, this understanding of the debt problem leads to a relatively simple solution to our current deficit battle.




It is true that our yearly federal deficits have grown large. For example, as Figure 1 (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3516) below shows, the deficit for fiscal year 2009 (October 2008 through September 2009) was $1.4 trillion, equal to 10% of GDP. However, Figure 1 also makes clear that our future deficits are best explained by three drivers: the economic crisis, the Bush-era tax cuts, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. According (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3516) to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, these three drivers explain virtually the entire federal budget deficit over the next ten years. Said differently, our debt problems have little to do with runaway social programs. Rather they are caused by specific (tax and foreign) policies that can be reversed and an economic crisis that can only be overcome through public spending.


It seems as though, no matter what the outcome of the meetings are the situation for the US is to squash public social programs.

GPDP
15th July 2011, 22:31
No one here should be surprised by any of this. In times of crises, the ruling class, in an attempt to keep its profits up, will attack the living standards of workers to attempt to remedy the situation, whether that is through lowering wages or employment, or by attacking the social programs through which many subsist.

The U.S. is almost uniquely poised to move toward this conclusion, certainly more than any other first world nation, being that its ruling class is almost entirely unopposed by working class organizations, not to mention its ideas permeate society at a nigh-Orwellian level, convincing significant swathes of the population, even those who are nowhere near rich, that this is the way to go.

RadioRaheem84
15th July 2011, 22:39
The media is so fucking co-opted, it's sickening. It's literally just government propaganda at this point, with the exception of Fox News which is the right wing reactionary counterpart.

Threetune
15th July 2011, 22:54
The media is so fucking co-opted, it's sickening. It's literally just government propaganda at this point, with the exception of Fox News which is the right wing reactionary counterpart.

And is being exposed right now to hundreds of millions of workers as nothing but another criminal enterprise for intimidating politicians and brainwashing workers against their best interests.

Lucretia
16th July 2011, 00:51
It's pretty fucking transparent what's taking place. Obama flips out the second a deal is offered to separate massive budget cuts from a vote on the debt ceiling. Gee. I wonder if this is because Obama wants the veneer of responding to an imminent crisis in order to justify slashing what few public services remain in the US. So he can go back and tell the masses of idiotic liberal democrats and socialists who support the supposed lesser of two evils, "I was just forced to do it! Consider yourself lucky I was here to stop them from slashing more!"

That's what this whole negotiation is about now: passing the hot potato on who gets to take the blame for what both sets of party elites want, drastic cuts in "entitlement spending." I am amazed at how many people are mistaking it for a battle between entitlement-protecting democrats versus out-of-control crazy republicans who want to eliminate entitlements.