• 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!

Obama chides GOP on debt limit: 'We are not a deadbeat nation'

Kushinator said:
WTF are you talking about? You see, this is the problem; it is impossible to have a discussion with someone who cannot even stay within the context of the discussion. Case in point (i will only use two examples for time sake):

When you made a comment: (which was in disagreement)
Click to expand...

I've been within the context of the discussion the entire time. It's not my problem you are having difficulty following along.

You believe nearly 6 trillion spent in 4 years wasn't enough. Obviously I disagree.

You believe yearly trillion dollar deficits (when the government currently is receiving more than 2T annually) isn't enough spending. I disagree.

You believe massive Keynesian Stimulus spending creates jobs, and sustained Economic Growth. I disagree. It didn't work when FDR tried it. It didn't work when Obama tried it. Both of those failures also led to enormous Opportunity Costs and Negative Externalities within the private economy that prolonged both recessions when that could have easily been avoided with more prudent economic policies. These are facts that are beyond dispute.

I responded with support for my argument:
Click to expand...

Except the problem is your argument was a strawman that was easily refuted/debunked. You're trying to have a conversation in a box where you set all the rules. It doesn't work that way. There are reasons why your "argument" is a house of cards that collapses under close scrutiny.

1. As was stated in my previous post, and for some reason you completely ignore it (I sense a pattern here) the CBO also stated that the 800B was fully accounted for, meaning that the obligations for the appropriation of those funds were in place. The table was set so to speak. So your assumption is they just needed to spend more of the Stimulus for job/economic growth is a red herring, (we know that didn't happen.) which leads to point number 2.

2. Only 400K jobs will be sustained by Stimulus spending by the end of 2013. That's about 2 million per job. Again, obviously not a very good investment of taxpayer dollars. As time goes on, each job created by the "Stimulus" becomes more costly. The spending becomes more ineffective as time goes on. There are reasons for this. One being that Government doesn't operate with the same profit motive as the private sector, so therefore it doesn't appropriate resources in the most effective and efficient ways. I really don't understand why you are trying to dispute this. It's proven Economic Theory and a lot of it is explained in Buchanan's Public Choice Theory. In other words in reality, Stimulus Spending is really just Government giving money away, except the problem is it doesn't have a firm indicator on things such price/value for the things it's handing money to.

That's why I provided multiple examples of Obama's "failed Green Job Investments". It doesn't get any clearer than that really. Obama made those investments for Ideological reasons, base upon voting. Not sound Economic Policy. It shows that the Stimulus spending in large part was dolled out to Special Interests and the people who got Obama voted into office. Unions, Campaign Bundlers, ect. This is beyond refute. The Stimulus was infested with cronyism. There was no competition or profit motive to discipline the allocation of resources by Government within Obama's Failed Stimulus Package.

3. The ARRA according to the WH's own projections only "created or saved" about 3 million jobs. That's about 260K per saved or created job. Obviously that money would have been invested more wisely by those in the private sector who created that wealth, than the Government who by it's own admission is squandering 125B a year in "improper payments". You want everyone to believe that if we only allowed Obama to spend more money, his Keynesian Policies would have worked. The evidence clearly shows otherwise.

To which you respond in a manner that does not AT ALL pertain to my argument:

I never claimed anything was not spent; not one time! My point was that the stimulus package was small, which can be reflected in its representation of U.S. output for each particular year. You continue with your rant by stating NOTHING that can be even considered a minor refutation of my point; the stimulus was far too small. How can it be possible to have a coherent discussion with someone who refuses to respond with even minimal relevance?
Click to expand...

550438.jpeg


800B is small? 260K per "saved or created job" is small? We know where the money went. To Unions, crony campaign bundlers, Government workers, Solydra, Brightsource, A123 Systems, ect. They didn't get enough taxpayer dollars? You're doing nothing more that repeating talking points put forth by Paul Krugman. You are also forgetting TARP, which the Stimulus followed, which was another 700B. Obama inherited half those funds to spend. Obama and the Democrats also signed the Omnibus Spending bill. Another 330B. Obama's Stimulus was the most expensive Government intervention in the US Economy in it's entire History. Your only argument (which is nothing more than a Krugman talking point) is that it wasn't enough.

Obama's Stimulus was such a failure that his Administration stopped releasing reports about during 2012, because they knew those reports could potentially be damning to his reelection chances. That's how bad it was. I can't even believe the crux of your entire argument is that it wasn't big enough. That stinks of desperation and some seriously spiked Kool-Aid. Here is Obama's own December 2011 Report. Each job cost more than 300K, but we get it, "The Stimulus wasn't big enough" Economic Growth requires good spending. Not more spending.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/cea_8th_arra_report_final_draft.pdf

I go on to explain why the negative externalities/opportunity cost of large fiscal deficits are minor at best:
Click to expand...

Except that they aren't minor at all. Maybe in fantasyland they are minor, but only a radical ideologue would make such a claim. The innovations, investment, job growth, wealth creation by Individuals pursuing their own self interests (Instead of Government confiscated their money and redistributing it) is not something that can be easily dismissed, nor is it something that can easily be calculated. You're assuming that a Centrally Planned Authority that controlled all that money made the best possible choices, investments, and use of that Capital. Your assumptions are incorrect.

This is the problem with massive Keynesian Stimulus Packages. They are sugar highs. Spikes, but if you look at them over the long term there is clear evidence they don't work. That's why the % of Americans of working age who are employed right now (59%) is EXACTLY the same as it was before Obama passed his Stimulus. All that money spent was a wash. There was NO NET GAIN. Obama never saw GDP reach 4% during his first term, and that was with his Omnibus Spending Bill and Stimulus Package. On the contrary Reagan saw GDP Growth as high 9% with a million jobs created on 1 month. As a matter of fact, during the same month and same year of Reagan's first term, the economy created a million jobs, where during Obama's first term ZERO jobs were created in that same month. Again, after the Stimulus was passed.

Economy Gains No Jobs in August, Rate Holds at 9.1%

The US economy created no jobs and the unemployment rate held steadily higher at 9.1 percent in August, fueling concerns that the US is heading for another recession.

It was the first time since World War II that the economy had precisely net zero jobs created for a month.
Click to expand...

To which you repsond:

??? Crowding out is the instance where government spending takes money out of capital markets to the tune where private investment is stiffeled! It is not called risk, it is called crowding out private investment. Again, how is it possible to have a coherent discussion with someone who cannot even comprehend the vocabulary associated with their own arguments?!?!?! Crowding out is THE negative externality/opportunity cost of large budgetary deficits. :doh

When you discover the ability to have an adult discussion, then by all means.... But what you have put forth so far is... well, rather embarrassing.
Click to expand...

You're all over the map here and you obviously completely misunderstood my point of contention. That much is obvious. I never claimed "crowding out" was risk, not sure why you're attempting another strawman here. You also once again conveniently ignore my main point, which is that LABOR was crowded out with Stimulus Funding. Where I mentioned risk is in regards to WHO invests/spends the money (Public Choice Theory). It really is quite a simple economic concept, which is probably why you can't comprehend it.

I'm sensing you really don't know what you are talking about at all here, and have been reduced to nothing more than a bunch of strawmen and red herrings while chirping away Krugman talking points you've read on his blog. Kind of a shame really. You also failed to address every point I made in my previous post, as well as numerous points made in the post before that. Clearly you are unable to offer any rebuttals. I stated previously that I wouldn't respond to you unless you addressed EVERY POINT I made in the previous post. I've gone ahead and made an exception here just once, but consider that a mulligan. From now on, if you are going to have any credibility with me beyond a Krugman Parrot, you must address EVERY POINT of contention like I have done with you.

Have a great evening :2wave:
 
sangha said:
translation - your post was dishonest.

QUelle surprise
Click to expand...

Nice try. It wasn't dishonest, and the truth remains, Democrats have repeatedly done what they are crying about Reps doing.
 
sangha said:
Everyone knows history well enough to know that it was bush*, not Clinton, who invaded Iraq.

Well, everybody but one
Click to expand...

That's not what she said. She said "had nothing to do with" which is clearly not the case. Clinton attacked Iraq and created the US position of removing Saddam from power. Even a fool knows it's dishonest to ignore all that for the sake of partisanship.
 
sangha said:
even a fool would recognize that she meant he had nothing to do with invading Iraq. That was all on bush*
Click to expand...

mac said:
That's not what she said. She said "had nothing to do with" which is clearly not the case. Clinton attacked Iraq and created the US position of removing Saddam from power. Even a fool knows it's dishonest to ignore all that for the sake of partisanship.
Click to expand...


Moderator's Warning:
BOTH of you knock off the personal attacks.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Should the debt ceiling not be raised in a timely fashion and should the nation wind up having to prioritize, no matter how those who refused to raise the debt ceiling posture, they will have put the nation into partial default. They, alone, will have pushed the nation across a threshold for which risk perceptions would be altered for an extended period of time. Their act of irresponsibility would elevate the nation's risk profile, as they would have demonstrated that the nation's meeting its obligations in a timely fashion is not a binding constraint. Elevated risk would lead to an increase in interest payments above what would otherwise have been the case. As a consequence, those policy makers, far from demonstrating fiscal responsibility, would be solely responsible for increasing the present value of the nation's long-term imbalances. They would have made a deliberate and conscious choice to increase the nation's spending and through a mechanism that provides no benefits to the nation's taxpayers.
Click to expand...

This is not really true. The debt ceiling being increased allows Government to borrow on the backs of tax payers (today and future). No increase in the debt ceiling will force Uncle Sam to have a budget around $2.4 trillion (probably 2.5 or 2.6 trillion in 2013), which ironically is $300 billion more then what was required based on mandatory spending ($2.1 trillion in 2012). To avoid default all the US really needs to pay is mandatory spending (which is 100% covered by law). So all the US has to do is find cuts of $1.2 trillion. Bet a few on this forum could give you a list of things they could deal without being funded. ;)
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
There are few, if any, on the right pushing for the notion of defaulting on our loans or on our mandatory spending.
Click to expand...

There is no either or here.. since interest payments are mandatory spending.
 
upsideguy said:
No, it would have to prioritize on its PAYMENTS (as the spending has already incurred) and decide which of its already in-place obligations it wishes to default on.

You can completely shut down government and send everyone home, including the the POTUS, the SCOTUS and the COTUS, the entire military, the FBI/CIA and Border Patrol and THEN the incoming receipts would cover the obligations of the government as the discretionary spend of the US is only $1.5T

This works in the short-run, as laying off the entire government creates its own recession and revenues dwindle.
Click to expand...

the u.s. is spending about 10 billion a day, and on the average it receives about 6.4 billion a day in revenue.
 
Today, Politico.com posted a story that mentions that Senator Toomey, and Congressmen Scalise and Webster, among others, who are oblivious to the consequences of not raising the debt ceiling.

Default deniers scoff at debt-ceiling apocalypse - Rachael Bade - POLITICO.com

They assert that the federal government would continue to meet its obligations to its creditors, hence there would be no debt default. What they miss is the reality that the federal government has other obligations ranging from paying out Social Security benefits to the Military's salaries. Not meeting those payments on a timely basis would amount to a partial default, even if creditors are paid in full and on time. Such a partial default would have adverse macroeconomic consequences directly through a sharp reduction in government spending (one of the components of GDP, even if the above three might not realize that) and indirectly through a hit on consumption and gross private domestic investment (multiplier effect).

Toomey, et al., believe that such an outcome would not constitute a failure on the part of the U.S. to meet its obligations. At best, they are dangerously naive. What they are suggesting would be the equivalent of a family's not paying its bills while honoring its loan/credit card/mortgage payments. The family's credit rating would be damaged. Partial default will damage the U.S. credit rating. Should a partial default take place from the nation's not raising the debt ceiling in a timely fashion, those who precipitated it--no matter their rationale--will be directly and wholly responsible for that outcome and its consequences.

They would do much better to offer a specific and credible fiscal consolidation plan. That would require leadership in a way that recklessness does not.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Today, Politico.com posted a story that mentions that Senator Toomey, and Congressmen Scalise and Webster, among others, who are oblivious to the consequences of not raising the debt ceiling.

Default deniers scoff at debt-ceiling apocalypse - Rachael Bade - POLITICO.com

They assert that the federal government would continue to meet its obligations to its creditors, hence there would be no debt default. What they miss is the reality that the federal government has other obligations ranging from paying out Social Security benefits to the Military's salaries. Not meeting those payments on a timely basis would amount to a partial default, even if creditors are paid in full and on time. Such a partial default would have adverse macroeconomic consequences directly through a sharp reduction in government spending (one of the components of GDP, even if the above three might not realize that) and indirectly through a hit on consumption and gross private domestic investment (multiplier effect).

Toomey, et al., believe that such an outcome would not constitute a failure on the part of the U.S. to meet its obligations. At best, they are dangerously naive. What they are suggesting would be the equivalent of a family's not paying its bills while honoring its loan/credit card/mortgage payments. The family's credit rating would be damaged. Partial default will damage the U.S. credit rating. Should a partial default take place from the nation's not raising the debt ceiling in a timely fashion, those who precipitated it--no matter their rationale--will be directly and wholly responsible for that outcome and its consequences.

They would do much better to offer a specific and credible fiscal consolidation plan. That would require leadership in a way that recklessness does not.
Click to expand...

Lead by example. Offer your own plan.
 
jonny5 said:
Lead by example. Offer your own plan.
Click to expand...

As I'm not in the Senate or Congress, I can't introduce legislation. Nonetheless, I will repeat what I have embraced in the past:

1. Parametric Social Security and Medicare reforms: Raise the age of eligibility to 67 over 10 years and then peg the age to life expectancies.
2. Index changes in Social Security benefits to prices, not wages.
3. The remaining actuarial liability for Social Security--it would be modest once the above changes are implemented--should be closed by an increase in the payroll tax (raising the ceiling to where it had previously been and then pegging that ceiling to nominal wages so that it remains constant, rather than eroding in real terms).
4. Medicare should be subject to means-testing.
5. Introduce continual cost assessment to the Pentagon and other departments. Such a framework would reduce the risk of badly-managed projects such as the Joint Strike fighter program that are now running at more than twice the intended cost per jet, not to mention hobbled by delays. The Pentagon, like any other entity in the federal government, must learn to obtain more value per dollar of spending.

While imperfect, a number of the above concepts have been cited by the IMF (e.g., parametric reforms to mandatory spending programs), Bowles-Simpson, GAO, among others. Those changes would represent a meaningful start to fiscal consolidation. Neither Senator Toomey nor the two Congressmen I mentioned in the message to which you have referred have introduced legislation to address Social Security's and Medicare's imbalances. None of them offered fiscal cliff legislation that would have dealt with spending-related issues.

Finally, it should also be noted that comprehensive health reform that addresses supply-side and demand-side issues, including cost drivers, would be necessary to make the nation's health care system financially sustainable. Its costs cannot increase perpetually at a multiple of GDP as currently remains the case. Foreigners are not likely to subsidize the nation's health care imbalances indefinitely via deficit funding.
 
donsutherland1 said:
As I'm not in the Senate or Congress, I can't introduce legislation. Nonetheless, I will repeat what I have embraced in the past:

1. Parametric Social Security and Medicare reforms: Raise the age of eligibility to 67 over 10 years and then peg the age to life expectancies.
2. Index changes in Social Security benefits to prices, not wages.
3. The remaining actuarial liability for Social Security--it would be modest once the above changes are implemented--should be closed by an increase in the payroll tax (raising the ceiling to where it had previously been and then pegging that ceiling to nominal wages so that it remains constant, rather than eroding in real terms).
4. Medicare should be subject to means-testing.
5. Introduce continual cost assessment to the Pentagon and other departments. Such a framework would reduce the risk of badly-managed projects such as the Joint Strike fighter program that are now running at more than twice the intended cost per jet, not to mention hobbled by delays. The Pentagon, like any other entity in the federal government, must learn to obtain more value per dollar of spending.

While imperfect, a number of the above concepts have been cited by the IMF (e.g., parametric reforms to mandatory spending programs), Bowles-Simpson, GAO, among others. Those changes would represent a meaningful start to fiscal consolidation. Neither Senator Toomey nor the two Congressmen I mentioned in the message to which you have referred have introduced legislation to address Social Security's and Medicare's imbalances. None of them offered fiscal cliff legislation that would have dealt with spending-related issues.

Finally, it should also be noted that comprehensive health reform that addresses supply-side and demand-side issues, including cost drivers, would be necessary to make the nation's health care system financially sustainable. Its costs cannot increase perpetually at a multiple of GDP as currently remains the case. Foreigners are not likely to subsidize the nation's health care imbalances indefinitely via deficit funding.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a good start. Get that passed to where it balances the budget and there is no need to raise the debt ceiling. So why are we even arguing about it? No money has been appropriated past March. The govt takes in enough revenue to pay interest on the debt and accomplished all of the mandatory duties of the govt required by law. So there is no need to raise the limit. The Executive branch will simply have to figure out how to enforce the law without spending more than they have.
 
mac said:
Nice try. It wasn't dishonest, and the truth remains, Democrats have repeatedly done what they are crying about Reps doing.
Click to expand...

It was dishonest. All you've shown is that one time, a few dems tried to do it.

mac said:
That's not what she said. She said "had nothing to do with" which is clearly not the case. Clinton attacked Iraq and created the US position of removing Saddam from power. Even a fool knows it's dishonest to ignore all that for the sake of partisanship.
Click to expand...

And Clinton had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq. That was bush*
 
Bronson said:
I've been within the context of the discussion the entire time. It's not my problem you are having difficulty following along.
Click to expand...

Nonsense! As previously stated, you are simply incapable of having a relevant discussion that pertains to fiscal and macroeconomic policy.

You believe nearly 6 trillion spent in 4 years wasn't enough. Obviously I disagree.
Click to expand...

Your disagreement is strictly based on ideology.

You believe yearly trillion dollar deficits (when the government currently is receiving more than 2T annually) isn't enough spending. I disagree.
Click to expand...

I believe that current spending levels combined with a completely expansive/unconventional monetary policy initiative is enough to keep the economy from tumbling. Your disagreement is strictly based on ideology.

You believe massive Keynesian Stimulus spending creates jobs, and sustained Economic Growth.
Click to expand...

I know that auto-stabilization policies along with fiscal stimulus has helped to overt a greater depression.

It didn't work when FDR tried it.
Click to expand...

FDR didn't "try it" until the war (which is an inefficient but sometimes necessary path). The paper that you tried to link even confirmed as much.

Any estimate is likely to be for a balanced-budget multiplier because the deficits were very small relative to the size of the problem. Scholars have repeatedly shown that the New Deal was not a Keynesian attempt to deal with the Depression
Click to expand...

It didn't work when Obama tried it. Both of those failures also led to enormous Opportunity Costs and Negative Externalities within the private economy that prolonged both recessions when that could have easily been avoided with more prudent economic policies. These are facts that are beyond dispute.
Click to expand...

Didn't work? The economy continues to grow, even though the response in the labor market has not been optimal (which is a symptom that the private sector is still faces demand shortfalls along with structural discontinuities in the labor market). The net worth of households and non-profits is close (after 4 years) to pre-recession levels (see line 16 and 31).

Except the problem is your argument was a strawman that was easily refuted/debunked.
Click to expand...

How on earth can you label it as a strawman? I made a statement that the stimulus lacked magnitude and velocity, and backed it up with appropriate data. You proceeded to refute a point i did not make. I would refer to this as a red herring but that is giving you far too much credit; reason being you did not even understand my argument.

You're trying to have a conversation in a box where you set all the rules.
Click to expand...

Nonsense! I am trying to establish a dialog yet you chose to go off on tangents that do not pertain to the discussion at hand.

1.CBO also stated that the 800B was fully accounted for, meaning that the obligations for the appropriation of those funds were in place.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant! If my argument is that the appropriations were not large or fast enough, the fact that these slow/small appropriations were in place is irrelevant! It cannot be considered a refutation of my argument.

So your assumption is they just needed to spend more of the Stimulus for job/economic growth is a red herring, (we know that didn't happen.)
Click to expand...

It is an inconvienent argument to those who disagree with fiscal stimulus that is proposed by an administration represented by their opposition party.

2. Only 400K jobs will be sustained by Stimulus spending by the end of 2013. That's about 2 million per job. Again, obviously not a very good investment of taxpayer dollars. As time goes on, each job created by the "Stimulus" becomes more costly. The spending becomes more ineffective as time goes on. There are reasons for this. One being that Government doesn't operate with the same profit motive as the private sector, so therefore it doesn't appropriate resources in the most effective and efficient ways. I really don't understand why you are trying to dispute this. It's proven Economic Theory and a lot of it is explained in Buchanan's Public Choice Theory. In other words in reality, Stimulus Spending is really just Government giving money away, except the problem is it doesn't have a firm indicator on things such price/value for the things it's handing money to.

That's why I provided multiple examples of Obama's "failed Green Job Investments". It doesn't get any clearer than that really. Obama made those investments for Ideological reasons, base upon voting. Not sound Economic Policy. It shows that the Stimulus spending in large part was dolled out to Special Interests and the people who got Obama voted into office. Unions, Campaign Bundlers, ect. This is beyond refute. The Stimulus was infested with cronyism. There was no competition or profit motive to discipline the allocation of resources by Government within Obama's Failed Stimulus Package.
Click to expand...

The motivation behind stimulus is to provide a short term boost in total economic activity as a means of shoring up aggregate demand. I do agree that the stimulus was not optimally designed, to which blame falls on both political parties. The first going towards the current administration for not identifying exactly how deep the economic contraction was, while the other goes to any politician that lacks the political will to support a stimulus package that is equipped to bridge the economic gap left by a plunge in aggregate demand. Providing sources that illustrate a per-cost for each job saved or lost by the actual stimulus does not refute this point whatsoever.

The ARRA according to the WH's own projections only "created or saved" about 3 million jobs. That's about 260K per saved or created job. Obviously that money would have been invested more wisely by those in the private sector who created that wealth, than the Government who by it's own admission is squandering 125B a year in "improper payments". You want everyone to believe that if we only allowed Obama to spend more money, his Keynesian Policies would have worked. The evidence clearly shows otherwise.
Click to expand...

You simply do not understand how capital markets operate in a predominately free economy. The federal government borrowed (meaning private entities lent) excess capital accumulated by years of savings. With accommodative monetary policy by the Federal Reserve, there is/was not a capital shortfall for any private entity who had the desire to borrow. This can be illustrated by interest rate differentials within the corporate and sovereign debt markets. The cost of borrowing for the private sector has never been lower (even during the Great Depression). I am not here to argue whether or not the private sector is more efficient at investing. The point i am repeatedly making is that the private sector was in survival mode let alone expansion mode. This can be illustrated by declines in revenue and investment.

800B is small? 260K per "saved or created job" is small?
Click to expand...

Did i say that $800 billion is small? Not once! I said that $800 billion spanned out primarily through 4 years was not nearly large enough to bridge the economic gap left by the private sector.

Your only argument (which is nothing more than a Krugman talking point) is that it wasn't enough.
Click to expand...

Nope! This has been the sentiment by many well-to-do's on Wall Street as well:



Except that they aren't minor at all. Maybe in fantasyland they are minor, but only a radical ideologue would make such a claim. The innovations, investment, job growth, wealth creation by Individuals pursuing their own self interests (Instead of Government confiscated their money and redistributing it) is not something that can be easily dismissed, nor is it something that can easily be calculated. You're assuming that a Centrally Planned Authority that controlled all that money made the best possible choices, investments, and use of that Capital. Your assumptions are incorrect.
Click to expand...

No i am not. I am simply providing the evidence; there is no crowding out of private investment. To make such an argument you are going to have to show that the user cost of capital is increasing in a linear fashion with the level of government spending. Is this the case? Can you show the spread between corporate paper/bonds and U.S. government debt is making expansion difficult? No you cannot! Can you show that corporate America is lacking capital for investment? Of course not! It is a simple case of you not being capable of understanding your own argument (crowding out is THE opportunity cost/negative externality of deficit spending).

This is the problem with massive Keynesian Stimulus Packages. They are sugar highs.
Click to expand...

No ****! That is the point of short term fiscal stimulus; to temporarily bridge the economic output gap until the private sector is ready to lead the charge. So far, they are not up to the challenge which is understandable given the enormous hole they need to climb out of and the lack of fiscal support.

That's why the % of Americans of working age who are employed right now (59%) is EXACTLY the same as it was before Obama passed his Stimulus.
Click to expand...

This is nonsense. The reason labor force participation is at this low level (actually it is at it's historical average!) is due to structural discontinuities that persist in the labor market; namely an aging population, prevalence of low-skilled/low-wage labor in Anglo economies, and a demand for skill sets that outpaces supply. To believe there is causality from deficit spending is rather naive.

On the contrary Reagan saw GDP Growth as high 9% with a million jobs created on 1 month. As a matter of fact, during the same month and same year of Reagan's first term, the economy created a million jobs, where during Obama's first term ZERO jobs were created in that same month. Again, after the Stimulus was passed.
Click to expand...

You can't compare the worst financially driven recession since the Great Depression with the interest rate induced recession of the early 1980s. It makes no sense to do so. The Reagan administration never had to contend with wealth losses in the scope of 100% of GDP.

fredgraph.png


You're all over the map here and you obviously completely misunderstood my point of contention. That much is obvious. I never claimed "crowding out" was risk, not sure why you're attempting another strawman here. You also once again conveniently ignore my main point, which is that LABOR was crowded out with Stimulus Funding. Where I mentioned risk is in regards to WHO invests/spends the money (Public Choice Theory). It really is quite a simple economic concept, which is probably why you can't comprehend it.
Click to expand...

The incoherent rambling continues!

I'm sensing you really don't know what you are talking about at all here, and have been reduced to nothing more than a bunch of strawmen and red herrings while chirping away Krugman talking points you've read on his blog. Kind of a shame really. You also failed to address every point I made in my previous post, as well as numerous points made in the post before that. Clearly you are unable to offer any rebuttals. I stated previously that I wouldn't respond to you unless you addressed EVERY POINT I made in the previous post. I've gone ahead and made an exception here just once, but consider that a mulligan. From now on, if you are going to have any credibility with me beyond a Krugman Parrot, you must address EVERY POINT of contention like I have done with you.
Click to expand...

You have yet to make one relevant point.
 
The incoherent rambling continues!



You have yet to make one relevant point.
Click to expand...

The funniest thing he said was "LABOR was crowded out with Stimulus Funding.", an argument I've never heard anyone make
 
Khayembii Communique said:
An appropriations bill is a form of budgeting. I'm sorry if you got caught up in the semantics, but it doesn't really matter what you want to call it.



If republicans wanted to be consistent in their position they would oppose the appropriations bills and shut the government down. They would not support the appropriations bills then oppose raising the debt ceiling to finance the spending they approved. That is hypocritical. Obama is not choosing to negotiate on this issue because it really should not be a problem to raise the debt ceiling to fund the spending that congress has already approved. That is why he is not negotiating. These talks should be within the context of the budget, not the debt ceiling.
Click to expand...

First we need a budget
 
Kushinator said:
Nonsense! As previously stated, you are simply incapable of having a relevant discussion that pertains to fiscal and macroeconomic policy.



Your disagreement is strictly based on ideology.



I believe that current spending levels combined with a completely expansive/unconventional monetary policy initiative is enough to keep the economy from tumbling. Your disagreement is strictly based on ideology.



I know that auto-stabilization policies along with fiscal stimulus has helped to overt a greater depression.



FDR didn't "try it" until the war (which is an inefficient but sometimes necessary path). The paper that you tried to link even confirmed as much.





Didn't work? The economy continues to grow, even though the response in the labor market has not been optimal (which is a symptom that the private sector is still faces demand shortfalls along with structural discontinuities in the labor market). The net worth of households and non-profits is close (after 4 years) to pre-recession levels (see line 16 and 31).



How on earth can you label it as a strawman? I made a statement that the stimulus lacked magnitude and velocity, and backed it up with appropriate data. You proceeded to refute a point i did not make. I would refer to this as a red herring but that is giving you far too much credit; reason being you did not even understand my argument.



Nonsense! I am trying to establish a dialog yet you chose to go off on tangents that do not pertain to the discussion at hand.



Irrelevant! If my argument is that the appropriations were not large or fast enough, the fact that these slow/small appropriations were in place is irrelevant! It cannot be considered a refutation of my argument.



It is an inconvienent argument to those who disagree with fiscal stimulus that is proposed by an administration represented by their opposition party.



The motivation behind stimulus is to provide a short term boost in total economic activity as a means of shoring up aggregate demand. I do agree that the stimulus was not optimally designed, to which blame falls on both political parties. The first going towards the current administration for not identifying exactly how deep the economic contraction was, while the other goes to any politician that lacks the political will to support a stimulus package that is equipped to bridge the economic gap left by a plunge in aggregate demand. Providing sources that illustrate a per-cost for each job saved or lost by the actual stimulus does not refute this point whatsoever.



You simply do not understand how capital markets operate in a predominately free economy. The federal government borrowed (meaning private entities lent) excess capital accumulated by years of savings. With accommodative monetary policy by the Federal Reserve, there is/was not a capital shortfall for any private entity who had the desire to borrow. This can be illustrated by interest rate differentials within the corporate and sovereign debt markets. The cost of borrowing for the private sector has never been lower (even during the Great Depression). I am not here to argue whether or not the private sector is more efficient at investing. The point i am repeatedly making is that the private sector was in survival mode let alone expansion mode. This can be illustrated by declines in revenue and investment.



Did i say that $800 billion is small? Not once! I said that $800 billion spanned out primarily through 4 years was not nearly large enough to bridge the economic gap left by the private sector.



Nope! This has been the sentiment by many well-to-do's on Wall Street as well:





No i am not. I am simply providing the evidence; there is no crowding out of private investment. To make such an argument you are going to have to show that the user cost of capital is increasing in a linear fashion with the level of government spending. Is this the case? Can you show the spread between corporate paper/bonds and U.S. government debt is making expansion difficult? No you cannot! Can you show that corporate America is lacking capital for investment? Of course not! It is a simple case of you not being capable of understanding your own argument (crowding out is THE opportunity cost/negative externality of deficit spending).



No ****! That is the point of short term fiscal stimulus; to temporarily bridge the economic output gap until the private sector is ready to lead the charge. So far, they are not up to the challenge which is understandable given the enormous hole they need to climb out of and the lack of fiscal support.



This is nonsense. The reason labor force participation is at this low level (actually it is at it's historical average!) is due to structural discontinuities that persist in the labor market; namely an aging population, prevalence of low-skilled/low-wage labor in Anglo economies, and a demand for skill sets that outpaces supply. To believe there is causality from deficit spending is rather naive.



You can't compare the worst financially driven recession since the Great Depression with the interest rate induced recession of the early 1980s. It makes no sense to do so. The Reagan administration never had to contend with wealth losses in the scope of 100% of GDP.

fredgraph.png




The incoherent rambling continues!



You have yet to make one relevant point.
Click to expand...


I think he is missing the difference between deficit spending during growth periods with deficit spending during recessions. I wouldn't argue that the stimulus was too big, I agree, it was too small. The stimulus should have been (by my guestimates) ~$1.5-1.8T over a 18 month period, with a majority of it being spending, rather than tax cuts.

Tax cuts along with spending cuts are for good economic times.

I pound the fact that our spending is too high in this country. But, its not that we spend too much on investments, infrastructure, or research. If anything we spend too little on those. But, we spend too much on permanent expenditures; maintaining foreign bases, Medicare, and the welfare state.
 
ReformCollege said:
I think he is missing the difference between deficit spending during growth periods with deficit spending during recessions. I wouldn't argue that the stimulus was too big, I agree, it was too small. The stimulus should have been (by my guestimates) ~$1.5-1.8T over a 18 month period, with a majority of it being spending, rather than tax cuts.

Tax cuts along with spending cuts are for good economic times.

I pound the fact that our spending is too high in this country. But, its not that we spend too much on investments, infrastructure, or research. If anything we spend too little on those. But, we spend too much on permanent expenditures; maintaining foreign bases, Medicare, and the welfare state.
Click to expand...

I agree that he is missing that distinction, which is odd because kush made that distinction in one of his earliest posts in this thread
 
sangha said:
because everyone knows that Obama has to do what every President has traditionally done
Click to expand...

no, but this hyperventilating and complaining that the idea that he would have to negotiate is unprecedented just demonstrates his lack of previous experience.
 
sangha said:
It was dishonest. All you've shown is that one time, a few dems tried to do it.
Click to expand...

Actually, I've shown several. 2006 and 2009 the most recent.

And Clinton had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq. That was bush*
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about the invasion of Iraq.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom