Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 29 Jan 2011, 2:01 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:And so, devoid of facts, you resort to ad hominem argumentation. Shocking.
Well, you told me what I believe. I was just pointing out what I actually do. When it comes to turning the argument into one about individuals, you, as they say, started it.

I spent 20+ years "on the dole," I suppose. So what if I saved lives at the risk of my own? You're right. Since my philosophy is that smaller government is better government, I should have left public service to the slugs who don't care about government efficiency and simply wanted to collect paychecks. Good call.
Well, I guess you support smaller government, but feel the part you worked in was vital. Not sure you aren't completely unbiased on that one.

By the way, I just saw the US GDP results for the last quarter. Your economy grew by 0.8% (I believe the convention is to annualise quarterly growth, making it 3.2% equivalent). That is pretty good recovery growth. Now, compare that to our fall of 0.5% (2% annual equivalent).

We cut early. You have a deficit. The extra growth will make it easier to cut the deficit in the medium term. It represents new jobs - people off welfare and paying taxes. It may seem trivial to you guys, but the very bread-and-butter nature of it is important.

By all means, cut military spending - it's a massive contribution to your deficit. Mind you, a lot of the spending also draws demand across the private sector so if it's done too quickly, it may have a knock on effect.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 29 Jan 2011, 2:04 pm

I think Noonan captures many of the faults with the speech in her analysis:
The State of the Union speech was not centrist, as it should have been, but merely mushy, and barely relevant. It wasted a perfectly good analogy—America is in a Sputnik moment—by following it with narrow, redundant and essentially meaningless initiatives. Rhetorically the speech lay there like a lox, as if the document itself knew it was dishonest, felt embarrassed, and wanted to curl up quietly in a corner of the podium and hide. But the president insisted on reading it.

Response in the chamber was so muted as to be almost Xanax-like. Did you see how bored and unengaged they looked? The applause was merely courteous. A senator called the mood on the floor “flat.” This is the first time the press embargo on the speech was broken, by National Journal, which printed the text more than an hour before the president delivered it. Maybe members had already read it and knew what they were about to face. . .

He too often in making a case puts the focus on himself. George H.W. Bush, always afraid of sounding egotistical, took the I’s out of his speeches. We called his edits “I-ectomies.” Mr. Obama always seems to put the I in. He does “I implants.”

. . .

I actually hate writing this. I wanted to write “A Serious Man Seizes the Center.” But he was not serious and he didn’t seize the center, he went straight for the mush. Maybe at the end of the day he thinks that’s what centrism is.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 29 Jan 2011, 2:38 pm

danivon wrote:Well, you told me what I believe. I was just pointing out what I actually do. When it comes to turning the argument into one about individuals, you, as they say, started it.


Strange. I say you're a liberal. You say I'm all wrong--you're a socialist. You then point to an alleged contradiction between my profession and my philosophy--as if a soldier, a fireman, or a police officer has to approve of a bloated federal government. I did no such thing to you. Yours was ad hominem, mine was a summation of what you agree to believing.

I spent 20+ years "on the dole," I suppose. So what if I saved lives at the risk of my own? You're right. Since my philosophy is that smaller government is better government, I should have left public service to the slugs who don't care about government efficiency and simply wanted to collect paychecks. Good call.
Well, I guess you support smaller government, but feel the part you worked in was vital. Not sure you aren't completely unbiased on that one.


Not what I said at all. Funny how that works--you accuse me of doing something, then do it yourself. Hey, if you think law enforcement is optional (note that is a condition, not an accusation), then I guess you've not accurately described your politics. I certainly have never said I thought LE was optional. I have many thoughts on it, but that is not one.

By the way, I just saw the US GDP results for the last quarter. Your economy grew by 0.8% (I believe the convention is to annualise quarterly growth, making it 3.2% equivalent). That is pretty good recovery growth. Now, compare that to our fall of 0.5% (2% annual equivalent).


Really? Okay, Mr. Economics, please explain how $1.5T in debt to get 3.2% annual growth is "good." That seems a pretty minimal return on a pretty substantial "investment." Then again, I'm not as well-educated in economics as you. Senator Kent Conrad (D-MT) must not be all that smart either:

We wanted to check Conrad's statement that "we're borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend." We looked at whether Social Security, Medicare and defense constituted 84 percent of the federal budget in a different fact-check.

We turned to the U.S. Treasury Department's Monthly Treasury Statement of Receipts and Outlays of the United States Government. For the most recently completed fiscal year, 2010, the department reported that the government had revenues of $2.16 trillion, spending of $3.46 trillion and a deficit of $1.29 trillion. Divide the deficit by the outlays and you get 37 percent, which is very close to 40 percent.

We initially found the numbers a little confusing, but one of the experts we interviewed for this story explained it this way:

"It's like a family that earns $60,000 per year, but is spending $100,000. How are they doing it? By getting a new $40,000 loan every year to cover the difference," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert with the conservative Heritage Foundation.

In rating Conrad's statement, we find he correctly described how much the government is borrowing in comparison with what it's spending. We rate his statement True.


This might seem dopey to you, but then you seem to know a lot about economics. You even know that 3.2% growth after borrowing 10% of our GDP last year is "good." I look forward to reading your next best-selling book on economics. What's it called? "Borrowing Your Way to Prosperity?"

We cut early. You have a deficit. The extra growth will make it easier to cut the deficit in the medium term. It represents new jobs - people off welfare and paying taxes. It may seem trivial to you guys, but the very bread-and-butter nature of it is important.


Extra growth? New jobs? Deficit cuts?

Let's see. I would expect borrowing 10% of GDP to return more than 3.2% growth. I would expect to see the job situation improving if we have "new jobs," but economists are projecting flat employment numbers for years. I haven't seen the President propose deficit cuts. He did make the same "freeze" proposal he made last year--how did that work? Oh yeah. $1.5T in additional debt. In fact, all he's done since taking office is find new ways to spend more money--like a juvenile with his first credit card and no concept of the consequences.

Mind you, a lot of the spending also draws demand across the private sector so if it's done too quickly, it may have a knock on effect.


Better to just keep spending. I mean we can do that as long as we can keep printing money, right Mr. Economics? We can already see how it's helping--so let's keep going!

After all, it's Obamamoney, right? We elected him because he can lower the sea levels, create money, and multiply gasoline so that it costs nothing, and pay our mortgages. Obamanomics!
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 29 Jan 2011, 3:03 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:Really? Okay, Mr. Economics, please explain how $1.5T in debt to get 3.2% annual growth is "good." That seems a pretty minimal return on a pretty substantial "investment."
It's not 'good'. It's just better than having a shrinking economy. Much of the deficit is in the following chunks:

1) interest on previously generated debt
2) deficits in place before the 2007-8 crisis hit
3) additional spending caused by recession - welfare costs go up, more people qualify for various benefits etc.
4) reduced tax income caused by recession.

The first two are nothing to do with the current administration, they are inherited. The second two are caused by the recession. If we were to try and work out what these were, How much of that $1.5T would be left? It's only that last part that you need to balance against the current growth.

And it's not just that you are getting 'only' 3.2% annualised growth. We've seen shrinkage of 2% annualised in the same period. The difference is 5.2%.

Believe me, a growing economy is 'good'. Earlier and more sustained growth will pay off massively over the next few years. The current deficits are high because the recessional effects are just past their peak. They will come down naturally.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 29 Jan 2011, 3:06 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
Mind you, a lot of the spending also draws demand across the private sector so if it's done too quickly, it may have a knock on effect.


Better to just keep spending. I mean we can do that as long as we can keep printing money, right Mr. Economics? We can already see how it's helping--so let's keep going!
No, I meant don't cut suddenly, do it gradually. You seem to have assumed I meant don't cut military spending at all - when I said before that quoted sentence "By all means, cut military spending - it's a massive contribution to your deficit". It's almost as if you didn't read my post properly.

At this point in the economic cycle, you really don't want to be giving a major shock to large industries.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 29 Jan 2011, 3:59 pm

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:Really? Okay, Mr. Economics, please explain how $1.5T in debt to get 3.2% annual growth is "good." That seems a pretty minimal return on a pretty substantial "investment."
It's not 'good'. It's just better than having a shrinking economy. Much of the deficit is in the following chunks:

1) interest on previously generated debt
2) deficits in place before the 2007-8 crisis hit
3) additional spending caused by recession - welfare costs go up, more people qualify for various benefits etc.
4) reduced tax income caused by recession.

The first two are nothing to do with the current administration, they are inherited. The second two are caused by the recession. If we were to try and work out what these were, How much of that $1.5T would be left? It's only that last part that you need to balance against the current growth.


Right. Lest we forget, the debt has grown by $5.2T during the time (2007-11) Nancy "Paygo" Pelosi was Speaker and Democrats controlled Congress. Blaming Bush only goes so far--Stimulus? Not his. 84% increase in discretionary spending? Not his.

I wish you were running Obama's 2012 campaign. The slogan would likely be "Defeat George W. Bush for the Fourth Time!"

And it's not just that you are getting 'only' 3.2% annualised growth. We've seen shrinkage of 2% annualised in the same period. The difference is 5.2%.


Right. How much debt did GB rack up while we were putting up $1.5T? How about debt as a percentage of GDP during 2010? As I said, the US was in excess of 10%.

Believe me, a growing economy is 'good'. Earlier and more sustained growth will pay off massively over the next few years.


Of course I believe you! You're Mr. Economics! The rest of these guys projecting gloom and doom--they know nothing. They proved that by going to work for Mr. Obama.

The current deficits are high because the recessional effects are just past their peak. They will come down naturally.


Uh-huh. Just like we "naturally" would not see unemployment over 8% if only we would pass the Stimulus. Here's the problem: convincing companies that paying more for healthcare, energy, and overall regulation won't impact their bottom lines. So far, the President hasn't been able to do that. Maybe he should hire Mr. Economics!

Gee, I noticed you did not address energy. That's okay, neither has Mr. Obama. When gasoline is over $4 a gallon (maybe closer to $5) as he's running for reelection and utility prices have soared, I'm sure you'll find a way to blame Bush again. Historians will look back on Obama with remorse, knowing he would have been the greatest President ever--if not for Bush.

New slogan: "Reelect the Greatest President ever--if Bush hadn't made such a mess of things."

Another: "Leadership means never taking responsibility--and that is Bush's fault!"
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 29 Jan 2011, 4:04 pm

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:At this point in the economic cycle, you really don't want to be giving a major shock to large industries.


Interesting. What would you call the healthcare programme? Increased regulation of CO2? Decreased production of oil?

Or did you mean to say the government is a "large industry?"
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 30 Jan 2011, 11:46 am

Doctor Fate wrote:Right. How much debt did GB rack up while we were putting up $1.5T? How about debt as a percentage of GDP during 2010? As I said, the US was in excess of 10%.
Our deficit is about £150bn, which is over 10% of GDP (and about $350-400bn), and our national debt is about 10% lower than yours (and started at a lower base). We did about what you did in terms of stimulus, were a quarter or two behind you in the cycle, and were doing just as well on growth until...

we ended up with a Tory-Liberal coalition that decided to slash spending to reduce the deficit as fast as possible. I think they will fail, because they will hit growth too much. I don't think you want to follow our example. Check the debates had at Davos this last week.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 30 Jan 2011, 11:48 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:At this point in the economic cycle, you really don't want to be giving a major shock to large industries.


Interesting. What would you call the healthcare programme? Increased regulation of CO2? Decreased production of oil?

Or did you mean to say the government is a "large industry?"
You know what I meant to say (or you should, if you are able to read). I meant that a lot of US industry is based on a large military budget. Cutting it too quickly would hurt those industries, and damage the wider economy. So while it would be a good idea to reduce the military budget, it needs to be done with care.

That is all of what I meant. Now, twist that how you like, but you don't have to disagree with me when I'm agreeing with you (that the military budget is too high). It looks a bit stupid.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 30 Jan 2011, 11:57 am

danivon wrote:we ended up with a Tory-Liberal coalition that decided to slash spending to reduce the deficit as fast as possible. I think they will fail, because they will hit growth too much. I don't think you want to follow our example. Check the debates had at Davos this last week.


I prefer to take the longer view. I don't believe we can borrow, tax, and spend our way to prosperity. I don't believe borrowing trillions of dollars from anyone, let alone China, makes us stronger.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 30 Jan 2011, 12:10 pm

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:At this point in the economic cycle, you really don't want to be giving a major shock to large industries.


Interesting. What would you call the healthcare programme? Increased regulation of CO2? Decreased production of oil?

Or did you mean to say the government is a "large industry?"


You know what I meant to say (or you should, if you are able to read). I meant that a lot of US industry is based on a large military budget. Cutting it too quickly would hurt those industries, and damage the wider economy. So while it would be a good idea to reduce the military budget, it needs to be done with care.

That is all of what I meant. Now, twist that how you like, but you don't have to disagree with me when I'm agreeing with you (that the military budget is too high). It looks a bit stupid.


Um, I don't believe I was the one calling for large-scale military cuts.

Someone might look stupid, but it's not me.

I think there are plenty of "discretionary" cuts that can be made--as evidenced by the 84% increase in such spending over the past two years. Might we have to make some military cuts? Maybe. However, I think there are a lot of things that need to be looked at.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 30 Jan 2011, 3:05 pm

I was the one who asked for big cuts. Why is the military exempt? Simply point to an industry based on taxes and claim we can't cut them? That would apply to any and every program taxes support. We can't cut anything based on that simplistic claim. I did not call for a sudden slash overnight either. Look to cutting the deficit and look at every avenue.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 30 Jan 2011, 4:10 pm

Steve
I prefer to take the longer view


As long as it doesn't take you back into time when deficits began,and were maintained, even unto deficit financing wars whilst bringing in tax breaks which failed to create jobs..
Going back to the financial meltdown and starting to complain now is akin to complaining about the high cost of water you used to put out the fire in your house. Should you have let the house burn or paid the price?

If the American economy has finally turned a corner, and a corner that isn't unturned by a general mideast revolution, it is timely to start attacking the deficit. Sooner, you'd get the double dip that seems to be happening in the UK.
Obama is probably better placed then most to accomplish this... His left wing supporters aren't going anywhere, and the right can't complain that he's adopting many of the policies they pushed. He is, after all, pragmatic. Which X and others said he wasn't during the electoral season.....
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 30 Jan 2011, 5:57 pm

rickyp wrote:Steve
I prefer to take the longer view


As long as it doesn't take you back into time when deficits began,and were maintained, even unto deficit financing wars whilst bringing in tax breaks which failed to create jobs..


Not true. They did create jobs--until the RE bubble, created by the government, burst. However, I am like Obama--tired of looking back (he says while he blames Bush for everything) and just want to look forward.

Going back to the financial meltdown and starting to complain now is akin to complaining about the high cost of water you used to put out the fire in your house. Should you have let the house burn or paid the price?


That explains very little of this year's $1.5T deficit. Congress was so "brave" and serious about "paygo" they didn't even pass a budget. Don't tell me, let me guess: Bush's fault?

Obama is probably better placed then most to accomplish this... His left wing supporters aren't going anywhere, and the right can't complain that he's adopting many of the policies they pushed. He is, after all, pragmatic.


Says who? Based on one compromise?

What will emerge over the next two years is the same old Obama--driven by partisanship and ideology.

Which X and others said he wasn't during the electoral season.....


I have a feeling you'll regret dragging X into this.

That said, you have no basis for your "pragmatic" claim--or precious little. What will prove his moderation is action. In his SOTU, he paid lip service to moderation. Let's see what he actually does.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 30 Jan 2011, 10:33 pm

"let me guess, Bush's fault"
....I really did laugh out loud!