Is there some reason why this should be news? Toomey is only saying what everyone knows is true.

And the middle class wouldn’t be on the verge of extinction without people like Ronald Reagan, Pat Toomey, and the Club for the Rich.

That’s great Pat…We are in a deficit because of the derivatives trading you championed when you were in Congress and the Bush Era Tax cuts that were not paid for because they were part of the economic stimulus that Bush put in place when he came into office. The tax cuts were supposed to be temporary to stimulate the economy, not become a way of life. Those tax cuts are part and parcel of what GHWB called voodoo economics…that failed we all know. The trickle down effect does not work…tax cuts are not stimulative. Tax increases like those put in by Bill Clinton spurred tremendous economic growth and provided us wiht sufficient revenue to pay down the deficits created during the Reagan spendathon. We just ended the Bush Spendathon…restoring tax rates to where they were before Bush and his tax cut and spend philosophy that you supported and support may be the only thing that rights this ship…that and cleaning up the derivatives mess that you thought was so great.
In short, Toomey’s judgment is, at best, questionable. We cannot afford to return to the programs he championed while in Congress. I hope he gives more interviews and is further exposed like he was here.

agreed, “sick of it all” but you are kinder than I would be. Toomey’s discredited trickle down line is the excuse for destroying the middle class in the USA to benefit multinationals and their lackeys.

Any action, like the stimulus, that benefits the rest of us is declared wasteful or marxist.

Just how can you run an economy where there is no demand because 90% of the population is penniless?

Toomey says the doesn’t want to “borrow and spend”, but then talks out of the other side of his mouth about refusing to collect taxes to pay for things. The Bush tax cuts were not only irresponsible, but were heavily lopsided toward the Toomey and his rich friends.

Toomey never says what he would cut to balance the budget.

Pat’s right. The stimulus was a net negative.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/did-stimulus-stimulate

That’s pretty much the end of the story. As an empirical matter, it has failed.

And as an aside, … not that GWB wasn’t a big spender –he was–, but the TARP was a loan program, not a spending program, so should technically have counted as an ASSET on the nation’s balance sheet at the end of his term rather than an expenditure. Much of TARP has been repaid by the banks that benefited from it.

This accounting distinction makes Dubya’s last year in office look a couple hundred billion better, and makes Obama’s first year look a couple hundred billion worse because those loan payments coming back in were re-spent.

And this from a Wall Street derivatives trader.

This is straight up nonsense. According to Mark Zandi, head of Moody’s and John McCain’s economic advisor, the recovery measures boosted GDP 6.5% and saved 8.5 million jobs. If Toomey had his way, we’d have 12% unemployment and we’d be in a full blown Depression right now. This is literally the do-nothing Herbert Hoover playbook. Just wow.

http://bit.ly/df01WF

http://www.cbpp.org/images/2010.07.30econ-f2.jpg

Jon, if you’d bothered to read Larry Lindsey’s piece I linked to, you’d know why Zandi is wrong. It’s actually pretty straightforward.

Also, Hoover was quite interventionist. We probably would have been better if Hoover had actually done less, particularly the Smoot-Hawley tariff, which FDR campaigned against.

Pat Toomey would know all about borrowing and spending, that’s what his party has given us for 16 out of the last 35 years. That’s how they managed to run the National Debt up while destroying the middle classe.

Some on this chat believe in a different trickle; from government to the dependent class. Don’t kid yourselves.

Can we just agree that both parties are fiscally irresponsible? They’re irresponsible in different ways, but they’re both fiscally irresponsible.

Can we also just agree that neither party really cares about the middle class? They pander to it for votes whenever elections come around. But GOP policies favor the rich and Dem policies favor the poor. Either way, the middle class ultimately gets screwed.

Toomey also voiced support for extending the Bush administration tax cuts. When an interviewer noted that the tax cuts aren’t paid for, Toomey responded: “So what do you want to do? You want to raise taxes massively at a time like this? I think that makes no sense at all.”

Not even the Obama administration (and correctly at that) is intent on ending the tax cuts. I’m not a supply-sider, but in a recession, it makes ABSOLUTELY no sense to raise taxes. Herbert Hoover did exactly that during the Depression to avoid running a deficit, with notorious results.

Hate to say it, but Toomey has a point.

Pat Toomey and his Republican friends talk about cutting budget deficits and decreasing the debt yet they have not advanced one single solitary idea on how they plan to do it. Keeping the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy will do nothing to fix out budget deficits and national debt. They rich are not spending their money to create jobs; they are hording it just like big banks on Wall Street.

Matt, if Toomey wants to take that line, then he can’t complain about spiraling deficits. Whether the deficit grows because of programs that aren’t paid for or tax cuts that aren’t paid for, the bottom line is that the deficit grows. It grew under Reagan. It grew under Bush I and II, and it has grown under Obama.

Toomey and Corbett will both lose by double digits. Democrats have over a million regestration edge. There is no way the GOP can overcome that. Face it, PA is now a liberal state. If Toomey or Corbett win, then it will be a miracle and I will expect the justice department to investigate the election for obvious fraud.

In a recession, you can’t cut government spending when it’s the one thing the government can control in the GDP equation. You have to boost government spending on things like infrastructure investments, which creates construction and manufacturing jobs, which in turn has a ripple effect by increasing consumption and creating more manufacturing and service jobs, and so on.

Worrying about deficits during a recession is counterproductive. When the economy stabilizes and we have steady growth, then you reduce spending and pay back the debt with the increased revenues.

It’s very simple, it’s well accepted economics. You may disagree that it’s the best way, but it’s not insane. Pat Toomey would have us believe that Keynesian Economics is crazy and that’s why he’s intellectually dishonest. Reagonomics is junk science, trickle down theory has been disproved, and even if the Laffer Curve makes any sense, we’re nowhere over the peak.

JB,

There’s a difference between these two deficits, mostly in terms of the effects they produce.

Not raising taxes during a recession doesn’t produce the same type of crowding out effect, or raise in interest rates, that usually follows when the government increases aggregate demand. So Toomey’s complaining about one but not the other isn’t necessarily doublespeak.

Jim, they aren’t hard Dems and many of them were first time voters from ’08.

Isaac L., thank you.

It’s hard to measure the exact effect of something like stimulus spending. Since unemployment benefits are now virtually endless, one could make the argument that it’s better to spend the money on something productive (fixing roads, building bridges, etc.) rather than handing out an unemployment check in return for no productive activity. Plus, some of that money goes back into the local economies in the form of consumer spending (on necessities, at least). Also, some of it circles back to the government in tax receipts from both personal income tax and the aforementioned businesses. Then again, one could also contend that the government has no business intervening in the private sector (even though it’s arguably the government’s fault we’re in trouble in the first place).
As far as the Democrats’ claim to fight for the middle class, it rings hollow when a politician like Obama states that he wants our electric bills to go sky-high (at least he was up front about it). Also, the new health care law ensures that our costs will rise, and a significant number of middle-class workers will lose their present coverage in a few years.
There’s plenty of blame to go around as far as the debt and the current state of the economy, but ultimately, the path back to prosperity will be achieved through less government, not more. Therefore, I’m inclined to support the candidate who favors this philosophy.

Brett – what informs your belief that the healthcare plan will cause a rise in costs?

[...] 3. pa2010.com: Toomey: Economy Would Have ‘Bounced Back’ Better Without Stimulus [...]

Brent says:

“Since unemployment benefits are now virtually endless, one could make the argument that it’s better to spend the money on something productive (fixing roads, building bridges, etc.) rather than handing out an unemployment check in return for no productive activity.”

Brent, your statement is confusing. If your advocating less government then why are you suggesting more stimulus? Roads and bridges are built and paid for by the government, remember?

I think you also forgot why we are in the fiscal mess we are in today. Let me remind you that its not because of the government. The reality that credit default swaps and derivatives trading was just a sophisticated ponzi scheme by the extra large Wall Street brokerage houses.

In fact, the government had to bail out the Wall Street folks to stop the economy from free fall into a 2nd Great Depression. Its was lame, but it worked.

The government also bailed out the auto industry when many were ready to ditch an entire US industry in a hot second. Soon GM will issuing a new IPO and plans to raise $18B to start to pay back the government; this on the heels of a $2B profit last quarter.

I’m for less government too, but I appreciate the one I have. Think of that the next time you drive your car on a government built road and go over a government built bridge.

Lawrence Lindsey, bush’s economic advisor, I wouldn’t take any economic advice from this loser, of course he managed to line his pockets before the economic collapse he helped set up happened. What a joke Lawrence Lindsey.

Augusta,

Let me clarify. I am not advocating for more stimulus. I was only pointing out that if we’re going to spend money on endless unemployment benefits, we might as well spend it on something useful instead. I would advocate not spending it in the first place, but since they are going to spend it anyway, we should get something in return.