Counting the Cost of Good and Bad Debt

Has Obama ever said how he plans to help implement and accomplish such goals, or are these strictly that, goals? It would seem to me that instead of reading op-ed pieces by the President of the U.S., you should spend some time looking at what he is doing. He has made the extent of the Iraq War indefinite, he has spent/will spend well beyond the U.S.'s means (where is he going to get all that money?), and he has done nothing in the way of instituting a sustainable economy based not on money spent to create the bubbles he warns of but money represented by actual tangible goods. Instead, he pushes the world closer to globalization

"We have learned that the success of the American economy is inextricably linked to the global economy."

and reignited the fuse on a system that blew up once. What do we expect to happen? Will the banks be naughty or nice? Do we really need to ask that question? I is the change we believe in Obama and not Jesus? Obama thus far has only managed to let us down because his way is one of taking power over rather than suffering on a cross.

-ben adam

"We do want our debts to remain a small percentage of GDP - but since GDP grows, it's not wrong if our debt grows at the same rate as GDP in the long term."

Our economy will growth. Our tax revenues will increase. But so does government spending.

Mr. Wallis,

Please stop. I do not believe this administration or the nation is served in the long-term by consistently taking what it is rolling out and reworking for presentation to your constituencies.

I don't mind if you are in full support of the agenda. But make the honest case.

How do you feel about the policies/actions that the Bush administration drove through the open door created by 9/11??

I understand the long-term economic vibrancy of this society is importantly linked to education, healthcare, environment and infrastructure. But this is a matter quite distinct from the collapse of the financial system and economic slowdown.

To try to drive these fundamental policy shifts through the open door of the present crisis is dishonest, bad policy-making, and bad strategy. The issues are important. They need to be addressed. The government has been AWOL.

And the answer is not to shove them through in crisis and when our sensitivities to borrowing tens of thousands for every household in the nation has been obliterated by shoveling hundreds of billions of unbudgeted money out the door. Bad debt, big deficits, bad wars, bad budgets, financial fraud, bad regulation and bad everything does not lend a single justification for these policies.

It is the public's deliberation and decision on the merits of the individual policies that must prevail. And this must include a decision about whether we will pay off our debts and whether we will pay for the future commitments we put our nation's name to.

If this all sails through the government will be significantly crippled (if not collapsed) by debt. If the huge, multiple constituencies, that are touched by these issues are awakened (which they most certainly will be) we will have a very crippling fight as piling all these issues together makes any sane public deliberation impossible; or it simply mobilizes a huge collaboration of opponents who move in a way that mortally wounds this administration.

If these are the very best policies since sliced bread, do you really want significant changes in public policy to be brought about in this way?

There is another problem. These are not Obama's issues. These issues belong to the government and to the people. Part of the success of this president is going to demand he reject the tempation of seeing himself as the only responsible actor who can put these things together and address them.

I do want him to take ownership . I do want him to act. I do want him to step out of the box. I do want a confidence we can embrace challenges before us and act. I do not want him to save us nor for us to look to the White House to save us. It will create bad government and no salvation.

Car Auctions...

Hey there! Would you mind if I share your blog with my zynga group? There's a lot of people that I think would really appreciate your content. Please let me know. Thanks...

Has Obama ever said how he plans to help implement and accomplish such goals, or are these strictly that, goals? It would seem to me that instead of reading op-ed pieces by the President of the U.S., you should spend some time looking at what he is doing. He has made the extent of the Iraq War indefinite, he has spent/will spend well beyond the U.S.'s means (where is he going to get all that money?), and he has done nothing in the way of instituting a sustainable economy based not on money spent to create the bubbles he warns of but money represented by actual tangible goods. Instead, he pushes the world closer to globalization

"We have learned that the success of the American economy is inextricably linked to the global economy."

and reignited the fuse on a system that blew up once. What do we expect to happen? Will the banks be naughty or nice? Do we really need to ask that question? I is the change we believe in Obama and not Jesus? Obama thus far has only managed to let us down because his way is one of taking power over rather than suffering on a cross.

-ben adam

Let me ask this question: isn't this blog supposed to be G_d's Politics? If so, it is odd to me that Jesus was quoted only to support the government at hand, ridicule a government--which in party might be different than the current government but in system it is identical--posthumously, and quote one passage in order to define an entire economic maneuver. Why, pray tell, are we speaking of G_d's Politics without including G_d's people, for it must be remembered well that the U.S. is not G_d's chosen nation. Rather, those who do the will of G_d are the children under G_d's political domain, G_d's basilea/Kingdom/rule. Why do we omit the Church from this discussion?

It seems quite clear that in order to include the Church in this discussion, the notion of economic crisis, we would be discussing a place of Jubilee. That is to say, we would be discussing a group of people that give money to the poor not the banks. Furthermore, we would be discussing a society in which no one has need. Nonetheless, to our own embarrassment, we live nothing like this. Instead, we demand healthcare for free, unwilling to provide it ourselves. We demand good education, unwilling to teach it ourselves. Oh, what foolish Protestants we are! If we knew anything about our Catholic brothers we would know the finest schools, the greatest hospitals in which no one had to pay to be healed were run by Christians not the government. It has only been with the rise of the individual, the post-enlightened, dualistic soteriology in which salvation exists in a soulish vacuum that the Christians have turned not to the community but the federal government to take care of the poor and needy.

Mr. Wallis, if you want to seek G_d's Politics, you ought to know that Jesus' Kingdom is not of this world. We live radically different lives. We do not need the bureaucracies of this world to look after the poor and needy. We need the Holy Spirit, the Church, and the self-sacrifice of a people set apart. Instead, you would have us become a people of this world, who, instead of promoting an alternative to the capitalistic, centrally-powered empire, propagate what appears to be "good" business practice. Where does the Church fit into Barack Obama's plan Mr. Wallis? What happens when the leaders of the Church begin to ask the government to lead the movements they should be leading?

Read this for more:
http://threetorchestogether.wordpress.com/

-ben adam

Mr. Wallis,

Please stop. I do not believe this administration or the nation is served in the long-term by consistently taking what it is rolling out and reworking for presentation to your constituencies.

I don't mind if you are in full support of the agenda. But make the honest case.

How do you feel about the policies/actions that the Bush administration drove through the open door created by 9/11??

I understand the long-term economic vibrancy of this society is importantly linked to education, healthcare, environment and infrastructure. But this is a matter quite distinct from the collapse of the financial system and economic slowdown.

To try to drive these fundamental policy shifts through the open door of the present crisis is dishonest, bad policy-making, and bad strategy. The issues are important. They need to be addressed. The government has been AWOL.

And the answer is not to shove them through in crisis and when our sensitivities to borrowing tens of thousands for every household in the nation has been obliterated by shoveling hundreds of billions of unbudgeted money out the door. Bad debt, big deficits, bad wars, bad budgets, financial fraud, bad regulation and bad everything does not lend a single justification for these policies.

It is the public's deliberation and decision on the merits of the individual policies that must prevail. And this must include a decision about whether we will pay off our debts and whether we will pay for the future commitments we put our nation's name to.

If this all sails through the government will be significantly crippled (if not collapsed) by debt. If the huge, multiple constituencies, that are touched by these issues are awakened (which they most certainly will be) we will have a very crippling fight as piling all these issues together makes any sane public deliberation impossible; or it simply mobilizes a huge collaboration of opponents who move in a way that mortally wounds this administration.

If these are the very best policies since sliced bread, do you really want significant changes in public policy to be brought about in this way?

There is another problem. These are not Obama's issues. These issues belong to the government and to the people. Part of the success of this president is going to demand he reject the tempation of seeing himself as the only responsible actor who can put these things together and address them.

I do want him to take ownership . I do want him to act. I do want him to step out of the box. I do want a confidence we can embrace challenges before us and act. I do not want him to save us nor for us to look to the White House to save us. It will create bad government and no salvation.

Funny thing you mentioned Banana Republic... maybe your prophetic voice is back again.

I'm baffled by the blatent disregard for human beings in Wallis' approach to budgets and deficits. Running deficits on borrowed money that we cannot pay back, or where we print the money to fund things, is detrimental not only to society as a whole, but to those who are least able to afford things basic to life already. Those who are wealthy can afford a little inflation.

Mr. Wallis, I'm not an economist, but I am a thinker, and I believe you are, too. Think, sir, and research, before you go off spouting ludicrous praises of an immoral budget that doubles the national debt in one term of office than all the presidents since George Washington!

This budget is an absolute disgrace, just like the budget(s) of the last administration, and the previous one (though Clinton did a better job, however horrible it was). "Good debt" can easily be defined by how much return on investment we will reap, but you are equivocating on those returns. Funding health care through debt and deficits, taking jobs and resources from the private sector for your "public works projects" is unproductive for an economy. Funding (college) education drives the costs of education upward because where there is more supply of easy credit and money, there are higher rates to attend those schools. Cause and effect. The monetary costs of this deficit budget cannot be repaid by providing "free" health care or "free services" otherwise. You may presume to have good causes for those goods and services, and you may be right that we as a society should fund them. But do you promote people to put thousands of dollars on their credit cards to pay charities to be compassionate?

Mr. Wallis, you do not think of cause and effect. You do not think of the ripple effects of such a budget. You do not understand one inkling how economics works.

As with the previous comment, I too hope President Obama will own up to the situation, and work to prevent a collapse of our economy. But we are out of money, and we are soon running out of borrowers. The government can then only resort to printing money.

Wallis isn't interested in such reasonableness. He is interested in getting others on board with Obama's deficit budgets, claiming their worth by equivocating on what "return on investment" means.

I have no problem with the stimulus plan. What is dead wrong is the war plans, military spending, and the bailout monies going to prop up the megabank gamblers at the expense of taxpayers and good honest banks that have now to compete with banks that swindle and charge taxpayers for the losses.

Obama should fire Geithner. He cheated on his taxes, approved the bonuses for AIG and protected Goldman Sachs by routing money their way. This is clear conflict of interest as an ex Goldman employee.

The problem with Obama is a failure to read the gravity and potential for change of the moment. The people are ready to support bold reforms but Obama is continuing the Dem tradition of doing good in token amounts and serving the the big powers in the trillions. It makes it look like the voice of the people is irrelevant in this so called democracy, that Democrats and Republicans care only about campaign money, big powers and getting reelected. I am deeply disappointed.

I encourage Jim to take a hard look , and speak truth to power.

.

Agree, xfree. Obama freely and disingenuously uses "investing" as a synonym for "spending."

So it's "President Clinton," "President Obama," and just "Bobby Jindal"? I know he's a Republican, but it wouldn't hurt to call him Governor Jindal. And Jindal is still right. We have been very successful "The first is education, with the president deciding that it is worth going into debt to increase the quality of and opportunities for education in our country."increasing in spending on education isn't the same thing as improving education."Every year billions of dollars are spent unnecessarily when people put off treatment because they are worried they can't afford it."We want people to live long healthy lives. But it's just not true that if people are healthier and get more check ups, we'll save more money in the long run. The opposite is true. If people are healthy they will live longer. But no matter how healthy you are, health care is very expensive in old age."But it is the good kind of debt, the kind of debt that can and will produce surpluses in the long run."And by "surpluses," you meant "inflation."

tegaderm film dressings...

Honestly this is a great site worth linking to...

It is strange given Wallis' Biblical lead-in which speaks about military spending that Wallis fails to mention that Obama's proposed budget includes 52% of all discretionary spending on the military. This is "bad debt." Why did Wallis ignore that? Rep. Barney Frank has proposed cutting that 25%. One would think, given the Biblical lead-in, that Wallis would have suggested support for Frank's proposal, but he doesn't mention it.

Funny you mentioned Bush, cuz I thought Obama would be different. All I see is more of the same, just different priorities now that the other side is in power.

Rob Rasner Tells You This Is A Fantastic Article Congratulations?...

Great news, thought we want to track-back to it!!! whoa have you learn about Libya has now got extra troubles also ...

Agree, xfree. Obama freely and disingenuously uses "investing" as a synonym for "spending."

Micons...

[

Think about this:

"We want people to live long healthy lives. But it's just not true that if people are healthier and get more check ups, we'll save more money in the long run. The opposite is true."

What is the point of this comment? That "we want people to live long healthy lives" but only if it doesn't cost more money? Is money the only value here?

"increasing in spending on education isn't the same thing as improving education" - so therefore we shouldn't increase spending on education? A politically conservative service organization in Texas decided to test the argument that it wasn't necessary to "throw more money" at an education system in order to improve it. For one year, they allowed (virtually) an unlimited budget to a local school in a disadvantaged area to purchase books and equipment. Guess what - success rates improved dramatically.

There is no way to have an adequate education or health care system without spending adequate amounts of money. I'm not talking about unlimited and unaccountable spending, so please don't set up that straw man. If there is an inequality of resources in an educational system that we say we want to be an equal benefit for all children, I don't see how the resources can be made available without spending money.

"We want people to live long healthy lives. But it's just not true that if people are healthier and get more check ups, we'll save more money in the long run. The opposite is true."

?????! Healthy old age is less costly than sickness and disease at any age, and there's a greater likelihood of a healthy old age with adequately funded and available health care. If adequate basic health care is not available to everyone, and it takes increased funding to make it so, how can a follower of Christ maintain that funding should be decreased, when money is available in other, less critical areas of spending? That is like a parent saying they can't afford to buy essential medicine for their children because they have spent too much with their credit card last year and they want to pay down the credit card debt this month - it's not great to have to make that choice, but which parent would choose the credit card?

It's trite to say that you can't fix problems by throwing money at them - but there are other things to do with money besides throw it.

Highway...

[

"What is the point of this comment? That "we want people to live long healthy lives" but only if it doesn't cost more money? Is money the only value here?"

The point is that Wallis made the inaccurate claim that we can go into debt to spend money on health care because we will have surpluses in the future. I'm pointing out why this claim is wrong. I wanted to keep the conversation on the budget and not start a private versus public health care debate, but, for the record, I would support the government spending more money on health care if I thought it would actually improve our health care.

I'm not surprised that a private charity was able to improve academic achievement in one school in Texas. The federal government, however, is a much different animal and has not had the same success.

I want to help people too. I just don't think more government spending is always the answer. There are economic consequences when we print money and go into debt.

Snap...

[

Foss...

[

Pinball...

[