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 21 Feb 2011, 3:35 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:That $1.1T projection is lower than the 2011 deficit. Looks like things are improving.


:laugh:

Wait. You're not joking?
No, I was referring to the CBO report that came out weeks before Obama was made President. You keep telling us that the deficit is mainly down to Obama. I make it about 30%. The rest was already in the pipe before he took office.

President Obama has increased discretionary spending by, what, 84% in two years? How many more federal employees (I believe it's 200K).
recessions cost money, even if you keep plans the same. I don't have to argue the Keynes position with you (just look at Ireland to see what happens when you try to cut spending too fast in a recession - or to us to see what happens when you cut too fast in a recovery)

Where are the tough cuts? Where is the leadership? I guarantee you that I could and would substantially lower the deficit--and that virtually no one would notice a change in their daily lives. Where does he mention getting Medicare and Social Security, which total scores of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities, on even keels?
Ummm, pretty sure that your method would mean laying off thousands of people. You think they'd not notice? You think that in the wake of a recession the jobs are out there to take up the slack? That's before you 'get a handle' on SS and Medicare. People would notice. You may not, your life may be fine, but hey, you'd potentially reduce a future tax bill.

Oh, taxes! Because cutting taxes always helps deal with deficits!!

Do you expect a deficit to be eradicated in two years, during a period of recession and nascent recovery? It's simply not possible to do.


But, he just set a record!
So? Inflation means that records will always be being set.

I should remind you that before Obama took office, the budget deficit was projected to be well over $1T. So clearly it must be his fault for inheriting it.


Please. The President reminds me three times a day.

At the very least, he could stop lying about spending only what we take in. Is that too much to ask?
Yeah, he should be more honest. It's not what Americans want to hear (and not you, I'd wager), but it's really unsustainable to expect tax cuts when there's a deficit. It's unsustainable to want to 'win' wars and not pay for them. It's unlikely that there's a way to cut deficits during and shortly after a recession.

But the deficit is going down from it's 2009/10 peak.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 21 Feb 2011, 4:58 pm

danivon wrote:Yeah, he should be more honest. It's not what Americans want to hear (and not you, I'd wager), but it's really unsustainable to expect tax cuts when there's a deficit.


So, he should make the case for raising taxes.

Please.

Hurry!

I'm sure he'll get reelected by raising taxes, sustaining these humongous deficits and keeping unemployment hovering at 10%. It's a sure win.

:laugh:

It's unsustainable to want to 'win' wars and not pay for them. It's unlikely that there's a way to cut deficits during and shortly after a recession.


He could have not lied and pulled the troops out. He is the Commander-in-Chief.

But the deficit is going down from it's 2009/10 peak.


Yeah, and at the rate he's going, we'll soon have all the liquidity of . . . Botswana.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 22 Feb 2011, 1:56 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:Yeah, he should be more honest. It's not what Americans want to hear (and not you, I'd wager), but it's really unsustainable to expect tax cuts when there's a deficit.


So, he should make the case for raising taxes.

Please.

Hurry!

I'm sure he'll get reelected by raising taxes, sustaining these humongous deficits and keeping unemployment hovering at 10%. It's a sure win.

:laugh:
Oh dear, Steve. You seem to have not realised that one alternative to cutting taxes is to hold them.

But increasing taxes judiciously (perhaps targeted at the bonuses of people working at the banks that the taxpayer bailed out a few years ago?) would help to reduce the deficit. Those of us who understand that a deficit can be caused by falling revenue as well as by increased spending appreciate these things. I know it's hard to grasp (which is why you use false dichotomies).

Of course, spending properly targeted can also increase employment, but less said about that, I guess. It's above your head, I suspect.

It's unsustainable to want to 'win' wars and not pay for them. It's unlikely that there's a way to cut deficits during and shortly after a recession.


He could have not lied and pulled the troops out. He is the Commander-in-Chief.
He's doing better than Nixon so far. It took a term and a half for his 1968 'plan' to end Vietnam. He's damned either way in Iraq and Afghanistan though, by the likes of you. If he pulls out before 'victory' then he's lost the wars and destroyed America. If he stays the course, then he hasn't pulled out quick enough. And you will conveniently forget the 5-7 years before he came to power in which huge wads of cash were spent on wars.

But the deficit is going down from it's 2009/10 peak.


Yeah, and at the rate he's going, we'll soon have all the liquidity of . . . Botswana.
Ah, hyperbole, the resort of the man who hasn't got an argument...

DO you know what the US government's 'liquidity' is? Or Botswana's for that matter? Or what it really means in the context of a governement? Or is it just a word related to money that you picked up somewhere and figure it can be used how you like?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 22 Feb 2011, 3:30 pm

danivon wrote:[Oh dear, Steve. You seem to have not realised that one alternative to cutting taxes is to hold them.

But increasing taxes judiciously (perhaps targeted at the bonuses of people working at the banks that the taxpayer bailed out a few years ago?) would help to reduce the deficit.


He had the chance to do that. He could have done it any time in the last two years when he and his Socialist Party had dominion.

Those of us who understand that a deficit can be caused by falling revenue as well as by increased spending appreciate these things. I know it's hard to grasp (which is why you use false dichotomies).


Those of us who understand raising tax rates does not necessarily increase revenue by the expected amount appreciate the notion that the Government does not have a right to whatever income it desires. What is clear is that President Obama has increased discretionary spending by a great deal, thus increasing the deficit. His response is . . . to keep spending and raising a bit more in revenue.

Of course, spending properly targeted can also increase employment, but less said about that, I guess. It's above your head, I suspect.


You probably agree with the Democrats on this since they're all so smart--like you. They say the $60B in cuts will cost 800K jobs. Do the math. That's $75K per job. Now, the Stimulus was about what, $800B? So, it should have created 10.6M jobs.

Hmm . . . yeah, you Keynesians have it wired!

The government does not "properly target" their spending, which is why the Stimulus was the biggest waste of money in US history. Obama has gone out of his way to spend the money on his constituents (unions) and on "green energy," which is, to give him the benefit of the doubt, an unproven investment strategy.

He's doing better than Nixon so far.


There's a re-election slogan: "Vote for me. I'm better than Nixon!"

He's damned either way in Iraq and Afghanistan though, by the likes of you.


Not by the likes of me. I opposed the Iraqi invasion and I called for the withdrawal from Afghanistan a couple of years ago. Find another line of dishonest attack.

Ah, hyperbole, the resort of the man who hasn't got an argument...


Please. Your man's plan is for $1T deficits as far as the eye can see. And, that's presuming his healthcare plan actually doesn't run a huge deficit, which would be a first for any entitlement program of its size in American history.

DO you know what the US government's 'liquidity' is? Or Botswana's for that matter? Or what it really means in the context of a governement? Or is it just a word related to money that you picked up somewhere and figure it can be used how you like?


I know that our money supply is going to be involuntarily tightened if we are forced to continue borrowing money from foreign sources. No one is going to keep feeding our crack addict-like addiction to spending forever. There comes a point where someone is going to question our capacity to repay and then we are going to have a big problem--unless we stop spending so much money.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 22 Feb 2011, 4:00 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:But increasing taxes judiciously (perhaps targeted at the bonuses of people working at the banks that the taxpayer bailed out a few years ago?) would help to reduce the deficit.


He had the chance to do that. He could have done it any time in the last two years when he and his Socialist Party had dominion.[/quote]Socialist Party? Give me strength, man. Just a differently focused corporate party from their opponents.

Yeah, instead he reduced taxes for the vast majority of Americans (not a bad idea as a stimulus). I bet you seethed over that one, with all the 'socialist' overtones...

At some point (now may be too early), someone is going to have to pay off the US debts. It was already close to $10T before Obama was elected. The only two ways to reduce the size of that debt are to have revenue higher than income, or to inflate it away. The latter is not nice, if done too quickly. But for now, the priority should be a growing economy. You still have one of those, but since the right wing ideologues took power in the UK, we stopped growing. As much as you may hate Keynes, he had some clues.

Those of us who understand raising tax rates does not necessarily increase revenue by the expected amount appreciate the notion that the Government does not have a right to whatever income it desires. What is clear is that President Obama has increased discretionary spending by a great deal, thus increasing the deficit. His response is . . . to keep spending and raising a bit more in revenue.
True, but then again, the Laffer Curve is a greatly misused model (including by Laffer himself, alas).

The government's income is lower as a proportion of GDP now that it was during the 80s and 90s. I doubt that a modest move towards that would cause a major upset, even though it isn't popular. Of course, just because a measure is unpopular doesn't mean that it's wrong.

Discretionary spending (and I've yet to see a full definition of what that includes) always goes up in a recession and in the aftermath. It goes up faster when you have a stimulus. But if stimulus leads to a growing economy faster and earlier than otherwise, that's a good thing.

He's doing better than Nixon so far.


There's a re-election slogan: "Vote for me. I'm better than Nixon!"
It's all about the elections with you, isn't it?

I know that our money supply is going to be involuntarily tightened if we are forced to continue borrowing money from foreign sources. No one is going to keep feeding our crack addict-like addiction to spending forever. There comes a point where someone is going to question our capacity to repay and then we are going to have a big problem--unless we stop spending so much money.
That's not liquidity. As it is, the USA is still AAA rated, so not in danger according to the market. Investors still eagerly buy your debts, because they see the US as a good bet.

Liquidity - or the lack thereof - was the cause of the recession.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 22 Feb 2011, 4:19 pm

danivon wrote:Yeah, instead he reduced taxes for the vast majority of Americans (not a bad idea as a stimulus). I bet you seethed over that one, with all the 'socialist' overtones...


It was a sliver of the Stimulus. Had he just given us the money, we might have done something useful with it. Instead, he doled it out to wasteful State governments, union projects, and speculative "investments." I think my tax cut just about covered my water bill.

At some point (now may be too early), someone is going to have to pay off the US debts. It was already close to $10T before Obama was elected.


It was $8T when Democrats took over Congress. In the two-plus years since Obama took over, it's gone up about $4T. That's getting it done!

The only two ways to reduce the size of that debt are to have revenue higher than income, or to inflate it away. The latter is not nice, if done too quickly. But for now, the priority should be a growing economy.


Even if it leads to us HAVING to inflate it away at some point?

Really, what would be the "disaster" of going back to 2008 spending levels?

You still have one of those, but since the right wing ideologues took power in the UK, we stopped growing. As much as you may hate Keynes, he had some clues.


I think you need to take a longer view. And, if you can show something in Keynes' writings that suggested he would approve of massive borrowing while in massive debt, please feel free to reference it.

True, but then again, the Laffer Curve is a greatly misused model (including by Laffer himself, alas).


As an aside, Laffer is a big fan of Bill Clinton. How does that fit your worldview?

The government's income is lower as a proportion of GDP now that it was during the 80s and 90s.


How about interest on the debt as a percentage of our budget? Is that consistent with the 80s and 90s? How about the projected interest?

But if stimulus leads to a growing economy faster and earlier than otherwise, that's a good thing.


Until the bills come due.

It's all about the elections with you, isn't it?


I'm here to help.

As it is, the USA is still AAA rated, so not in danger according to the market. Investors still eagerly buy your debts, because they see the US as a good bet.


For the moment. However, Moody's is less than bullish. There are rumblings about moving away from the dollar as the standard for trade. You act as if borrowing is harmless. It's not.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 23 Feb 2011, 3:09 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:Yeah, instead he reduced taxes for the vast majority of Americans (not a bad idea as a stimulus). I bet you seethed over that one, with all the 'socialist' overtones...


It was a sliver of the Stimulus.
It was $288B, over a third of the Bill. Rather more than a 'sliver'

Had he just given us the money, we might have done something useful with it. Instead, he doled it out to wasteful State governments, union projects, and speculative "investments." I think my tax cut just about covered my water bill.
So, if it was so useless, send it back and help your country out! Of course, that money meant you didn't have to find it from somewhere else. Multiplied by most taxpaying Americans (and a fair few companies) it makes a difference.

It was $8T when Democrats took over Congress. In the two-plus years since Obama took over, it's gone up about $4T. That's getting it done!
I seem to recall the 2008 bank bailout being a bipartisan bill. I seem to recall that both sides of the aisle (and the GOP more than the Dems) supported expensive foreign wars that started in 2002 and 2003, and went way over projected budget and into the period 2007-8.

The only two ways to reduce the size of that debt are to have revenue higher than income, or to inflate it away. The latter is not nice, if done too quickly. But for now, the priority should be a growing economy.


Even if it leads to us HAVING to inflate it away at some point?
Well, you won;t be able to stop inflation. Oil prices are up again, food prices are up, commodities are up. Not within the government's control.

But low inflation combined with steady growth is a fairly painless way to draw down debts. It takes both. Point is, the bill will be being paid, but the longer it lasts, the easier it gets (just like a mortgage)

Really, what would be the "disaster" of going back to 2008 spending levels?
What would be the "disaster" of going back to 1990 taxation levels?

I think you need to take a longer view. And, if you can show something in Keynes' writings that suggested he would approve of massive borrowing while in massive debt, please feel free to reference it.
I did last time someone (you?) made such a challenge. It's his book, known as the General Theory, and in the advice he gave to governments in the 1930s who were trying to deal with massive recession at a time of high deficits and (for the time) huge debt. Hwo about you try reading some of this stuff before attempting to deny what Keynes was saying?

As an aside, Laffer is a big fan of Bill Clinton. How does that fit your worldview?
Not a problem. I was talking about the 'curve' that people make all kinds of assumptions about, including the man himself. For example, how do you know that it has only one peak?

How about interest on the debt as a percentage of our budget? Is that consistent with the 80s and 90s? How about the projected interest?
Actually, it is pretty consistent. In the 80s and 90s interest rates were high. The US was paying about 3-4% of GDP in debt interest. Now it pays pays about... 3-4% of GDP on interest payments, because while debt is higher, interest rates are much lower.

For example, in 2007, debt interest was about $240Bn. In 2009, it went down to $190Bn, even though the total debt was higher.

As the budget is a bit higher as a proportion of GDP that it was in the 80s and 90s, the proportion of your budget spent on interest is lower than it was back then. Like the answer?

But if stimulus leads to a growing economy faster and earlier than otherwise, that's a good thing.


Until the bills come due.
But you don't get it. It's easier to pay the bills off if you have a growing economy. Just like it's easier to pay off the mortgage if your income increases.

It's all about the elections with you, isn't it?


I'm here to help.
No, you are here to parrot partisan lines and pretend that I'm a Democrat.

There are rumblings about moving away from the dollar as the standard for trade.
There have been for a long time, since the advent of the Euro, and as developing countries grow. It's as much a reflection of global trends as anything else.

You act as if borrowing is harmless. It's not.
Sometimes it's very beneficial. Indeed, it is often vital. You are a capitalist, right? You believe that capitalism is a good system? Wlell, here's a newsflash:

When a company is started up, it starts up in debt. It borrows (from it's owners, or from investors, or both), and it uses that debt to establish itself. It often makes a loss at first, leading to further debts. The initial debt is the 'capital' in 'capitalism'.

You think home ownership is a good thing, don't you? As long as it can be afforded? Well, a mortgage of around 3x annual income is considered pretty safe. And the borrowing is considered a good investment, as long as property prices rise over the period of repayment. By comparison, the US government is only about 1x annual national income in debt. It has been even deeper and got out of it, and it can do it again.

As long as people aren't relentlessly doing the country down and panicking, of course.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 23 Feb 2011, 3:54 pm

danivon wrote:It was a sliver of the Stimulus.
It was $288B, over a third of the Bill. Rather more than a 'sliver'[/quote]

Oh, it was just huge. Politifact puts it at $218B. Furthermore, for individuals, honestly, I never even noticed. I think they did something with withholding. It was a blip.

It was $8T when Democrats took over Congress. In the two-plus years since Obama took over, it's gone up about $4T. That's getting it done!
I seem to recall the 2008 bank bailout being a bipartisan bill.


Whatever. How about the last two years of record-breaking deficits when Democrats were in control of all the levers of budgeting?

Well, you won;t be able to stop inflation. Oil prices are up again, food prices are up, commodities are up. Not within the government's control.


Not completely true. Oil prices are up, in part, because the government prevents energy production. Food prices are up, in part, because of energy prices and because of subsidies, especially to corn growers.

But low inflation combined with steady growth is a fairly painless way to draw down debts. It takes both. Point is, the bill will be being paid, but the longer it lasts, the easier it gets (just like a mortgage)


Point is, the more we "invest" now, the longer we'll have inflation and the steeper it will be.

Really, what would be the "disaster" of going back to 2008 spending levels?
What would be the "disaster" of going back to 1990 taxation levels?


If you mean the aggregate, I'm fine with that.

Hwo about you try reading some of this stuff before attempting to deny what Keynes was saying?


How about I just assert Keynes would not have favored a national debt equal with GDP?

How about interest on the debt as a percentage of our budget? Is that consistent with the 80s and 90s? How about the projected interest?
Actually, it is pretty consistent. In the 80s and 90s interest rates were high. The US was paying about 3-4% of GDP in debt interest. Now it pays pays about... 3-4% of GDP on interest payments, because while debt is higher, interest rates are much lower.


At the moment. However, as you know, interest rates are at historically low levels. What happens when inflation begins in earnest and they go up? Answer: our debt payments go up and our ability to borrow goes down. Your policies are going to kill this country.

No, you are here to parrot partisan lines and pretend that I'm a Democrat.


If I'm a parrot, that makes you a bird of a different sort: an ostrich. Your head is, at best, in the sand.

You act as if borrowing is harmless. It's not.
Sometimes it's very beneficial. Indeed, it is often vital. You are a capitalist, right? You believe that capitalism is a good system? Wlell, here's a newsflash:

When a company is started up, it starts up in debt. It borrows (from it's owners, or from investors, or both), and it uses that debt to establish itself. It often makes a loss at first, leading to further debts. The initial debt is the 'capital' in 'capitalism'.


Here's a newsflash for you: a government is not a company, nor is it a family.

You think home ownership is a good thing, don't you? As long as it can be afforded? Well, a mortgage of around 3x annual income is considered pretty safe. And the borrowing is considered a good investment, as long as property prices rise over the period of repayment. By comparison, the US government is only about 1x annual national income in debt. It has been even deeper and got out of it, and it can do it again.


Um, except this isn't a home we've borrowed on. This is more like a credit card--it cannot (reasonably) appreciate in value and it's not like we have a plan to pay it off. If a family owed 1x its annual income in credit card debt, you'd say they were bonkers. And, you'd be right.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 24 Feb 2011, 2:26 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:
It was a sliver of the Stimulus.
It was $288B, over a third of the Bill. Rather more than a 'sliver'


Oh, it was just huge. Politifact puts it at $218B. Furthermore, for individuals, honestly, I never even noticed. I think they did something with withholding. It was a blip.
What they did was to increase allowances, rather than send out a cheque. The latter is more noticeable, but the former is often a better stimulus because it essentially means people have the money all along and spend a little more over the year, rather than getting one lump (which they are more likely to use to draw down debt than to spend on activity)

Looking at that Politifact item, I see what they've done. They've said that $70 of the cuts on AMT would have happened anyway. Perhaps they would, perhaps not. But the Bill set them in place for the next 10 years.

Still, $218bn is still a hefty chunk of money. About $1000 for every adult citizen.

Whatever. How about the last two years of record-breaking deficits when Democrats were in control of all the levers of budgeting?
there was a recession on.

Not completely true. Oil prices are up, in part, because the government prevents energy production. Food prices are up, in part, because of energy prices and because of subsidies, especially to corn growers.
I'm talking about the global market. Food prices are up all over the world, not just in your little corner of it. Oil prices have been trending upwards for some time (it was a peak in them that presaged the whole economic crash thing in the first place), and with events in the Middle East are over $110 a barrel. Even if the US did 'Drill, baby, drill" it would not make much difference to the overall global supply levels, and the price would still be rising - particularly in the short-medium term.

Point is, the more we "invest" now, the longer we'll have inflation and the steeper it will be.
Potentially, but if we also have stronger growth and more job creation, it evens out.

If you mean the aggregate, I'm fine with that.
I mean as a proportion of GDP.

Hwo about you try reading some of this stuff before attempting to deny what Keynes was saying?
How about I just assert Keynes would not have favored a national debt equal with GDP?
Assert all you like, it's total hogwash. Try reading instead of deciding what people who've written stuff think, huh? It's not like Keynes didn't write stuff down.

He may well not have favoured it (although many countries had debt around that level in the 1930s), but that still doesn't mean that he would have said that this meant they couldn't use deficit spending for stimulus. Which is what you are implying.

The clue is in the title of the book "General Theory" - meaning that the theory applies in all cases (as opposed to a "Special Theory" which only applies in defined circumstances).

At the moment. However, as you know, interest rates are at historically low levels. What happens when inflation begins in earnest and they go up? Answer: our debt payments go up and our ability to borrow goes down. Your policies are going to kill this country.
No they are not. I have confidence that America has more fortitude than you think. Interest rates will creep up (although they should not rise too far if inflation is coming from the supply side, as it's not as effective for that as it is for demand-led inflation), but of course the idea is that growth will continue, which means that GDP goes up (and tax revenues should recover even if rates remain the same), making it easier to deal with the interest.

Um, except this isn't a home we've borrowed on. This is more like a credit card--it cannot (reasonably) appreciate in value and it's not like we have a plan to pay it off. If a family owed 1x its annual income in credit card debt, you'd say they were bonkers. And, you'd be right.
Actually, it's very much like a home. You need a home as a place to live, not just as an asset. It's worth borrowing at an interest rate that means you pay double the value of the purchase price over 20 years in order to have a home to live in. Just like, it's worth governments borrowing sometimes to keep the economy going, even if the costs look big. The lack of a decent economy (or house) is a bigger issue than having a manageable - even if high - debt.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 24 Feb 2011, 7:20 am

steve
Whatever. How about the last two years of record-breaking deficits when Democrats were in control of all the levers of budgeting

Does the U.S. Really Have a Fiscal Crisis?
By SIMON JOHNSON
The most immediate problem is that our largest banks and closely related parts of the financial system blew themselves up in 2007-8. The ensuing recession and associated loss of tax revenue will end up increasing our government debt, as a percentage of gross domestic product, by around 40 percent. Very little of this debt increase was due to the fiscal stimulus; mostly it was caused by lower tax revenue, because of the slump in output and employment.

You realize Danivon you're arguing with a guy who thinks that only the last two years matter, and what caused the last two years shouldn't enter into the understanding of the problem?

The link takes you to Johnson's article which asks you to consider that the problem begins with
The financial system poses a major risk to our fiscal outlook over the next few years. Unless you think that the Dodd-Frank reform bill really ended “too big to fail” and the associated excessive risk-taking culture, you should worry a great deal about the assumption of boom, bust, bailout and fiscal damage that the Bank of England now refers to routinely as the “doom loop

But he does get into each issue you discuss. With authority.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/does-the-u-s-really-have-a-fiscal-crisis/?partner=rss
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 24 Feb 2011, 9:03 am

danivon wrote:
Point is, the more we "invest" now, the longer we'll have inflation and the steeper it will be.
Potentially, but if we also have stronger growth and more job creation, it evens out.


Right, but that's not really happening.

You think we can borrow endlessly, spend endlessly with no plan for debt reduction, and the result will be a glorious day for the Motherland and a bright future for the proletariat.

I disagree.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 24 Feb 2011, 9:05 am

rickyp wrote:You realize Danivon you're arguing with a guy who thinks that only the last two years matter, and what caused the last two years shouldn't enter into the understanding of the problem?


A complete donkey would know better than that, which explains your difficulty--you've not got that much sense. I complained about spending under GWB and have always been in favor of a balanced-budget amendment (which could only be violated during a time of declared war--not actually seen in some time here).
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 24 Feb 2011, 12:12 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:
Point is, the more we "invest" now, the longer we'll have inflation and the steeper it will be.
Potentially, but if we also have stronger growth and more job creation, it evens out.


Right, but that's not really happening.
Really? You have growth. The UK (which is acting to cut spending in order to seriously reduce the deficit) saw contraction in 2010Q4, and another quarter of that puts us into recession.

It's also notable that the unemployment trends went from ever increasing jumps until Spring 2009, and then the rate of increase slowed right back down again. It's almost as if there was some correlation to the stimulus.

You think we can borrow endlessly, spend endlessly with no plan for debt reduction, and the result will be a glorious day for the Motherland and a bright future for the proletariat.

I disagree.
No, that's what you think I believe. I believe we can borrow more freely than you think, can plan for debt reduction for the long term once we have a stable economy, and that you see Reds under every sodding bed.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 24 Feb 2011, 12:15 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:A complete donkey would know better than that, which explains your difficulty--you've not got that much sense. I complained about spending under GWB and have always been in favor of a balanced-budget amendment (which could only be violated during a time of declared war--not actually seen in some time here).
Yeah, you complained all the way to the polling booth when you voted for the guy again in 2004, and later for other GOP candidates afterwards. I recall the many, many posts that you wrote about how terrible the deficit spending was, and how you opposed the 'Surge' which would cost even more.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 24 Feb 2011, 1:33 pm

danivon wrote:Really? You have growth. The UK (which is acting to cut spending in order to seriously reduce the deficit) saw contraction in 2010Q4, and another quarter of that puts us into recession.

It's also notable that the unemployment trends went from ever increasing jumps until Spring 2009, and then the rate of increase slowed right back down again. It's almost as if there was some correlation to the stimulus.


Look at the Gallup data. The number of people who have given up looking for work is record-breaking. And, is it really shocking that when the government spends nearly a trillion dollars and hires tens of thousands of new workers that things might stabilize a bit? However, nothing materialized along the lines that the One promised.

And, when one is borrowing 40% more than one is taking in, it is reasonable to expect a certain amount of economic growth. Again, I would ask--is 4% return on 40% borrowed at what, 5% interest (??), a good deal? It seems like short-term thinking--and, contra you, there has been NO long-term plan presented.

I believe we can borrow more freely than you think, can plan for debt reduction for the long term once we have a stable economy, and that you see Reds under every sodding bed.


Please show me anything in the President's budget or future projections that looks like a serious debt reduction plan.