Here is what I wrote as my Facebook status.
Deficit hawks are scum.
Why?
Because the same people who want to reduce the deficit by slashing unemployment benefits, cutting back on state aid that can save jobs, and opposing the economic stimulus programs that would put Americans back to work......THESE are the same people who bellow in rage when you suggest raising taxes on large corporations and the wealthy.
So I reiterate... deficit hawks are scum.
The following debate took place on June 16, 2010:
Tiguhs OndaBayou
The eurozone is presently demonstrating why you are wrong.
Kevin Brettell
Matt, this kind of generalization is just plain wrong. Not every person out there who is in favor of getting our deficit under control is also in favor of lower taxes for the wealthy and large corporations. For the record, I am currently in favor of economic stimulus programs, as I think they are required in our current situation. However, in the long term, I am definitely a deficit hawk. What we are doing right now is unsustainable in the long term.
Matthew Rozsa
To Kevin:
The term "deficit hawk", at least as it is frequently used in contemporary political vernacular, does not refer to people with the positions you've just articulated. Liberals as well as conservatives agree that the budget deficit needs to be reduced, and the national debt gradually paid off. That said, "deficit hawks" are those who believe that all other economic priorities must come second to the need to balance our budget right away, while non-hawks feel that this issue - though important - right now must take a backseat to more important policy concerns (like putting Americans back to work, or improving our economic competitiveness with nations like China, India, and Japan).
While taking this approach does not NECESSARILY mean that you support policies that favor the rich, the reality is that most "deficit hawks" are so obsessed with this issue because they're less concerned with the plight of the unemployed than they are with the gripings of Wall Street and the bond markets, which are more adversely effected by a sizeable deficit than they are by high unemployment - hence their vocal opposition to any programs that take money away from their chief constituency, the rich.
Tom:
Really? Because I see the flailing of the American economy - combined with the extent to which fiscal austerity has done nothing to solve the budget deficit while working wonders in worsening the economic plight of average Americans - as very clearly demonstrating why I'm right.
Once again, I am not saying that we shouldn't fix the budget deficit; claiming otherwise is a blatant (and, in my opinion, intentional) effort to distort my position. What I'm saying is that we need to reduce the deficit in a way that does not hurt America's working class, but instead cuts wasteful programs and demands greater sacrifices from the well-to-do. Because deficit hawks don't want the rich to pay more - and because they know perfectly well that this option is just as viable in reducing the deficit as forcing the middle-class and poor suffer - they attempt to make all advocates of increasing taxes on the wealthy seem like people who ignore the deficit problem altogether. This is a falsehood, and the people who try to present reality that way are liars.
Kevin Brettell
Just to be clear, Matt, I don't think that you think we shouldn't fix the budget deficit.
I'll chalk this one up to me misunderstanding what you meant in your first post. It sounds like we essentially agree on this subject.
Tiguhs OndaBayou
a lot of generalizations, little understanding of what's going down in Europe--IMF officials are presently visiting Spain--u know shits about to turn for the worst when the IMF shows up
Tiguhs OndaBayou
That first paragraph doesn't make any sense, spending on social programs has increased under every president since i've been alive and then some. So I don't know who's austere fiscal policy u are criticizing (i see it as a silly strawman argument)
Cliff Smith
I'd argue with you, but I don't really disagree.
You don't understand basic macro or micro economics, that seems pretty clear, but you're 100% correct on what I want to do.
Matthew Rozsa
To Tom:
A) Once again... I am not saying that we don't need to balance the budget. What I am saying is that this objective can, and should, be achieved by means other than cutting programs which affect the economically disadvantaged. When you bring up examples such as the IMF's involvement in Spain, you imply that I am ignorant of the dangers of our out-of-whack deficit. This is an intentional effort on your part to establish a false dichotomy regarding this issue - i.e., to make it seem like the two choices are between (1) cutting programs that help the working class in our economy while improving the budget deficit and (2) allowing the budget deficit to spiral out of control in order to have new spending programs. You deliberately ignore the third option, which is to increase taxes on the wealthy and cut wasteful spending in other programs, as well as rely on the fact that - when economic stimulus causes employment to go up - the increase in revenues from income taxes will further help us get the deficit under control.
B) Spending on social programs has increased under every president since you've been alive ONLY when you refuse to take inflation into account. In fact, plenty of social welfare programs were cut during the first four presidencies of your lifetime - not only with Reagan and the two Bushes, but Clinton as well.
C) The fiscal austerity to which I refer is the movement among conservative Democrats in Congress to stymie legislation that would extend unemployment benefits, increase economic stimulus, and provide aid to states that desperately need it (particularly for teachers, our education system, and state employees). It is, incidentally, the same fiscal austerity to which I referred when I began this conversation ("...the same people who want to reduce the deficit by slashing unemployment benefits, cutting back on state aid that can save jobs, and opposing the economic stimulus programs..."), so I don't know how you could have been unclear about what I was referring to. If you really think that this isn't a problem, and that I'm erecting a straw man, then you are out of touch with the news.
Matthew Rozsa
To Cliff:
Listen, I'm not going to object to your decision to insult me - in light of what I wrote about deficit hawks, that would be more than a little hypocritical. However, I am going to politely request that you follow up all insults with substantive, intelligent arguments, as I have attempted to do. If your approach is going to be one of insisting on your own expertise and ridiculing my presumed lack thereof - without, of course, actually backing up either of those assertions - then I'm not going to take you seriously.
Cliff Smith
You didn't present a serious argument. Excuse me if follow your example and also decline to do so.
Matthew Rozsa
To Kevin:
Having re-read our exchange, I realize that I was wrong in not being clearer in what I meant by the term "deficit hawks". It is understandable that you misunderstood what I was trying to say, and the fault for that misunderstanding is entirely mine.
Matthew Rozsa
To Cliff:
"Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong."
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Rousseau's quote, for the purposes of this debate, needs to be updated:
"Insults that are unaccompanied by arguments are used by those too stupid or lazy to construct a sound rationale for their opinions."
I may have insulted deficit hawks, but at least I explained why. You have used insults but haven't provided a single explanation, for reasons that my update of Rousseau's quote makes pretty clear.
In case I need further proof (which I don't)... if my argument is really so ridiculous, why are you unwilling to take the few minutes necessary to point out how? All you do is say things; you apparently view yourself as being above the fine art of actually having to prove them.
Addendum:
TiguhsOnDaBayou - better known as Tom - did include a response after the last comment which I mention here (Cliff, on the other hand, never offered a follow up, although he has had time to post extensively on other subjects). Because Tom's reply dealt more with the subject of my blog article "What We Should Do" then it did with the budget deficit debate, I posted it on the bottom of that piece instead of this one (http://riskinghemlock.blogspot.com/2010/06/what-we-should-do.html).
Two days after this conversation, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman wrote the following about the motivations of American deficit hawks:
In America, many self-described deficit hawks are hypocrites, pure and simple: They’re eager to slash benefits for those in need, but their concerns about red ink vanish when it comes to tax breaks for the wealthy. Thus, Senator Ben Nelson, who sanctimoniously declared that we can’t afford $77 billion in aid to the unemployed, was instrumental in passing the first Bush tax cut, which cost a cool $1.3 trillion.
Paul Krugman's support of my position is not limited to my characterization of what motivates deficit hawks:
Suddenly, creating jobs is out, inflicting pain is in. Condemning deficits and refusing to help a still-struggling economy has become the new fashion everywhere, including the United States, where 52 senators voted against extending aid to the unemployed despite the highest rate of long-term joblessness since the 1930s...
The key point is that while the advocates of austerity pose as hardheaded realists, doing what has to be done, they can’t and won’t justify their stance with actual numbers — because the numbers do not, in fact, support their position.
Just to reiterate what I wrote two days ago:
That said, "deficit hawks" are those who believe that all other economic priorities must come second to the need to balance our budget right away, while non-hawks feel that this issue - though important - right now must take a backseat to more important policy concerns (like putting Americans back to work, or improving our economic competitiveness with nations like China, India, and Japan).
Need I say any more?
No comments:
Post a Comment