Why are liberals against spending cuts?
America has a deficit in the trillions of dollar, so it only make sense to cut back on this speding. however why are liberals opposed to this?
- NomadLv 79 years agoFavorite Answer
Republicans and Dems don't disagree on the need for spending cuts. They strongly disagree on what kind of spending cuts should happen.
Ask Dems about spending cuts, and 2/3s of them are going to say that we should cut military spending and spending on the TSA and DHS. Republicans won't even consider those cuts, and would rather make cuts from programs that actually help people instead of end up in some fear-mongering defense contractor's pocket.
Want evidence? Check Ryan's 2012 budget plan. There is an item in the defense portion for a second jet engine for the F-35 that the Pentagon says they don't want because it's wasteful, that Bush tried to kill, and that Congress already voted down in 2011. And it's STILL in the freaking Republican budget because Boehner is bought off by defense contractors.
- Andy FLv 79 years ago
A. One -- many economists -- conservatives as well as liberals -- argue that the ABSOLUTE size of the debt isn't very important. The RELATIVE size of the debt compared to the total US economic output is what's key. It's the PROPORTION of national debt to total GDP (Gross Domestic Product) that determines how dangerous the national debt it.
At about $14 trillion, the current US national debt seems huge, and is huge. But the total American GDP is about $14.7 trillion. That makes the debt as a fraction of the total American economic output a little less than 100% -- which is high, but at the end of World War II, the proportion of debt to GDP temporarily rose to about 130%, without hurting the US economy.
Should we run the risk of letting the debt grow to 130% of GDP again? Probably not. But we need to recognize that with a $14 trillion economy, we can risk a larger level of deficit spending and debt accumulation that we could with a smaller economy.\
B. A second reason that some liberals oppose spending cuts is that they seem them as a "false economy." They may be "penny wise and pound foolish" -- saving money for the government in the short run, but causing so much pain that the economy will slow down, tax revenues will fall, and the government in future years will run even bigger deficits that today, because of its tax revenues falling.
In other words, spending cuts of the wrong kind are likely to be self-defeating.
Why? When the economy is growing slowly, the Dow Jones average is down, and unemployment is high, big spending cuts will reduce the amount of money the government pours into the economy to buy what the economy produces. The government today buys a big fraction of what the economy produces, and if this economic demand disappears, there probably won't be enough economic demand in the market to prevent a new recession.
Steep spending cuts therefore can increase unemployment, maybe trigger lower profits from retail businesses, maybe even cause some small businesses to go bankrupt. And that will reduce the amount of taxes that that the states & Uncle Sam can collect from working people and private business -- causing next year's deficit to rise, not fall.
C. A third reason that some liberals oppose spending cuts is that as proposed by the Republicans, they would be grossly unfair. The truth is that over the past 30 years, the fraction of the total income and capital gains earned by the top 1% of the US population has ballooned in size from only about 9% to some 23% of the economy.
A fair way to balance the budget would be to raise taxes on the rich, to soak up some of that extra money and shift it to people in the US who haven't done well in the economy. Or just tax the rich and use the money to plug the budget hole.
Instead, "spending cuts" as proposed by the GOP will fall on the very poor (Medicaid recipients) and the middle class (Medicare cuts). GOP spending cuts also will hurt such state & local government employees as school teachers, policemen, firefighters, mental health professionals, and recreational employees who try to keep poor kids occupied with sports during the hot summer months -- rather than leaving them to the recruiting strategies of violent gangs.
So in order to avoid slight increases in federal income taxes on the rich and the upper middle class, the US government is supposed to sacrifice the interests of the poor, the old, the pregnant and the public employees who are trying to keep our streets & highways & cities safe?
That's a crazy tradeoff. Smart liberals are naturally against it.
- sitzLv 44 years ago
Liberals have self assurance that wealth created via human beings could be redistributed to the unfavorable and much less fortunate. the place this could be a noble ideology the subject is that the government has a tendency to be very inefficient subsequently spending money which could be used in a extra effective way. don't be fooled, maximum Conservatives and Liberals take political positions that they have got self assurance gets them or their social gathering reelected.
- ☼Solar☼Lv 79 years ago
Liberals are not against spending cuts just those that affect real people in need. Why not reduce the spending on duplication of military, and defense contractor who have bee caught drinking vodka from each other's buts in the Middle East dessert. Why does Grandma's Social Security and Medicare have to be first on the chopping block. Why do Conservatives protect the butt drinking vodka types, at the expense of Grandma.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 9 years ago
In order to purchase votes one must perforce spend money. The Democrat Party has come to realise that it can spew cash everywhere and increase it's popularity enough to win elections. On the other hand a true citizen knows that in order for the country he loves to survive and prosper we must follow a path of shared sacrifice and fiscal responsibility.
- MaxwellLv 79 years ago
Many of those dept should disappear completely from the federal budget.
There also needs to be cuts in defense, social security and medicare/medicaid.
You can ALWAYS cut enough to balance your budget...because you should NEVER be spending more than you can afford.
That is a basic tenet of finance.
- Anonymous9 years ago
They are not against spending cuts, they are against certain spending cuts. I'm sure they would be happy to cut the blotted defense budget.
- Anonymous9 years ago
We are not but there is no way that cutting spending is enough. We have to grow the economy, cut spending, and increase taxes.
Even if we fire every single person that works for the government and close their department including the military you still will not balance the budget.
Out of 3.5 trillion only 1.4 trillion is Departments that have employees and provide the services of government. We will only bring in 2 Trillion. Fire everybody an you still do not have a balanced budget.
Here is the part of the budget that goes for employees and services. It is less than 1.4 trillion All infrastructure spending. The President and Congress. Close them all and the budget is not balanced.
$663.7 billion (+12.7%) – Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)
$78.7 billion (-1.7%) – Department of Health and Human Services
$72.5 billion (+2.8%) – Department of Transportation
$52.5 billion (+10.3%) – Department of Veterans Affairs
$51.7 billion (+40.9%) – Department of State and Other International Programs
$47.5 billion (+18.5%) – Department of Housing and Urban Development
$46.7 billion (+12.8%) – Department of Education
$42.7 billion (+1.2%) – Department of Homeland Security
$26.3 billion (-0.4%) – Department of Energy
$26.0 billion (+8.8%) – Department of Agriculture
$23.9 billion (-6.3%) – Department of Justice
$18.7 billion (+5.1%) – National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$13.8 billion (+48.4%) – Department of Commerce
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of Labor
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of the Treasury
$12.0 billion (+6.2%) – Department of the Interior
$10.5 billion (+34.6%) – Environmental Protection Agency
$9.7 billion (+10.2%) – Social Security Administration
$7.0 billion (+1.4%) – National Science FoundationEven if we fire every single person that works for the government and close their department including the military you still will not balance the budget. There has to be tax increases.
Below is what is called mandatory spending and it alone costs more than what the government takes in and there is not one salary in it. Social Security for example is administered by the Social Security administration above.
Mandatory spending: $2.184 trillion (+15.6%)
$677.95 billion (+4.9%) – Social Security
$571 billion (-15.2%) – Other mandatory programs
$453 billion (+6.6%) – Medicare
$290 billion (+12.0%) – Medicaid
$164 billion (+18.0%) – Interest on National Debt
$11 billion (+275%) – Potential disaster costs
We have to eventually raise taxes, grow the economy, and cut the budget. One or the other is just not realistic for us to maintain our freedom and standard of living.
- letfreedomringLv 69 years ago
We are not against cuts we just want them to cut projects that need cut, not medicare because our seniors need the be taken care of.
The question should be, Why do republicans want to throw grandma under the bus?
- Rev. Hal LuyaLv 79 years ago
They aren't against it but they should apply mostly where the problem lies.