• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommittee’

Well, that's somewhat of the same thing. If debt buyers didn't think the US could pay back its obligations, they wouldn't be buying our debt. They'd be going straight to durable commodities. While that's happening to a certain degree, it's not happening on a massive "the US is screwed" level. So IMO, they do believe that the US will pay back its obligations hence why the rate is somewhat of an indicator. There's no question that the US debt is a problem, but honestly it's pennies compared to the rest of the unfunded liabilities the US from the federal government to states has which are estimated to be from a low end of $50 trillion to $200 trillion.



That's not a bad idea. I just don't get how people think that major, immediate cuts won't spark a recession when growth is anemic. That sounds to me like they have no idea how the economy actually works, as if demand isn't even relevant. They keep harping on private investment yet ignore repetitively how private investment just isn't happening. Honestly, these people sound like they live in lala land where the economic data coming out of the past 200 years simply does not exist.

I disagree with you about why US rates are low - or at least why they are as low as they are. If you have 100s of billions you need to invest every month, the US debt market is really the only game in town. Even a country as big as China doesn't have a matress big enough to stuff their money in.

Your other point about reductions in aggregate demand due to government spending cuts would seem to be more or less irrefutable however. You are correct that there is no answer available from the slash and burners.
 
Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

RTFT.

10 characters.

EDIT: It's in what you quoted. Still having reading comprehension problems eh?

Your opinion is that the net 1.5 trillion we are putting into the economy, at the federal level, through deficit spending is what's giving us anemic growth or 1-1.5% per quarter?
 
Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

Instead of sniping, how about you step to the plate that Cpwill and 1Perry are unwilling to answer?

Explain how dramatic immediate cuts to demand create new jobs.

because (and this is important) that money comes from somewhere. You are proposing nothing but a broken window fallacy writ large.
 
Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

What demand are you talking about?

He thinks that if you take $15 from a worker or investor, fritter $5 of it in government inefficiencies working it's way through the bureaucratic pipeline, and then give the remaining $10 to Solyndra, that you have put $10 into the economy and increased the demand in it.
 
Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

You once again do it below.

I'm starting to question your capacity to read.

I realize you are unable to see the vicous circle you are advocating but that is what it is. Take from one to pay for another and all you get is a wash.

That is a sign you do not understand how it is financed. That only applies if people are forced at gun point to buy US debt. Like most partisans, you seem to be unaware of how a debt offering actually goes. No one forces anyone to buy US debt. Investors buy it freely because they view it as the best choice they have. By that measure, no one is "taking" money from anyone. Investors are investing in freely. Furthermore, you basically ignore how huge amounts of savings are building up both on the corporate and individual balance sheets that are for all intensive purposes, doing nothing as they earn less than inflation and banks don't use them to loan out in any reasonable way. That is in a sense a waste as resources are not being used. Your belief is based on the notion that all spending is financed by taxation and that people are forced to by debt. That over the past 30 years is clearly false.

It's been explained many times. You just reject it.

Correction. You and your ideological brethren get destroyed and wash rinse repeat. For all intensive purposes, you are taking an argument straight out of the Creationist handbook. Repeat the same argument enough times so that people get tired of refuting you.

Government contractors can only be paid by the government taking the money from someone else.

Argument already refuted unless you want to show me how people are forced at gun point to buy debt. Which I know you can't. I made that analogy before to an idiot who was arguing what you were and he promptly got the hell out of the thread never to return.

That someone else quits spending because he knows the government is going to come looking for even more.

The increase in purchases of T bills and bonds suggests otherwise, especially in the face of a credit rating cut and the downward trend of yields.

I posted in another thread where despite all the spending the government did in the 30's, the unemployment rate stayed right at 15%.

You also failed to isolate the impact of a massive dirty trade war which annihilated 14% of the economy. The same bull**** UCLA study which cited how FDR's policies made it worse fails for the same reason. It never isolated the impact of a huge direct impact of demand upon the economy and its indirect spending multipliers. You fail for the exact same reason. We know for a fact that the dirty trade wars were horrific for the global economy. The Global economy didn't reach the level of integration prior to the 30s until the mid 1990s. That's how integrated trade was to the world economy at the time. You start massive trade wars that effectively destroy huge amounts of activity back in the 30s and you will see major repercussions. That is irrefutable. But no one who ever argues that spending is the problem who cites that example ever isolates that impact to then show the R strength of how spending didn't help. Never. Not once. For a reason. One, it's hard and two it's likely to bust open their argument.

Government spent, unemployment was 15%. They spent some more, unemployment? 15%. The only thing that broke that cycle was the positive attitude of the country with winning the war and soldiers coming home and wanting to spend. People are never going to start spending as long as the government is doing the driving.

Then you have no real understanding of the 50s where government had its hand in virtually every industry. The government regulated virtually every industry, poured money into many new industries coming out of the war. The 50s was the Golden Age of America with major economic expansion. The government was still doing much of the driving and people were spending. Care to address that rather large time problem in your argument?

We tried a "luxury tax". It led to large layoffs to those in the industries taxed. It got so bad that the taxes were rescinded.

The Lesson Of Economic Damage From “Taxing The Rich” With The Punitive Luxury Tax In The 1990s

So yes, it does make people quit buying those items.

That's not relevant. I never argued for a luxury tax, only that certain industries are capable to passing on any tax and some are not, contrary to your argument. What happens when Target doesn't pass on a tax to consumers and Walmart does? Target picks up market shares. Ever notice why cereals are basically all the same price? Because if one starts raising prices to pass on a cost the others are willing to eat, they lose market share. You argued that business will always pass on such a tax to consumers. That is simply not true.

The point is you do not wait until the problem because a major problem before addressing it.

Absolutely no question there. But the notion that an artificial recession will create jobs is asinine. Ask Vockler. He put millions out of work with his artificial recession. So much so he was damaging Reagan's chances for reelection. Reagan paid him a visit and inflation went up.

Again, it's been argued here countless times. I'm not going back to find it but I'm sure we have before.

And all of them are wrong. As are you. Your argument is based on a faulty notion of coerced debt purchases. The primary problem with the arguments given is that they assume money will be invested. That ignores the growing savings on both corporate and individual balance sheets. People bring this up and your side runs away cowardly as fast as it can.

If the natural level is somewhere below where we are now, it won't create jobs as you agree the economy is going to have to find that bottom before rising again.

Well, considering this is a deleveraging recession coupled with a demand recession, fixing the debt on individual balance sheets is the real concern. People won't spend money if their discretionary is low and job security weak because of debt. Essentially personal debt is problem here. To some degree, McCain's mortgage plan was the right idea in principle as it addressed the biggest personal debt hindrance. Granted, it was borderline Communist, but it did address in principal the problem.

Slash and burn won't help us here when personal debt is the problem. Slash and burn will just hurt the economy and make paying off personal debt even harder, which reduces consumer spending and prolongs anemic growth.
 
Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

Look ... "Obvious" ..... if government spending were the cure-all, with $14 T in debt, maybe we'd all be CEO's by now making the big bucks ?

No one ever argued it was the cure all. You can stop lying or you can destroy whatever credibility you have.
 
Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

Tax cuts alone are not going to get us out of our hole.

That's hardly a sentiment shared by the slash and burn crowd. I do agree that tax cuts alone will not get us out of the hole. We'd have to basically eviscerate the budget to basically nothing to pay off the debt. Cutting even just the entire discretionary won't erase the deficit. We have to raise taxes and cut services. Anyone who argues otherwise is delusional, incapable of doing math or exceptionally dishonest. What I don't get is how people think how dramatic immediate cuts to demand will increase spending when you take into account spending multipliers. What happens when millions of people lose their jobs from those cuts? They spend less. Who suffers? Everyone dependent on their spending. So the second round of cuts start. Who suffers from the first level of indirect? People who rely on their spending. So on and so forth. People who think that massive cuts to demand won't cause domino effects are stupid. We see this right now with government cuts. DOD firms are cutting back as they see the coming defense cuts. Who suffers? Their suppliers. They cut back. Who suffers? Their employees and everyone who depends on their spending. Only idiots think the economy is simple and that changes don't flow through huge networks.

Somewhere today I stated that I would accept tax increases as long as they were combined with actual, real budget cuts.

And did you get flak from that from the so called "right?"

Fiscally, it is conservative in light of our debt that we have no choice but to raise taxes and cut spending. There is no other way to do it mathematically. Generally, those who have real critical thinking problems here, who have problems reading and doing math are those who are pushing the cuts only policy. I'd name names but I'd get warned.

Jobs "preservation" is an arguement for those who finally have to admit that the stimulus failed in adding jobs. And yet, even after admitting it failed, you call for more. :shrug:

Actually I always argued it failed in its original stated purpose of adding jobs. What I take offense to is the morons who said it did nothing. Not because of their ideological views, but because of their sheer inability to critically think. Apparently they think that in the absence of the stimulus which kept demand relatively stable, demand would have stayed stable despite all indicators to the contrary. It's like they have no concept of how demand plays a central role in a modern economy.

Not all stimulus is the same. Spending on infrastructure which pays proverbial dividends over decades is hardly the same as a one time tax rebate. Furthermore, remember that a third of the stimulus wasn't actual spending per se. It was tax cuts. They were probably too small in the same light as Bush's. On top of that, much of the real spending happened well after it was needed. The stimulus failed partially because it was not targeted and it was not timely. It is not valid to argue all stimuluses are the same. We probably don't even need another stimulus at this rate (politics aside). But we do not need real dramatic immediate cuts. I have yet to see a reputable economist who thinks that dramatic immediate cuts will increase employment quickly.

I don't think one can say people were allowed to keep more of their money which they then spent on necessities is a failure.

Considering that both Bush's stimulus and Obama's were entirely debt financed, your argument only works if people were forced to buy debt at gun point. You cannot back that up. So stop using that argument.
 
Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

I disagree with you about why US rates are low - or at least why they are as low as they are. If you have 100s of billions you need to invest every month, the US debt market is really the only game in town. Even a country as big as China doesn't have a matress big enough to stuff their money in.

While that is true, if the US was really as risky as you imply, commodity prices should be soaring. Furthermore, no one has hundreds of billions they have to invest monthly. Japan's buying US debt to bring the yen down. China's doing to it to slow inflation. Okay, China is the one country who has no choice given that, but individual investors, institutions and other countries don't have the same kind of pressure. Money could be flowing into oil, gold, copper and other commodities. It's not at the rate it should be if the US was really risky in a non-political way.

When you account for politics however, yes, I do agree that the US is far riskier then the market values it. When the GOP was willing to default intentionally, that's a real bad sign our government cannot get it **** together. I'm actually quite surprised that the other rating agencies haven't cut us purely for that. In a broad spectrum risk assessment, the US should have gotten downgraded a long time ago as moderates and deal makers are systematically eliminated from Congress. Considering the level of US unfunded liabilities from a municipal to federal level ranging from $50 trillion to $200 trillion, if we cannot get our balls together to pay down $10 trillion in public debt over 20 years, we are screwed.

Your other point about reductions in aggregate demand due to government spending cuts would seem to be more or less irrefutable however. You are correct that there is no answer available from the slash and burners.

You'd think that, but these are people who believe that cutting a trillion from the economy won't cause job losses. I just scratch my head and then vote to kill the department of education. It clearly failed them.
 
Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

Your opinion is that the net 1.5 trillion we are putting into the economy, at the federal level, through deficit spending is what's giving us anemic growth or 1-1.5% per quarter?

No. A develeraging recession couple with a demand recession is stemming from high personal debt. I have asked slash and burners to explain the difference between a financial recession and a demand at least two dozen times here.

Not once has any of them tried.

How the hell can you talk about the economy when you can't even explain the conditions? But they do.
 
Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

because (and this is important) that money comes from somewhere. You are proposing nothing but a broken window fallacy writ large.

Yeah. People freely investing money into US treasuries.

Or are you going to show me how the government is forcing people to buy debt at gun point?

Hint: It's time for you to flee.

He thinks that if you take $15 from a worker or investor, fritter $5 of it in government inefficiencies working it's way through the bureaucratic pipeline, and then give the remaining $10 to Solyndra, that you have put $10 into the economy and increased the demand in it.

Want to explain to me how someone freely investing money is taking money out of the economy when that money wouldn't be used as evident by large cash amounts piling up collectively on corporate and individual balance sheets? I've pointed this out before and you just run. And spending on things like bridges is hardly the same as a loan guarantee. Or do you not know what a loan guarantee is?

I find it amusing all you can do now is just snipe. I guess that's the expected outcome when I stripped you of your only argument before you could even make it.

Furthermore, that $5 in expenses (grossly overexaggerated btw) should actually create more than $5 in eventual activity as the money gets spent over and over again. Really, I seriously doubt after all your posts you have any idea what a spending multiplier actually is.

Btw: still cowardly ignoring that I see?
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...proposal-supercommittee-5.html#post1059917348

I fully realize you cannot explain anything important here.
 
Last edited:
Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

Yeah. People freely investing money into US treasuries.

yup. because they are available thanks to the fact that we engage in profligate deficit spending.

of course, if Treasuries weren't available, they would put it all in a giant tower and go swimming in it like Scrooge McDuck.

Or are you going to show me how the government is forcing people to buy debt at gun point?

nope. are you going to show me the money silos in Canada from when that government started to reduce its' expenditures?

Hint: It's time for you to flee.

hint: you don't actually intimidate anyone. ;) you have 'being an asshole' confused with 'being correct'.

Want to explain to me how someone freely investing money is taking money out of the economy when that money wouldn't be used as evident by large cash amounts piling up collectively on corporate and individual balance sheets?

and in the money silos!

I've pointed this out before and you just run. And spending on things like bridges is hardly the same as a loan guarantee.

that's a good point. the government is far more likely to waste the money in the construction process than the company is to go completely belly up - especially if the United States makes sure that the taxpayers get protected.... oh, wait, that last bit didn't happen, did it?

I brought up Solyndra because you are always insisting that if we just took money, ran it through government,and then let politicians allocate massive sums trying to pick out the winners in the alternative energies market that somehow that would lead us onward and upward into massive growth.

now watch - you're going to try to correct this by saying the exact same thing, but with positive descriptors. I'm going to point out the failed example of Spain and you are going to insist that Spain doesn't count because of some other outside factor. Because it's always some other outside factor that explains why keynesianism fails to produce the results it predicts. there is always an excuse. the belief remains adamantium-impervious to repeated historical experience.

Or do you not know what a loan guarantee is?

:) don't worry OC. I'm sure you make way much more money than the guys who used to pick on you in High School. they're probably convenience-store attendants, still reliving their glory days. and lots of women say it doesn't even matter what size your penis is. ;)

I find it amusing all you can do now is just snipe. I guess that's the expected outcome when I stripped you of your only argument before you could even make it.

:lamo

Furthermore, that $5 in expenses (grossly overexaggerated btw)

It's a simplification to be sure - but accounting for the entire collection, management, procurement, disbursement, and every single worker's paycheck, benefits, office supplies along the way? before we even start working on things like environmental impact studies? I wouldn't be surprised to find out I missed the mark low.

should actually create more than $5 in eventual activity as the money gets spent over and over again.

just like the Bush stimulus checks that saved us from an economic crash did. meanwhile, otherwise that money would have just sat in that ole money silo, being swam in.

Really, I seriously doubt after all your posts you have any idea what a spending multiplier actually is.

oh i get the theory. I just happen to know that due to the fact that it ignores that the money comes from somewhere, that it is bull. :)


that's where it is! good deal.
 
Last edited:
Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

This is what we do...we trumpet the notion that a 3 trillion dollar reduction in DEFICIT spending over 10 years is somehow a triumph (as long as that 3 trillion is accompanied by tax increases) whole ignoring the fact that we are deficit spending 1,3 trillion a YEAR. 13 trillion over 10 years, minus the 3 trillion in proposed 'savings' still results in a net DEBT of 10 trillion and a TOTAL national debt of 25 TRILLION. These arent CUTS. I just cannot see how people cannot (or will not) understand this. Our grandchildren and greatgrandchildren are going to ahve to pay this debt...but screw them...right? As long as we can continue to be irresponsible and shove off debt to future generations...

Yay congress! Way to go! We should by all means continue to support those clowns.
 
Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

This is what we do...we trumpet the notion that a 3 trillion dollar reduction in DEFICIT spending over 10 years is somehow a triumph (as long as that 3 trillion is accompanied by tax increases) whole ignoring the fact that we are deficit spending 1,3 trillion a YEAR. 13 trillion over 10 years, minus the 3 trillion in proposed 'savings' still results in a net DEBT of 10 trillion and a TOTAL national debt of 25 TRILLION. These arent CUTS. I just cannot see how people cannot (or will not) understand this. Our grandchildren and greatgrandchildren are going to ahve to pay this debt...but screw them...right? As long as we can continue to be irresponsible and shove off debt to future generations...

Yay congress! Way to go! We should by all means continue to support those clowns.

So then the obvious thing to do is to reduce the spending we can and then increase taxes to make up for the deficit and to help pay off our debts.
 
Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

yup. because they are available thanks to the fact that we engage in profligate deficit spending.

While that is true, admitting that does not help your argument. You just admitted people freely do so. There goes your crackpot argument that the government is taking people's money away from them.

Until you can prove that people are forced at gun point to buy US debt, your "Taking" argument is bunk.

of course, if Treasuries weren't available, they would put it all in a giant tower and go swimming in it like Scrooge McDuck.

It's sad that all you have now after I stripped you of your best argument is to make idiotic comments that are functionally irrelevant.

nope. are you going to show me the money silos in Canada from when that government started to reduce its' expenditures?

Considering I never argued that, I don't have to. I don't have to prove a fabricated argument you made. You however, have to prove that people are being forced to buy debt and therefore are having their monies taken from them.

The fact that your arguments have devolved into worthless tripe is a sign you have nothing. It's amazing how quickly you fall to pieces when your sole weapon is rendered non-fuctional before you even have time to pull it out.

hint: you don't actually intimidate anyone. ;) you have 'being an asshole' confused with 'being correct'.

Asshole and correct are not mutually exclusive. It must burn you up that I'm constantly right and constantly pointing out how you are wrong.

that's a good point. the government is far more likely to waste the money in the construction process than the company is to go completely belly up - especially if the United States makes sure that the taxpayers get protected.... oh, wait, that last bit didn't happen, did it?

Its amusing you still don't know what a loan guarantee is. But you think you can talk about the subject despite a painfully clear ignorance about it all.

I brought up Solyndra because you are always insisting that if we just took money, ran it through government,and then let politicians allocate massive sums trying to pick out the winners in the alternative energies market that somehow that would lead us onward and upward into massive growth.

Oh look. Cpwill deprived of his sole argument resorts to outright lying. I never said such thing at all. My point to which you are once again cowardly avoiding is that direct immediate large cuts to spending will cause another recession which will lead to a worse outcome. Your proposal, that cutting is the answer will make the situation worse. Please respond to what I actually said, not OBVIOUS fabrications you hope will stick because you have absolutely nothing left to throw at me.

now watch - you're going to try to correct this by saying the exact same thing, but with positive descriptors. I'm going to point out the failed example of Spain and you are going to insist that Spain doesn't count because of some other outside factor. Because it's always some other outside factor that explains why keynesianism fails to produce the results it predicts. there is always an excuse. the belief remains adamantium-impervious to repeated historical experience.

No, I'm going to reiterate you are liar. Spain's problem is largely a housing issue. Their housing issue is arguably worse then ours on a per capita basis. That is severely dragging down its economy, and therefore tax revenues causing a growing deficit problem. You know, you wouldn't lose so many arguments if you just bothered to educate yourself about the topic. Trying to cast all of the PIGS as coming from the same problem is extremely ignorant. Ireland stemmed from a single phrase offered by a Fianna Fail finance minster (who recently died of a heart attack) offering a blanket guarantee to banks. (This is a sign I know more then you do). Spain from massive housing bubble. Greece from a variety of issues, stemming from a culture of wholesale tax evasion, failure to curtail spending and backing banks' lending to increase exports. You can't use the same argument against all of them because their situations and causes are all different. You of all people should know that one size fits all doesn't work when you bash Obamacare. But here you have no problem doing that. That makes you a hypocrite.

:) don't worry OC. I'm sure you make way much more money than the guys who used to pick on you in High School. they're probably convenience-store attendants, still reliving their glory days. and lots of women say it doesn't even matter what size your penis is. ;)

So no, you don't. That's pretty sad Cpwill. You're down to sniping this early in the thread. I'm embarrassed for you.

Thanks for proving my point. It's amusing to watch you fall to pieces so fast when I killed you only argument.

It's a simplification to be sure - but accounting for the entire collection, management, procurement, disbursement, and every single worker's paycheck, benefits, office supplies along the way? before we even start working on things like environmental impact studies? I wouldn't be surprised to find out I missed the mark low.

That's because you have shown a severe lack of understanding of what a spending multiplier is. The same reason you think that economic data isolated from each other are good ways to examining highly complex outcomes when you refuse to run linear regression. Essentially, you are less obnoxious Conservative. Can't read or understand data.

just like the Bush stimulus checks that saved us from an economic crash did. meanwhile, otherwise that money would have just sat in that ole money silo, being swam in.

TARP saved our butts. Unless you think that it's good for banks not to lend to each other for a mere 8 hours.

oh i get the theory. I just happen to know that due to the fact that it ignores that the money comes from somewhere, that it is bull. :)

So when are you going to prove that people buy debt because the government points guns at them?

You keep harping back to that, but you freely admit that people invest. Therefore that money is freely given. Meaning that it is NOT forcibly taken from better opportunities. Stop your parrot arguments and come up with something decent for a change.

where it is! good deal.

So. Going to be a coward as usual. Got it.
 
Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

:( hey, where's my pictures of the money silos?

scrooge_mcduck.jpg


look ya'll - this is what rich people do with their money whenever treasuries aren't available. :)
 
Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

While that is true, admitting that does not help your argument. You just admitted people freely do so. There goes your crackpot argument that the government is taking people's money away from them.

not really - selling treasuries still accomplishes that. it just doesn't do it through coercion.

the POINT, which is that selling treasuries is removing money from the private market and turning it into public expenditures remains.

Until you can prove that people are forced at gun point to buy US debt, your "Taking" argument is bunk.

until you can prove that treasuries don't get sold and therefore the government is using magic money that would have had no alternate uses, your "broken window = riches" argument is bunk.

It's sad that all you have now after I stripped you of your best argument is to make idiotic comments that are functionally irrelevant.

i can't decide whether it's sadder that you think this is my only argument, or that you think your pathetic strawman has somehow stripped it.

Considering I never argued that, I don't have to. I don't have to prove a fabricated argument you made. You however, have to prove that people are being forced to buy debt and therefore are having their monies taken from them.

not at all; I am merely arguing that if they had not bought debt, they would have done something else with the money; whether savings, investment, or direct consumption. your argument is dependent upon the assumption that had they not bought treasuries that wealth would have not have been used for any other purpose. it assumes no cost-benefit for letting the government allocate those funds v letting the market allocate those funds - which requires that the market must not be able to allocate them. if you want to argue that the wealthy would have instead shoved it into mattresses, or set it on fire... :shrug: however it is that you think that it would have been completely pulled out, I am willing to hear it.

Asshole and correct are not mutually exclusive

:shrug: nor are they synonymous, though often the first is indication that the second is not present. people tend to most aggressively defend the positions they feel are least supported.

It must burn you up that I'm constantly right and constantly pointing out how you are wrong.

:lol:

1. it couldn't because I am not trying to compensate for RW weakness by being a cyber-jackoff
2. it doesn't because the more you argue the more I realize how deeply flawed your analysis is. you aren't even particularly good at defending your positions - you're just needy.

Its amusing you still don't know what a loan guarantee is.

:lol:

a loan guarantee is just that. we basically give another entity our credit rating by agreeing to meet the remainder of the debt should they go belly up - and it costs us nothing... until they do. but i think it's funny how you have to insist that no one is capable of knowing this but you.

Oh look. Cpwill deprived of his sole argument resorts to outright lying

not at all - you have on many occasions called for massive public investment in alternative energies.

My point to which you are once again cowardly avoiding is that direct immediate large cuts to spending will cause another recession which will lead to a worse outcome.

i haven't avoided it at all, i've pointed out the false assumptions in the claim you are making. namely:

1. if the government isn't spending the money, then that money will not exist.
2. massive government expenditure will not distort incentives and will not lead to less efficient allocation of resources

hence the flaw in your "reduction in government spending = reduction in demand" theory. there are plenty of reasons (and multiple historical examples) that indicate that in fact reducing the share of the economy that is taken up by the government will increase productivity and demand.


but, if you like, we could put this to a simple enough test. let us take a list of OECD nations broken down by the size of their government relative to GDP. and then let us list the same nations, but now in order of growth - and let's average for the last 10, 15, and 20 years or so so as to not have outlier years spoil the test. what do you want to bet that the developed nations with higher portions of government spending will grow faster?

Your proposal, that cutting is the answer will make the situation worse.

no, it will not, because it will reudce the percentage of resources currently being allocated for reasons of politics and increase the percentage of resources being allocated for reasons of efficiency and return.

cpwill said:
now watch - you're going to try to correct this by saying the exact same thing, but with positive descriptors. I'm going to point out the failed example of Spain and you are going to insist that Spain doesn't count because of some other outside factor. Because it's always some other outside factor that explains why keynesianism fails to produce the results it predicts. there is always an excuse. the belief remains adamantium-impervious to repeated historical experience.
Obvious Child said:
Spain's problem is largely a housing issue. Their housing issue is arguably worse then ours on a per capita basis. That is severely dragging down its economy, and therefore tax revenues causing a growing deficit problem.

YAY! I Win my bet! :lamo you...just...can't....help....it, can you?


Sorry, but Spain's Problems precede the Housing Bubble popping

...Optimistically treating European Commission partially funded data1, we find that for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, Spain’s experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created....

You know, you wouldn't lose so many arguments if you just bothered to educate yourself about the topic. Trying to cast all of the PIGS as coming from the same problem is extremely ignorant. Ireland stemmed from a single phrase offered by a Fianna Fail finance minster (who recently died of a heart attack) offering a blanket guarantee to banks. (This is a sign I know more then you do). Spain from massive housing bubble. Greece from a variety of issues, stemming from a culture of wholesale tax evasion, failure to curtail spending and backing banks' lending to increase exports. You can't use the same argument against all of them because their situations and causes are all different. You of all people should know that one size fits all doesn't work when you bash Obamacare. But here you have no problem doing that. That makes you a hypocrite.

huh. and what does it make you for depending so desperately on strawmen? you haven't merely claimed that keynesian theory stands even though it has failed with regards to the recent fiscal crises, your argument is that it stands even though it's public spending proscription has failed consistently whenever it's been tried for the last 20 years.

So no, you don't. That's pretty sad Cpwill. You're down to sniping this early in the thread

HAH! youare accusing others of being insulting and dismissive? project much?

Thanks for proving my point. It's amusing to watch you fall to pieces so fast when I killed you only argument.

you do realize that constructing and then smashing a strawman doesn't actually count as defeating an argument?

That's because you have shown a severe lack of understanding of what a spending multiplier is.

no, i know how the theory works. I just also know that the theory is bunk because (again) it assumes that you don't need a cost/benefit analysis on having government v the market allocate those resources - that you can just pretend that those resources had no other possible use.

The same reason you think that economic data isolated from each other are good ways to examining highly complex outcomes

which is funny coming from the guy who insists that you can track the benefits of government spending independent of the alternate uses available to those funds.

TARP saved our butts.

fail again - I wasn't referencing Tarp but rather Bush's stupid keynesian "prime the pump by sending everyone a check/tax credit" idea.

So when are you going to prove that people buy debt because the government points guns at them?

I have never claimed so. your theory, however, depends upon the assumption that had they not purchased that debt, that the money would have been used in no other economic activity. and so that is what I am waiting for you to prove.

show me the money........... silos.

You keep harping back to that, but you freely admit that people invest. Therefore that money is freely given. Meaning that it is NOT forcibly taken from better opportunities

yes. i freely admit it because i have never argued otherwise. in fact, my argument is dependent upon the notion that people wish to buy treasuries, and will do so given the opportunity.

So. Going to be a coward as usual. Got it.

I'll admit, you are a dead horse i can only get so much amusement from beating.
 
Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

I'm starting to question your capacity to read.

For the record. I read nothing you wrote after this. It tells me you have nothing to say.
 
Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

That's hardly a sentiment shared by the slash and burn crowd. I do agree that tax cuts alone will not get us out of the hole. We'd have to basically eviscerate the budget to basically nothing to pay off the debt. Cutting even just the entire discretionary won't erase the deficit. We have to raise taxes and cut services. Anyone who argues otherwise is delusional, incapable of doing math or exceptionally dishonest. What I don't get is how people think how dramatic immediate cuts to demand will increase spending when you take into account spending multipliers.

I can provide links that show these "multipliers" are anything but. You'll just dismiss it as no one wanting to provide evidence against what you write.

What happens when millions of people lose their jobs from those cuts? They spend less. Who suffers? Everyone dependent on their spending. So the second round of cuts start. Who suffers from the first level of indirect? People who rely on their spending. So on and so forth. People who think that massive cuts to demand won't cause domino effects are stupid. We see this right now with government cuts. DOD firms are cutting back as they see the coming defense cuts. Who suffers? Their suppliers. They cut back. Who suffers? Their employees and everyone who depends on their spending. Only idiots think the economy is simple and that changes don't flow through huge networks.

Unfortunately this will happen to a point because people do not want to address fraud and waste. That fraud and waste is going to campaign supporters in part. I believe we can make budget changing cuts by addressing fraud and waste. That is where I would start. The head of a program would be instructed to cut X amount without cutting employee's or services. If they are unable, they would be the one replaced. Nobody is argueing that the deficit will be eliminated overnight.

Now if we just want to cut people, people are going to get even madder than they are now and sooner or later the deficit will have to be addressed. I'm not sure how you think we will get the economy going by taking more money from people.

And did you get flak from that from the so called "right?"

No I didn't. Maybe Obama should try it and see what happens. He'll never do it.

Fiscally, it is conservative in light of our debt that we have no choice but to raise taxes and cut spending. There is no other way to do it mathematically. Generally, those who have real critical thinking problems here, who have problems reading and doing math are those who are pushing the cuts only policy. I'd name names but I'd get warned.

Well, when someone proposes that let me know.

Actually I always argued it failed in its original stated purpose of adding jobs. What I take offense to is the morons who said it did nothing.

I think it's far more likely that they simply dismiss you because you call them morons. It most certainly did something. It got us further into debt.

Not because of their ideological views, but because of their sheer inability to critically think. Apparently they think that in the absence of the stimulus which kept demand relatively stable, demand would have stayed stable despite all indicators to the contrary. It's like they have no concept of how demand plays a central role in a modern economy.

The stimulus curbed demand. This is what you can not seem to understand and you want to call others a moron because you refuse to see the complete picture. People realized that the government borrowed $800 billion and frittered it away and that the bill is going to come due so we better get our finances in order for that day. The more the government spends, the less the tax providers are going to spend.

Not all stimulus is the same. Spending on infrastructure which pays proverbial dividends over decades is hardly the same as a one time tax rebate. Furthermore, remember that a third of the stimulus wasn't actual spending per se. It was tax cuts. They were probably too small in the same light as Bush's. On top of that, much of the real spending happened well after it was needed. The stimulus failed partially because it was not targeted and it was not timely. It is not valid to argue all stimuluses are the same. We probably don't even need another stimulus at this rate (politics aside). But we do not need real dramatic immediate cuts. I have yet to see a reputable economist who thinks that dramatic immediate cuts will increase employment quickly.

Your requirement is dismissable. "dramatic" "immediate" "quickly". All dismissable arguements. Sorry, Obama had his shot at "stimulus". As you note he blew it. He's not getting another shot at it. With things like Solyndra and all the other examples of Obama enriching those who contribute to him, nobody is willingly going to entrust him with another penny.

Considering that both Bush's stimulus and Obama's were entirely debt financed, your argument only works if people were forced to buy debt at gun point. You cannot back that up. So stop using that argument.

You are the one who said people used the money for "necessities". I simply said that allowing people to keep their money to buy "necessities" can not be completely deemed a failure. :shrug:

I also have no doubt in a short amount of time you'll once again argue that nobody will address any of your points.
 
Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

So then the obvious thing to do is to reduce the spending we can and then increase taxes to make up for the deficit and to help pay off our debts.

As I said, when someone actually proposes that, let me know.
 
Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

So then the obvious thing to do is to reduce the spending we can and then increase taxes to make up for the deficit and to help pay off our debts.
The obvious thing to do is become a little more honest and realistic. We cant sustain debt at this rate. We certainly SHOULDNT pass our irresponsibility off on our grandchildren. Reasoned and rational people would look at the entire system, top to bottom and revise everything. If we insist on 'reducing spending we can' we allow partisan politicians to defend their special projects as mandatory and never make cuts. Until there is a firm commitment to less than deficit spending with a plan to pay down the debt, taxes shouldnt be raised a dime...thats like throwing 15 fully loaded syringes at a heroin addict and then acting hurt and surprised that the heroin addict used them. We cannot sustain what the fed has become. Departments and programs MUST be cut. Once you have reached that as a realistic perspective, THEN target tax increases specifically designed to pay down the debt.
 
Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

As I said, when someone actually proposes that, let me know.

Okay, I'm letting you know. This is what Democrats have proposed over and over again. The current proposal from Democrats on the super committee includes 6:1 spending cuts to revenue increases.

The Repbulicans, OTOH, are proposing to reduce the deficit by eliminating $800 billion in revenue. They are completely divorced from reality.
 
Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

nah. history shows us the path we must take. we cut spending, and then even though that is supposed to be disastrous "some other undefined but still apparently massively powerful impact" will come in and save us. :)

Where does history show us this?

The UK? Where austerity programs have completely stalled out the economy?
UK economy slumps to 0.2% growth - HFFM Forum

We all know how wall the Greek austerity program is working - doubled unemployment and shrinking the economy.

Government Spending Chart in United States 1902-2015 - Federal State Local

Government spending in relation to GDP is perfectly in line with where it has been historically. We should continue to reduce in areas, yes. Entitlement reform is necessary as we face the onslaught of Boomer retirements, for sure.

Bruce Bartlett: Are Taxes in the U.S. High or Low? - NYTimes.com

Tax revenue as a share of GDP is approximately 14.6% - the lowest it's been in 60 years. Under Reagan, the average tax revenue to GDP ratio was 18.2%.

This IS a revenue problem. Rates are too low and collection is hampered by a damaged economy - an economy that many more people are recognizing now - that was killed by staggering inequality and nearly all economic gains going to a very small portion of the population.

Wealth And Inequality In America
 
Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

Okay, I'm letting you know. This is what Democrats have proposed over and over again. The current proposal from Democrats on the super committee includes 6:1 spending cuts to revenue increases.

The Repbulicans, OTOH, are proposing to reduce the deficit by eliminating $800 billion in revenue. They are completely divorced from reality.

No it doesn't. They want taxes now. Spending now. Promises of cuts later. That is never going to pass. No new spending. Cuts now and then we can consider taxes.
 
Re: Boehner rejects Democrats’ $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal to ‘supercommit

not really - selling treasuries still accomplishes that. it just doesn't do it through coercion.

the POINT, which is that selling treasuries is removing money from the private market and turning it into public expenditures remains.

Which only makes sense if there were investment choices that investors would pick otherwise. Which as I pointed out to 1perry is not the case. As usual, you are wrong. You again leave out key pieces of information in your one size fits all ideology. You never bother to examine the key points, you never bother to examine why things are different. Basically you take a IMF approach, one size fits all, ignore anything different. Hence why you constantly lose.

until you can prove that treasuries don't get sold and therefore the government is using magic money that would have had no alternate uses, your "broken window = riches" argument is bunk.

Come again? That makes no sense. A trillion dollars on corporate balance sheets and growing collective individual savings suggests, you are as usual, wrong. You of course will have no actual response to the actual conditions on the ground. They don't fit your one size fits all policies.

i can't decide whether it's sadder that you think this is my only argument, or that you think your pathetic strawman has somehow stripped it.

Considering you are down to sniping and reliance upon arguments that completely ignore how corporations and individuals are spending/savings their money, yes you don't have another real argument.

not at all; I am merely arguing that if they had not bought debt, they would have done something else with the money; whether savings, investment, or direct consumption. your argument is dependent upon the assumption that had they not bought treasuries that wealth would have not have been used for any other purpose. it assumes no cost-benefit for letting the government allocate those funds v letting the market allocate those funds - which requires that the market must not be able to allocate them. if you want to argue that the wealthy would have instead shoved it into mattresses, or set it on fire... :shrug: however it is that you think that it would have been completely pulled out, I am willing to hear it.

Seriously, are you completely cut off from the market since the past 3 years? Corporations are literally sitting on a trillion dollars of cash. Individual consumption is way down compared to the boom years. Even luxury spending is considerably off compared to the mid-2000s. Large numbers of investors are buying gold and little else. It's not just the wealthy. Large institutional money artificially pumped oil up to record highs because there was little else to buy. Your argument is completely idiotic because you are assuming there are opportunities out there that are superior. If that was the case, we should not see treasuries with at times, negative yields. As for the savings arguments, the low rates of lending coupled with at times negative growth per inflation, savings is actually doing nothing.

:shrug: nor are they synonymous, though often the first is indication that the second is not present. people tend to most aggressively defend the positions they feel are least supported.

*sigh* I've already argued this point a dozen times before. You and your kin's inability to actually learn anything is why I'm starting to become a real asshole to you. Failing to learn anything a dozen times tries my patience. I call you people cowards because you are. This argument has been hashed out so many times and you people always run away. I simply do not have the patience to deal with you nicely, not that it would matter, you don't learn anyways.

1. it couldn't because I am not trying to compensate for RW weakness by being a cyber-jackoff
2. it doesn't because the more you argue the more I realize how deeply flawed your analysis is. you aren't even particularly good at defending your positions - you're just needy.

That coming from a guy who thinks that a trillion dollars sitting on corporate balance sheets doing nothing and huge amounts piling up collectively for individuals is a sign that money is being used.

Really. My analysis is wrong that such income isn't being used...but your analysis that by doing nothing it's doing something is right?

That is a sign of a crackpot belief.

:lol:

a loan guarantee is just that. we basically give another entity our credit rating by agreeing to meet the remainder of the debt should they go belly up - and it costs us nothing... until they do. but i think it's funny how you have to insist that no one is capable of knowing this but you.

Considering how you had to look that up before replying to me, you are finally one of them. :)

not at all - you have on many occasions called for massive public investment in alternative energies.

Wow. Could you lie some more? What I argued for is not what you are claiming. Yes, we do need to invest in alternative energy. That is not the same thing as simply giving money out willy nilly as you are implying.

i haven't avoided it at all, i've pointed out the false assumptions in the claim you are making. namely:

1. if the government isn't spending the money, then that money will not exist.

No one except you argued that. As evident by your constantly cowardly refusal to address the growing cash mountain, the private sector and private individuals are not spending the cash. And savings rates are so low that they frankly aren't going anywhere in relation to inflation. Effectively the money does nothing. It is not that the money does not exist, it is still in M1. It's just that the velocity is zero and multiplier is zero. Meaning, it is doing nothing. Therefore, that would if freely invested by individuals could do something if the government used it. Your asinine crackpot argument argues that money doing nothing is money doing something.

2. massive government expenditure will not distort incentives and will not lead to less efficient allocation of resources

Considering I never argued that was wrong, only that immediate spending cuts would lead to a recession that money sitting around doing nothing does nothing you are once again a liar. My argument is not at all based on such an assumption.

hence the flaw in your "reduction in government spending = reduction in demand" theory. there are plenty of reasons (and multiple historical examples) that indicate that in fact reducing the share of the economy that is taken up by the government will increase productivity and demand.

Over the long term. Which you as usual leave out because it harms your argument. Let's rehash. Your first point is bunk because it relies upon the stupid belief that money doing nothing is money doing something and your second argument which isn't even relevant.

Can you fail a little less next time?

but, if you like, we could put this to a simple enough test. let us take a list of OECD nations broken down by the size of their government relative to GDP. and then let us list the same nations, but now in order of growth - and let's average for the last 10, 15, and 20 years or so so as to not have outlier years spoil the test. what do you want to bet that the developed nations with higher portions of government spending will grow faster?

You doing to run regression to eliminate other factors or going to a hack and pretend that only your factor is important? Bet I can guess!

no, it will not, because it will reudce the percentage of resources currently being allocated for reasons of politics and increase the percentage of resources being allocated for reasons of efficiency and return.

You mean like that trillion dollars on corporate balance sheets doing nothing efficiently? Oh wait. Why are you completely incapable of even acknowledging that? Oh, I know why. Because it hurts your beliefs. Got it.
YAY! I Win my bet! :lamo you...just...can't....help....it, can you?

You know, it's generally a bad idea to keep rehashing the same refuted argument. That study again assumes money would have automatically been used more efficiently. Want to tell me how spending on pet rocks is more efficient then spending on space research? Oh wait. You won't. Relying upon a study which assumes the basis of its argument without proving it is a classic failure. You are begging the question and you don't even get why it's a bad argument. Furthermore, the impact upon Spain from such an activity is relatively minor as a percent of its economy. The housing issue is far more of a concern. Which you of course cannot deal with.

huh. and what does it make you for depending so desperately on strawmen? you haven't merely claimed that keynesian theory stands even though it has failed with regards to the recent fiscal crises, your argument is that it stands even though it's public spending proscription has failed consistently whenever it's been tried for the last 20 years.

You really outta stop defining strawman as anything you can't refute. Care to post an actual study for a change? Not one that ignores monetary policy, oil, the internet and basically every piece of information out there?

Btw, Bush used Keynesian theory to get us out of the 2001 recession. Whoops. WWIII was a Keynesian action. Germany's rise from WWI ashes was Keynesian. China's been riding double digit growth for ten years on Keynesian. Failed consistently eh? O'rly?

HAH! youare accusing others of being insulting and dismissive? project much?

Except that you are wrong. I'm not. Who's the one who's pretending that a trillion dollars doing nothing is doing something? You. Not me.

you do realize that constructing and then smashing a strawman doesn't actually count as defeating an argument?

Once again, defining strawman as anything you can't refute is a perversion of the English Language.

no, i know how the theory works. I just also know that the theory is bunk because (again) it assumes that you don't need a cost/benefit analysis on having government v the market allocate those resources - that you can just pretend that those resources had no other possible use.

Do you ever stop lying? In good economic times the government should cut spending as the market has returned to normal operations and allocates resources better. During bad times, such as now, when private sector spending significantly drops and money does literally nothing, the government should step in and spend on long term durable assets that the private sector will later use. You are being dishonest as usual by ignoring that key part. Your argument stems on the stupid belief that the private sector is spending like it did in 2006.

which is funny coming from the guy who insists that you can track the benefits of government spending independent of the alternate uses available to those funds.

Considering that the alternative uses in this case are essentially none, which you keep ignoring because you can't deal with it, in this case, we can do it. Your entire argument is predicated upon a condition that does not exist at the current moment. IF we were in a 2006 like spending craze, yes you would be right. We are not. It's just your argument hasn't accounted for the fact it's not 2006. Back to your one size fits all policy.

fail again - I wasn't referencing Tarp but rather Bush's stupid keynesian "prime the pump by sending everyone a check/tax credit" idea.

So tax cuts and supply side fails?

I have never claimed so. your theory, however, depends upon the assumption that had they not purchased that debt, that the money would have been used in no other economic activity. and so that is what I am waiting for you to prove.

show me the money........... silos.

How about a trillion dollars in corporate books doing absolutely nothing?

yes. i freely admit it because i have never argued otherwise. in fact, my argument is dependent upon the notion that people wish to buy treasuries, and will do so given the opportunity.

Except that you argued that the government is taking peoples' money. If they were taking peoples' money away from them, it would imply that people had better choices with their money and would have otherwise invested in those choices. Therefore you as usual, are wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom