• 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!

What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy?

What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy?


  • Total voters
    26
  • Poll closed .
It's not really regulation. Very few business owners are curtailing investment primarily because of that. Europe's debt crisis, low consumer confidence, coming large government cuts, Congress's inability to do anything useful all play a role.

Citing purely regulation is a poor argument. It's more of an issue of uncertainty. You can't plan around regulation when you don't even know what it might be whether it is less or more.

I agree with you assessment agreed.
 
Not really. I actually did a lot of that. Which I'm not proud of. But where I'm making amends and picking on people who actually deserve it. :peace

Note kiddies: This is what happens when a hackjob realizes he's getting his *** kicked. He starts making **** up to compensate for his lack of any skill whatsoever.

Look Kiddies: Cpwill is either missing the point or deliberately changing the topic. Did I argue any of that was wrong? No. I merely pointed out that under Reagan, debt financing spending stimulated the economy. Cpwill argues that it doesn't and its actually a drag on the economy. Then he proceeds here to try to find a exception that proves his stated belief isn't wrong in a way that doesn't force him to completely disavow Reagan.

Now, if Cpwill was honest (which we all know he's completely not), he'd admit that debt financed spending can and has stimulated the economy, particularly during one the presidency of a President the GOP likes to consider the Ideal Conservative.

Yes, I'm smarter than you and we both know it.

So you're calling the GOP Senate Minority leader, Speaker of the House and GOP House Majority leader not Conservatives? They took part in the massive spending that stimulated the economy. Let's see just what level of absurdity you're willing to go to maintain the internal contradictions you hold.

I do agree with you on the Republicans =/= Conservatives. But some are.

No, I merely repeat the history of Human behavior. We say one thing but when our own personal interests are threaten, we change our tune and do what serves our interests the best. Or are you completely unaware of recorded human history as you are unaware of so many things?

Oh Look Kiddies: Cpwill is dancing around a question he does not want to answer. Everyone knows what you stated. But nothing you said addressed my point at all. Furthermore, from what we can see from your post, you are eluding to the notion that the GOP will let the economy go off a cliff merely to save their reelection chances but you seem to fail to understand the impact of a recession or a depression upon reelection chances.

So here's a tough question which I'm betting you simply do not have the courage to answer:

The GOP will let the economy go off a cliff rather than debt spend to prevent a massive recession?

Yes or no. If you have the guts. Which I seriously, seriously, seriously doubt you have.

Not when you understand how they did it. If German banks were forced to take the losses from their holdings quickly rather than have Merkel force austerity upon the nations in which they hold assets thereby granting them time to unwind their losses slowly and not at firesale prices and therefore avoid liquidity crisises within the German Banking system, they'd be in the same **** mess as the rest of Europe. Germany basically forced its pain on others so the German economy wouldn't have to suffer it. To some degree Germany is still paying for it via bailout funds, but that's very much more controlled then bank writeoffs reducing lending and liquidity within Germany. Someone made a **** load of money within the German government knowing just how long Germany would string Greece along.

Note: It actually helps to know what is happening, rather than to operate how you do.

Yes again, I'm smarter than you and we both know it.

Who doesn't love a recession at the same time as increasing deficits enacted by a plan that lied about getting deficits under control? Romney lost all economic credibility when he backed that pile of turd.

Actually I don't think stimulus is the answer. Furthermore, I have repetitively said that stimulus cannot cure a financial recession (you choose to ignore it simply because you are incredibly dishonest). Furthermore, I have constantly pointed out that the real problem is the house hold debt, primarily mortgages and the concept of deleveraging that is killing the recovery. That said, the notion that stimulus can't stimulate is to ignore economic history from Day 1.

Making up more lies? Always fail? Really? Want to explain that to German in the 40s? How about Japan's Iron Triangle which directly lead to Japan becoming the 2nd largest economy (pre-contemporary China)?

You posted a study that outright explicitly said that non-fiscal factors were not included. And you expect to be taken seriously for that.

Thanks for proving you are in fact a liar. I never argued that it always works. I merely said that Kenysian does work. Does does not equate to always. I know you can read. That's why I call you a liar.

And I did this where? Considering the fact that you had to lie about what I said, you're on incredibly shaky ground.

And considering the fact that I have repetitively stated that stimulus spending cannot fix a fiscal crisis, you are even more on shaky ground.

Lying about what others said is a pretty poor argument tactic there Cpwill. But thanks for providing evidence about your honesty.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/history/70681-worst-presidents-all-time-51.html#post1059890996

Does that sound like I'm arguing stimulus always works?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...630-tax-tsunami-horizon-7.html#post1058876674

Cpwill wrong AND a LIAR?

Whowouldthunk? Me actually.

Why do you keep pretending you are smarter and know more than I?


:) aw, look at that. :lol: for someone who claims to be such a toughie... someone sure is sensitive :)

Yes again, I'm smarter than you and we both know it.

Have you ever studied group dynamics? If so, you know how if someone has to insist that they are in charge.... it means they aren't?

But hey man, whatever you need in order to tell yourself that You're A Big Bad Boy now. No one is ever more abusive than someone who was abused - but really, when it's spitting vitriol on an internet forum it makes you look like an emotional child. Just a heads up. ;)
 
:) aw, look at that. :lol: for someone who claims to be such a toughie... someone sure is sensitive :)



Have you ever studied group dynamics? If so, you know how if someone has to insist that they are in charge.... it means they aren't?

But hey man, whatever you need in order to tell yourself that You're A Big Bad Boy now. No one is ever more abusive than someone who was abused - but really, when it's spitting vitriol on an internet forum it makes you look like an emotional child. Just a heads up. ;)


Im smarter than both you slugs :)
 
(I may regret doing this. Don'tfeedthetrollDon'tfeedthetroll...) But in there are a couple of nuggets worth responding to, because OC (despite his personal shortcomings) is smart - just not as brilliant as he thinks he is. Anywho, here they are:

The GOP will let the economy go off a cliff rather than debt spend to prevent a massive recession?

Yes or no

The premise of the question is flawed. A significant portion of the GOP does not believe that an attempt to stimulate the economy through spending will be successful, and will therefore not see the question as whether or not to halt the economy from going off a cliff. A second - also not-insignificant portion of the GOP may believe in the potential for debt-produced keynesian spending to boost the economy, but has had their belief severely undercut by the experience of both the Bush and the Obama years. A third also not insignificant portion of the GOP may still believe that the government can net boost in the short term through Keynesian spending, but know that tying themselves to such an effort will mean getting primaried and losing the ability even to run for their seat. These three groups will prevent the remaining fringes of the GOP who may believe in the efficacy of Keynesian spending from passing Stimulus III.

It is worth noting that of those three groups, only one of them (the first) existed during the Bush years, and it was dramatically smaller than it is now.

Now, if Cpwill was honest (which we all know he's completely not), he'd admit that debt financed spending can and has stimulated the economy, particularly during one the presidency of a President the GOP likes to consider the Ideal Conservative.

Reagan wasn't an ideal conservative. Only one man in history has been ideal, and He get's talked about in another forum entirely. Reagan was simply the right conservative at the right time to do some impressive things. However the theory that Reagan was a Keynesian would depend upon Reagan seeking deficit spending as a means of stimulating the economy. This is not reflected in any of Reagan's speeches or writings from that time period. Reagan took us out of a Recession and brought back impressive growth through reducing the burden of governance, particularly with regards to taxes, and breaking inflation. He considered a Deficit to be a problem, and the economic success we saw during that time period was in spite of the military build up, not because of it.


incidentally, for everyone else, the study that OC is complaining about can be found here. In the WSJ one of the authors explains its' implications:

...Economic history shows that even large adjustments in fiscal policy, if based on well-targeted spending cuts, have often led to expansions, not recessions. Fiscal adjustments based on higher taxes, on the other hand, have generally been recessionary.

My colleague Silvia Ardagna and I recently co-authored a paper examining this pattern, as have many studies over the past 20 years. Our paper looks at the 107 large fiscal adjustments—defined as a cyclically adjusted deficit reduction of at least 1.5% in one year—that took place in 21 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries between 1970 and 2007.

According to our model, a country experienced an expansionary fiscal adjustment when its rate of GDP growth in the year of the adjustment and the next year was in the top 25% of the OECD. A recessionary period, then, was when a country's growth rate was in the bottom 75% of the OECD.

Our results were striking: Over nearly 40 years, expansionary adjustments were based mostly on spending cuts, while recessionary adjustments were based mostly on tax increases. And these results would have been even stronger had our definition of an expansionary period been more lenient (extending, for example, to the top 50% of the OECD). In addition, adjustments based on spending cuts were accompanied by longer-lasting reductions in ratios of debt to GDP.

In the same paper we also examined years of large fiscal expansions, defined as increases in the cyclically adjusted deficit by at least 1.5% of GDP. Over 91 such cases, we found that tax cuts were much more expansionary than spending increases...

Certainly many factors play into economic success or failure. That's why A) economics is not a hard science that is capable of being tested as finely tuned as, say, physics and B) you need a larger data set in order to average out those externals. I'd say 91 case studies consistently demonstrating the same effect would be fairly good enough, considering there is no better and larger available data set (that I am aware of, at least) than the OECD when it comes to taking a look at modern economies.
 
In response to the more general question, "Does the government control of the state of economy?" the answer is "yes and no."

"No," in the sense that in a market economy such as ours, individuals have a great degree of autonomy and choice with regard to their personal trade and investment decisions. After all, as any economics professor will tell you, "The Economy," in this sense, is a direct manifestation of the aggregate tastes and preferences of its participants. And certainly our government has neither the legal or moral authority, nor the practical capability to micromanage the multitude of transactions that comprise the American economy.

And "Yes," in the sense that, by the same token, the powers that the government does have (independent of the question of whether or not they should have them) are fairly extensive and can be used to enact policies that do have a very tangible, real effect on the economic decision-making of millions of people, even in the absence of compulsory force. Our "free market" system, after all, is a function the government's willingness to sustain it. For instance, in an economic system devoid of any governing presence, there is no protection from deceit or coercion beyond one's own ability, yet mainstream economists emphasize this protection as an essential parameter of a "free market."

So it can certainly be said that our government, as the entity ultimately responsible for protecting the framework of our economy, as well as the largest singular force within it, exerts a moderate degree of control.

Now, to divide our government into it's three functional branches, I tend to conclude that the Executive is the least influential in terms of economic policy. Statutorily speaking, the veto is his only real say in the matter of fiscal policy (he is the Commander and Chief, a role from which he could potentially effect the economy substantially, but it is Congress that decides the budget of the forces he commands; and he proposes the federal budget, but, as our current situation clearly exemplifies, Congress is not obliged to take his advice). The President also, of course, indirectly controls monetary policy through the Federal Reserve, though it's been awhile since monetary policy constituted a politically divisive part of a President's platform (i.e., you'd have to go back a ways to find a runner-up in a Presidential campaign who likely would've handled monetary policy differently than the guy who ultimately won).

Now, to the politically motivated question of "Whose mess is this?" I'll just say that I think that there's plenty of blame to go around. Republicans remain uninterested in implementing the kind of oversight of the financial sector that could help avert a repeat of 2008. Many Democrats, though not all, are likewise uninterested in consolidating the regulatory framework into one that presents fewer barriers-to-entry and continue to favor protectionist policies which serve to perpetuate our ever-growing trade deficit at the behest of organized labor and domestic businesses (simultaneously at the expense of consumers). Republicans under Bush set us on a frightening course of deficit spending, which now seems to perfectly satisfy the same Democrats who once railed against it. And we, the electorate, have demonstrated little inclination to intervene at the ballot box.
 
Last edited:
(I may regret doing this. Don'tfeedthetrollDon'tfeedthetroll...) But in there are a couple of nuggets worth responding to, because OC (despite his personal shortcomings) is smart - just not as brilliant as he thinks he is. Anywho, here they are:



The premise of the question is flawed. A significant portion of the GOP does not believe that an attempt to stimulate the economy through spending will be successful, and will therefore not see the question as whether or not to halt the economy from going off a cliff. A second - also not-insignificant portion of the GOP may believe in the potential for debt-produced keynesian spending to boost the economy, but has had their belief severely undercut by the experience of both the Bush and the Obama years. A third also not insignificant portion of the GOP may still believe that the government can net boost in the short term through Keynesian spending, but know that tying themselves to such an effort will mean getting primaried and losing the ability even to run for their seat. These three groups will prevent the remaining fringes of the GOP who may believe in the efficacy of Keynesian spending from passing Stimulus III.

It is worth noting that of those three groups, only one of them (the first) existed during the Bush years, and it was dramatically smaller than it is now.



Reagan wasn't an ideal conservative. Only one man in history has been ideal, and He get's talked about in another forum entirely. Reagan was simply the right conservative at the right time to do some impressive things. However the theory that Reagan was a Keynesian would depend upon Reagan seeking deficit spending as a means of stimulating the economy. This is not reflected in any of Reagan's speeches or writings from that time period. Reagan took us out of a Recession and brought back impressive growth through reducing the burden of governance, particularly with regards to taxes, and breaking inflation. He considered a Deficit to be a problem, and the economic success we saw during that time period was in spite of the military build up, not because of it.


incidentally, for everyone else, the study that OC is complaining about can be found here. In the WSJ one of the authors explains its' implications:



Certainly many factors play into economic success or failure. That's why A) economics is not a hard science that is capable of being tested as finely tuned as, say, physics and B) you need a larger data set in order to average out those externals. I'd say 91 case studies consistently demonstrating the same effect would be fairly good enough, considering there is no better and larger available data set (that I am aware of, at least) than the OECD when it comes to taking a look at modern economies.





Cp I agree with almost all your post...heres where you and I part company...what I believe is not based on theory or ideology...its based on my experience as I of course interrupt it.
Im not real into t he belief that govt spending spurs the economy overall...if govt spending is on all levels for example public employees, they do in turn add to the economy just living their lives and spending for their needs.
Where I parted company with the GOP after decades is the trickle down theory which I believe is a total bogus contrived con job. I do not believe that Tax cuts do a damn thing for the economy either except line the richs pockets...What spurs the economy is healthy employment and consumer buying...and employment and buying go hand in hand...but you cant have healthy employment and a healthy BUYING middleclass when the rich are so super greedy that they outsource all the jobs the can to squeeze another quick buck...
We need more regulations not less...the banks and big business are out of control with criminality...because we lessened the regulations...Pharmacueticals paying billions in fines and big banks...the list goes on that you conveniently ignore cpwill...they steal billions up billions get a small fine in comparison and are just left to do it all over again....thats what has to stop...and the GOP will never stop it they only try to enhance it....along with taking from everyone else and giving to the rich guys in tax cuts and subsidies....
 
Cp I agree with almost all your post...heres where you and I part company...what I believe is not based on theory or ideology...its based on my experience as I of course interrupt it.
Im not real into t he belief that govt spending spurs the economy overall...if govt spending is on all levels for example public employees, they do in turn add to the economy just living their lives and spending for their needs.

The problem being that this is a broken-window fallacy. That money that went to pay the public employees came from somewhere, and funneling it through public employees doesn't improve the economy any more than moving money from your money market account into cash in your wallet makes you wealthier.

Where I parted company with the GOP after decades is the trickle down theory which I believe is a total bogus contrived con job. I do not believe that Tax cuts do a damn thing for the economy either except line the richs pocket...

you have a real hard-on for these guys. what did successful people ever do to you?

What spurs the economy is healthy employment and consumer buying...and employment and buying go hand in hand...but you cant have healthy employment and a healthy BUYING middleclass when the rich are so super greedy that they outsource all the jobs the can to squeeze another quick buck...

....

definitionwrong.jpg


We need more regulations not less...

The Federal Registrar is beyond human comprehension. The States are almost as bad if not worse (depending on the state). According to the Small Business Association, the annual cost of the regulatory burden is $1.7 Trillion. We desperately need to start stripping regulation, assign clearer borders of responsibility between the different levels of governance, and reduce that burden. In addition, we need to provide some form of a "loser pays" incentive structure into the regulatory court system to incentivize regulators not to become abusive.

the banks and big business are out of control with criminality...because we lessened the regulations...

they are? do you have any support for this?

Pharmacueticals paying billions in fines and big banks...the list goes on that you conveniently ignore cpwill...they steal billions up billions get a small fine in comparison and are just left to do it all over again

You are right, I am missing it. Link it, please, so I can stop missing it.



and you still have yet to answer my question about how you can support Obama when his plan cuts more from Medicare, and starts cutting for current seniors at that.
 
Here is one fun example of the results of our over-regulated society: the emasculation of it.


Two days before the Fourth of July, Lopez was fired for helping rescue a man drowning 1,500 feet outside of his designated zone.

“It was a long run, but someone needed my help. I wasn’t going to say no,” Lopez told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel and other media outlets.

When Lopez filed his incident report, he was canned on the spot.

“They didn’t tell me in a bad way. It was more like they were ‘sorry, but rules are rules,’” Lopez said. “I couldn’t believe what was happening.”

The contractor that manages the lifeguard service has explained that the matter is out of its hands, too. Liability issues — i.e., fear of lawsuits, insurance requirements, etc. — demand a zero-tolerance policy for unauthorized lifesaving.

It’s a small anecdote, to be sure. But does anyone doubt that there’s something about the legal regime in this country that’s creating a headwind against basic human decency? And I’m not just talking about trial lawyers and the politicians who love them.

Last year, in Alameda, Calif., a man walked into the chilly — but not exactly freezing — waters of San Francisco Bay to commit suicide. It was a slow affair. The police and firefighters got there in plenty of time. But, due to union-backed rules, they simply declined to save the man’s life. They just stood on the beach and watched.

Fire Chief Ricci Zombeck was asked what he would have done if it had been a child, rather than a suicidal adult, slowly drowning out there. He responded that if he was on duty he’d have let the kid drown, but if he was off duty he would have saved him...

and etc. we're governed by endless little itty bitty grasping rules, and it leaves us little pawns unable to do even the most basically correct things.
 
Which in the context of my point is irrelevant. I actually agree it wasn't primarily done for stimulating the economy. But it would take a total idiot to argue it didn't work to stimulate the economy.
It did stimulate the economy. But it wasn't purpose of it. That was my point. It also bankrupted Social Security, escalated our debt, and put us in the situation we're in now. President Reagan began the "social security slush fund" habit and it has hurt us ever since. Thats CP's point. Stimulus works, sure. But the byproduct isn't worth it. Namely the debt we have and the dependence on future politicans to be responsible with the surplus produced. Anytime we depend on men to spend wisely later, we fail.
Many of them perhaps, but I think there's a bigger issue here. The GOP only gives a **** about fiscal conservatism when it's the minority party. It's little more than a political tool to hammer the Democrats on. When the GOP takes power, all fiscal conservatism goes out the window and then spend like crazy with no sense of budgets.
Actually, the Tea Party started under President Bush when he began using stimulus funds at the end of his second term in '08. That dispels the common argument that the Tea Party is simply an anti-Obama movement. At its heart, in the beginning, the Tea Party was about fiscal conservatism, individual liberty, etc. Now, its been hijacked (much like Occupy) by Christians and gun law people. That stuff is important, but not what the Tea Party is about. Fiscal conservatism isn't something that's going to go away if Gov Romney wins. Fiscal conservative Tea Partiers are replacing establishment Republicans on a pretty regular basis now. I believe Gov Romney will be attacked if he starts spending just like President Obama was.
Look at the Ryan Plan. That doesn't even reduce the deficit in a material way for years. And it won't generate a surplus for decades to pay down the debt. Their tool to hammer the Democrats on Fiscal Conservastism doesn't even work to actually get us to the black.
The Ryan Plan does ignore the largest problems our gov't has namely entitlements. But its better that what has been presented by the Senate and the POTUS. Which is A) Nothing and B) A plan that not even a single Dem would sponsor. The Dems are in the same boat with the budget as the GOP is with healthcare. They don't like the others plan but don't have a viable plan themselves.
The only real difference between an end product Republican society and a Democrat is how women get treated. We end up with big government either way and lots of red ink. The dems will enact a nanny state and the Republicans will enact a police state. Either way you don't get freedom. The only question is whether or not women end up with more rights.

Women? You mean if they can abort or not? That's ridiculous. While I will agree with you that cookie cutter establishment GOPers are no different than Dems when speaking of spending habits, the "war on women" crap is nothing more than a re-election ploy by President Obama and his campaign staff to swing the womens vote his way.
 
Last edited:
The premise of the question is flawed. A significant portion of the GOP does not believe that an attempt to stimulate the economy through spending will be successful, and will therefore not see the question as whether or not to halt the economy from going off a cliff. A second - also not-insignificant portion of the GOP may believe in the potential for debt-produced keynesian spending to boost the economy, but has had their belief severely undercut by the experience of both the Bush and the Obama years. A third also not insignificant portion of the GOP may still believe that the government can net boost in the short term through Keynesian spending, but know that tying themselves to such an effort will mean getting primaried and losing the ability even to run for their seat. These three groups will prevent the remaining fringes of the GOP who may believe in the efficacy of Keynesian spending from passing Stimulus III.

It is worth noting that of those three groups, only one of them (the first) existed during the Bush years, and it was dramatically smaller than it is now.

Let's start with Group #3, since that's the easiest to address: If they believe in Keynesian stimulus but don't act for fear of a primary challenge, then it's a simple matter of electoral calculus. With this group, they'd have to weigh the political benefits of a stronger economy in the general election, versus the political costs of aggravating the base in a potential primary. If the GOP controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, this would strongly push this electoral calculation in favor of Keynesian stimulus. Why? Because the costs would be reduced (incumbent parties are much less likely to engage in ideological purges than opposition parties) and the benefits would be increased (because they'd be able to push for a stronger stimulus than with a divided government). Furthermore, at least some of the politicians in this group would be able to have their cake and eat it too, by having their colleagues vote for a stimulus while they stay silent, vote no, and claim they opposed it.

As for Group #1 and Group #2...I think you're basically describing the same thing with both of these groups. A politician's "belief" isn't necessarily a fixed fact of nature. Both politicians and the general public are remarkably capable of changing their beliefs when it's in their interests to do so (e.g. the complete 180-degree turn the GOP made on health care reform in 2009, which was necessary in order to oppose Obama). If they had a Republican president urging more stimulus (and make no mistake, Mitt Romney most certainly doesn't fall into any of these groups), it's highly likely that at least some of these congresspeople in Groups #1 and #2 would find a way to get behind it.

Basically, if the GOP had any track record in the last 80 years of cutting spending when they were in power (or even seriously trying to do so), I might be inclined to believe that they would do so again. But since they have no such track record, I don't see any reason to believe that it will be any different next time around.
 
Last edited:
Women? You mean if they can abort or not? That's ridiculous. While I will agree with you that cookie cutter establishment GOPers are no different than Dems when speaking of spending habits, the "war on women" crap is nothing more than a re-election ploy by President Obama and his campaign staff to swing the womens vote his way.

You're right, it has nothing to do with the GOP's support of personhood amendments criminalizing abortion and birth control.
 
Let's start with Group #3, since that's the easiest to address: If they believe in Keynesian stimulus but don't act for fear of a primary challenge, then it's a simple matter of electoral calculus. With this group, they'd have to weigh the political benefits of a stronger economy in the general election, versus the political costs of aggravating the base in a potential primary. If the GOP controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, this would strongly push this electoral calculation in favor of Keynesian stimulus. Why? Because the costs would be reduced (incumbent parties are much less likely to engage in ideological purges than opposition parties) and the benefits would be increased (because they'd be able to push for a stronger stimulus than with a divided government). Furthermore, at least some of the politicians in this group would be able to have their cake and eat it too, by having their colleagues vote for a stimulus while they stay silent, vote no, and claim they opposed it.

As for Group #1 and Group #2...I think you're basically describing the same thing with both of these groups. A politician's "belief" isn't necessarily a fixed fact of nature. Both politicians and the general public are remarkably capable of changing their beliefs when it's in their interests to do so (e.g. the complete 180-degree turn the GOP made on health care reform in 2009, which was necessary in order to oppose Obama). If they had a Republican president urging more stimulus (and make no mistake, Mitt Romney most certainly doesn't fall into any of these groups), it's highly likely that at least some of these congresspeople in Groups #1 and #2 would find a way to get behind it.
:) so you'll take that bet?

Basically, if the GOP had any track record in the last 80 years of cutting spending when they were in power (or even seriously trying to do so), I might be inclined to believe that they would do so again. But since they have no such track record, I don't see any reason to believe that it will be any different next time around.

Oh, I'm not arguing they will reduce expenditures except "off the baseline" of growth at best. If we can get them to reduce entitlement expenditures "off the base line" while still increasing annually... hell, that will be a great achievement (politically, at least, if not fiscally).

I'm just saying they aren't going to come out with some Stimulus III built around government spending.
 
Last edited:
:) so you'll take that bet?

Like I said, I'm not sure how the terms would work since they most likely will not pass any bill with "stimulus" in its name, thus allowing for ambiguity as to whether they have actually done so. If they extend all or part of the Bush tax cuts at the end of this year, would you consider that to be a stimulus? If they extend unemployment insurance, would you consider that to be a stimulus? If they bail out one or more state governments, would you consider that to be a stimulus? If they pass a large transportation or military bill, would you consider that to be a stimulus?

I can't agree or disagree to a bet until I'm clear as to what exactly we're betting on. :)

Oh, I'm not arguing they will reduce expenditures except "off the baseline" of growth at best. If we can get them to reduce entitlement expenditures "off the base line" while still increasing annually... hell, that will be a great achievement (politically, at least, if not fiscally).

I'm just saying they aren't going to come out with some Stimulus III built around government spending.

Well, tax cuts are definitely part of Keynesian economic stimuli too. In any case, what ratio of tax cuts to government spending would you consider sufficient to label a Stimulus III as *not* built around government spending? As scored by whom? And if it included new deductions in the tax code, would that count as a tax cut or government spending?
 
Last edited:
Like I said, I'm not sure how the terms would work since they most likely will not pass any bill with "stimulus" in its name, thus allowing for ambiguity as to whether they have actually done so. If they extend all or part of the Bush tax cuts at the end of this year, would you consider that to be a stimulus? If they extend unemployment insurance, would you consider that to be a stimulus? If they bail out one or more state governments, would you consider that to be a stimulus? If they pass a large transportation or military bill, would you consider that to be a stimulus?

I would say a large program of expenditure whose purpose is to "increase demand". I would not consider Tax Rate reductions to be Stimulus, though I would be fine with considering one-time Tax Credits to be so. Bailing out a State would not be Stimulus, it would simply be wildly irresponsible and I will not be available to fulfill the terms of the bet anyway, as I would be in jail for having attempted to beat members of Congress with a hand-held copy of the Constitution.

Well, tax cuts are definitely part of Keynesian economic stimuli too.

Tax Credits, which function the same as transfer payments, certainly are. Permanent tax rate reductions, however, alter long term incentive structures and are supply-oriented.

In any case, what ratio of tax cuts to government spending would you consider sufficient to label a Stimulus III as *not* built around government spending? As scored by whom? And if it included new deductions in the tax code, would that count as a tax cut or government spending?

I would divide (again) based on permanence, with MarineTPartier given authority to call any major grey areas following a moderated debate in which we are each allowed to submit (1) post explaining our position and (1) post rebutting the other.
 
I would say a large program of expenditure whose purpose is to "increase demand".

This is way too vague. Most economic stimulus programs don't have increasing demand as their sole purpose...even the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act generally earmarked the funds for specific purposes (e.g. highway projects, education, alternative energy). What separates THIS spending from, say, a big transportation bill, other than the fact that politicians explicitly called it a stimulus and sold it to the public as helping the economy?

I would not consider Tax Rate reductions to be Stimulus, though I would be fine with considering one-time Tax Credits to be so. Bailing out a State would not be Stimulus, it would simply be wildly irresponsible and I will not be available to fulfill the terms of the bet anyway, as I would be in jail for having attempted to beat members of Congress with a hand-held copy of the Constitution.

Then it seems we have a yawning disagreement as to what exactly a stimulus is. I would certainly consider bailing out a state government (whether a wise idea or not) to be stimulus, as it would be massive government spending and it would most definitely increase demand.

Tax Credits, which function the same as transfer payments, certainly are. Permanent tax rate reductions, however, alter long term incentive structures and are supply-oriented.

They're supply-oriented when they focus on suppliers (i.e. corporations and the extremely wealthy). They're demand-oriented when they focus on consumers (i.e. everyone else). Most tax cuts - even Republican tax cuts - tend to have at least SOME of the latter.

I would divide (again) based on permanence, with MarineTPartier given authority to call any major grey areas following a moderated debate in which we are each allowed to submit (1) post explaining our position and (1) post rebutting the other.

The "permanence" thing is a red herring, because Congress almost never goes more than 10 years without tinkering with the top marginal tax rate...and it's unusual for them to even go that long. It doesn't really matter whether Congress sets a new tax rate for the next 2 years or the next 100 years, if the next Congress will change it anyway. And I would suggest that a user with the screen name MarineTPartier (whom I know nothing about) may not be the most unbiased judge. ;)
 
Last edited:
You're right, it has nothing to do with the GOP's support of personhood amendments criminalizing abortion and birth control.
Back to the original topic before others tried to distract it. I don't want to turn this into an abortion thread. There are plenty of those. Although your argument is ridiculous to say the least.
 
:) aw, look at that. :lol: for someone who claims to be such a toughie... someone sure is sensitive

I was betting you'd do that. You got your ass kicked and rather than actually attempt to refute something you know you can't do ever, you just throw out dumb frat boy comments like that.

You are wrong. I'm smarter than you. Game over.

Have you ever studied group dynamics? If so, you know how if someone has to insist that they are in charge.... it means they aren't?

Have you ever studied group dynamics? What you describe is very different then what is happening now. I prove I'm smarter than you are. I merely state the obvious at the end of proving it. I could not state that and nothing would change. What you describe is someone starting from the beginning insisting they are in charge without actually providing evidence or reasons for it. Frankly though, I'm not surprised you don't even understand the terms you use.

Seriously, you really have to start learning what the terms you use mean before you use them. You're getting almost to Mr. V's level of failure.

But hey man, whatever you need in order to tell yourself that You're A Big Bad Boy now. No one is ever more abusive than someone who was abused - but really, when it's spitting vitriol on an internet forum it makes you look like an emotional child. Just a heads up. ;)

Translation: I can't beat him. Therefore I'm throw out psychological mumbo jumbo compensate for the fact that I can't argue my way out of paper bag.

Not that such behavior is historically abnormal for you.
 
(I may regret doing this. Don'tfeedthetrollDon'tfeedthetroll...) But in there are a couple of nuggets worth responding to, because OC (despite his personal shortcomings) is smart - just not as brilliant as he thinks he is. Anywho, here they are:

Hell No. I'm dumb. The problem is I'm less dumb than many of you here, particularly you Cpwill.

The premise of the question is flawed.

As predicted, you do not have the courage to actually answer this.
Call me entirely unsurprised that you have no spine.

A significant portion of the GOP does not believe that an attempt to stimulate the economy through spending will be successful, and will therefore not see the question as whether or not to halt the economy from going off a cliff.

Utterly stupid point. As a recession hits, and if a particularly bad recession hits, you think the GOP will just stand and there do nothing as aggregate demand goes off a cliff? You do realize that Bush's tax cuts in 2008 did absolutely nothing no? Oh wait. You don't. I'm getting extremely abusive to you because you don't ever bother to ditch your ideology and come into the real world. It does not matter if they think it will work or not. You have this notion that they will enact policies that don't work, such as tax cuts as proven by both Bush (twice actually, once in 2001 and again in 2008) and Obama and will refuse to stimulate spend as aggregate demand nose dives. Tell me, how many politicians will do nothing as their voters lose their jobs in mass?

A second - also not-insignificant portion of the GOP may believe in the potential for debt-produced keynesian spending to boost the economy, but has had their belief severely undercut by the experience of both the Bush and the Obama years. A third also not insignificant portion of the GOP may still believe that the government can net boost in the short term through Keynesian spending, but know that tying themselves to such an effort will mean getting primaried and losing the ability even to run for their seat. These three groups will prevent the remaining fringes of the GOP who may believe in the efficacy of Keynesian spending from passing Stimulus III.

So you think that the politicians who aren't economically illiterate will let their economically illiterate colleagues prevent them from doing anything as their voters lose their jobs in mass? You may be right, but that's more of a function of incredibly stupid Republican primary voters. Such as when they handed primarily failure to Castle who's vote saved their retirement funds. It's hilarious how often Republican voters will vote in a way that directly ****s themselves over. Granted, Castle did this before the rise of the Tea Party. But I'm not sure I'll buy that it will happen again. The notion that the GOP will not move to at least alleviate a bad recession or a financial collapse seems....incredibly short sighted.

Reagan wasn't an ideal conservative.

Correction. Reagan wasn't a Conservative. If you apply the criteria objectively and refuse to worship at his Cult Alter.

Only one man in history has been ideal, and He get's talked about in another forum entirely. Reagan was simply the right conservative at the right time to do some impressive things. However the theory that Reagan was a Keynesian would depend upon Reagan seeking deficit spending as a means of stimulating the economy. This is not reflected in any of Reagan's speeches or writings from that time period. Reagan took us out of a Recession and brought back impressive growth through reducing the burden of governance, particularly with regards to taxes, and breaking inflation. He considered a Deficit to be a problem, and the economic success we saw during that time period was in spite of the military build up, not because of it.

Let's go over why you are wrong at least partially in that hot mess. First of all, the notion that massive military spending did not boost the economy is entirely bat****. It completely ignores the notion of the basics of a supply chain. Furthermore, it completely ignores the impact of military spending generating non-military goods, such as how Star Wars significantly helped the civilian satellite and launch industry. Second, Reagan's take on taxes is hardly as you claim it to be. Reagan cut and then enacted at the time one of the largest tax hikes in US history. The notion that Reagan just cut and cut is flat out wrong. And growth under Reagan did not have a correlated impact to tax rates. The issue of inflation was far more important, but Reagan himself leaned on Vockler to at least slow his artificial recession to help his reelection changes. Stagflation was prolonged BECAUSE of Reagan.

And you're still missing the point. I never argued that Reagan was Kenysian. I merely pointed out that stimulus spending during Reagan worked to stimulate the economy. It does not matter if he thought the economic success was in-spite. What matters (and what you entirely fail to understand like so many many many things) is that the Idolized period of Reagan's growth was at the same time as truly massive government spending. You keep trying to weasel out of admitting that stimulus spending during Reagan stimulated the economy. Partially because you are exceptionally dishonest.

incidentally, for everyone else, the study that OC is complaining about can be found here. In the WSJ one of the authors explains its' implications:

And go on to the part where the authors explicitly state they did not look at any non-fiscal impacts. And you expect to be taken seriously for that posting of near epic bull****?
And I like how you leave out the part where the authors create their own criteria for success and how they leave out the impact of monetary policy upon the success stories.

I take it you failed statistics in community college?

Certainly many factors play into economic success or failure. That's why A) economics is not a hard science that is capable of being tested as finely tuned as, say, physics and B) you need a larger data set in order to average out those externals. I'd say 91 case studies consistently demonstrating the same effect would be fairly good enough, considering there is no better and larger available data set (that I am aware of, at least) than the OECD when it comes to taking a look at modern economies.

So yes, you did fail statistics in community college.

Only a bat**** study like that would ignore the impact of monetary policy, the internet, government intervention via lending and reduction of regulation, resource finds such as oil and other economic data.

It's amusing how you switch from "economic data does not exist in a vacuum" to "economic data exists in a vacuum" when it suits your agenda.
 
It did stimulate the economy. But it wasn't purpose of it. That was my point.

Which is why it wasn't relevant. I'm not disagreeing your your argument. I'm merely using the point to show that Cpwill is as usual, wrong.

Actually, the Tea Party started under President Bush when he began using stimulus funds at the end of his second term in '08. That dispels the common argument that the Tea Party is simply an anti-Obama movement. At its heart, in the beginning, the Tea Party was about fiscal conservatism, individual liberty, etc. Now, its been hijacked (much like Occupy) by Christians and gun law people. That stuff is important, but not what the Tea Party is about. Fiscal conservatism isn't something that's going to go away if Gov Romney wins. Fiscal conservative Tea Partiers are replacing establishment Republicans on a pretty regular basis now. I believe Gov Romney will be attacked if he starts spending just like President Obama was.

First of all, the GOP is not the Tea Party. Second of all, I never argued that the TP is merely an anti-Obama movement. I do think the TP, at least the non-tax paying members of it are very misguided in backing some of their candidates, particularly ones that will enact a budget that will not only increase the deficit but cause a recession at the same time under the guise of fiscal conservatism.

My point you didn't address is that the GOP frankly doesn't give a **** about fiscal conservatism unless it can be used as a tool against the Democrats. Gary Johnson, John Huntsman and Ron Paul are the only candidates during this GOP primary that actually showed they cared. Look where it got them. Romney is a joke. Perry's Texas has only be showing balanced budgets because the Rainy Day fund has been raided over the past few years.

The Ryan Plan does ignore the largest problems our gov't has namely entitlements. But its better that what has been presented by the Senate and the POTUS. Which is A) Nothing and B) A plan that not even a single Dem would sponsor. The Dems are in the same boat with the budget as the GOP is with healthcare. They don't like the others plan but don't have a viable plan themselves.

The Ryan plan will cause a recession. Actually the Ryan plan is a perfect example of how the GOP doesn't care about fiscal conservatism. If Ryan wasn't a liar, he'd cut at the same time as allowing the tax rates to return to their Clinton rates. That argueably would cause a severe recession, but at least on paper it would rapidly reduce the deficit. What bothers me about the GOP is that the Democrats were FINALLY willing to at least cut part of entitlements but the GOP said no to a deal. $10 in cuts to $1 in revenue and we all got nos from the GOP? I don't blame the Ratings Agencies for taking one look at that and downgrading the US. When one party has become completely unreasonable, we're on the path to ruin.

For Healthcare, let's make it real simple. Whatever Congress and the White House agree on, they must themselves sign up for. What the Speaker of the House has for his healthcare plan should be readily available and affordable for everyone. What we get, they get. Let's literally put their skin in the game. Because right now it's as if the Aristocracy is deciding what the serfs get and all we get is bad legislation.

As for the GOP "plan" they're having problems largely because Obama stole their ideas. They can't come out with a plan that has a large number of ideas from the ACA and then turn around and condemn the ACA as the worst piece of modern legislation. Romney is having huge problems attacking the ACA which is functionally a clone of his own medical plan.

Women? You mean if they can abort or not? That's ridiculous. While I will agree with you that cookie cutter establishment GOPers are no different than Dems when speaking of spending habits, the "war on women" crap is nothing more than a re-election ploy by President Obama and his campaign staff to swing the womens vote his way.

Why is that ridiculous? Do you know any women in your life?

It's not just abortion. Women pay more for insurance purely because of being a different gender. Their access to drugs is significantly less than men. It doesn't make sense why many legal recreational drugs are free for men but are not for women.
 
Oh Look. Cpwill wrong again (this should surprise absolutely no one ever).

Unless you want to argue that Reagan was a tried and true liberal when he stimulated the economy with a massive arms build up.
Or that the All GOP Bush Years was a bunch of liberals in Republican clothing when they engaged in some of the largest government spending binges in US history.

Reagan had a very good reason for arms build up. Namely he broke the back of the USSR without needing to fire a single shot. That's an impressive accomplishment in anyone's book.
 
Well, it's not accurate that the Ryan Plan ignores entitlements. It is that it only addresses Medicare / Medicaid.
 
I was betting you'd do that. You got your ass kicked and rather than actually attempt to refute something you know you can't do ever, you just throw out dumb frat boy comments like that.

You are wrong. I'm smarter than you. Game over.

:) Nah. You're just emotionally needy yet educated. You had to resort to a non-falsifiable thesis in order to continue to defend your position. If you're going to argue it as an a priori position, then fine, but identify it as such rather than pretending that you arrived at your conclusion through any sort of application of the scientific method.

As predicted, you do not have the courage to actually answer this.

:roll: which branch of service did you serve in the infantry with, again? man, it takes precisely zero courage whatsoever to take part in an online debate forum - what's going to happen to me if I lose a debate? nothing? Anywho, here your reply is self-defeating, as you go on to respond to the answer I actually gave you.

Have you ever studied group dynamics? What you describe is very different then what is happening now. I prove I'm smarter than you are.

You do realize that "I have stated X" is not the same as "I have proven X"?

But please, continue with your pointless penis game :roll: Girls love a guy who tries to chest-bump on the internet. What an alpha-male you are. Regular grey-back f'ing gorilla. :lamo

As a recession hits, and if a particularly bad recession hits, you think the GOP will just stand and there do nothing as aggregate demand goes off a cliff?

Not at all. I simply think that they are more likely to respond with attempts to lower marginal (particularly business) tax rates and reduce the regulatory burden (supply side) than they are to provide some kind of demand-side stimulus.

You do realize that Bush's tax cuts in 2008 did absolutely nothing no? Oh wait. You don't.

Actually I have argued they made the situation worse - and I was arguing that at the time as well. Similar to argument that you have made, I argued that Bush's stimulus wouldn't stimulate anything, and would instead only add debt.

Bush's tax credits (which function the same as transfer payments) had no better effect in 2008 than they did in 2001. 1. Because you cannot magically increase demand by having the government take people's money and then give it back to them, and 2. Because even then, windfall income in times of economic instability tend to go towards savings and paying down debt.

It does not matter if they think it will work or not.

:doh your argument is premised upon the assumption that they will. You are arguing specifically that members of the GOP will take actions that they believe will save the economy from falling off a cliff despite the strong and fervent ideological opposition of their base, as they will see a "saved economy" as their ticket to reelection. However, if they didn't believe that the actions you describe will stop an economy from sliding off that cliff then - and, this is important - they have no incentive to vote for that measure.

You have this notion that they will enact policies that don't work, such as tax cuts as proven by both Bush (twice actually,
once in 2001 and again in 2008

That is very specifically incorrect, which, if you would have been paying attention to this thread, you would have been aware of. See: cpwill v kandahar.

Correction. Reagan wasn't a Conservative.

No, that is not correct. Reagan was indeed a conservative - he wasn't perfectly so, and in his workings with the Democrat Congress he sometimes gave and sometimes got (and, in the case of I'll-raise-taxes-if-you-cut-spending, he got taken).

If you apply the criteria objectively and refuse to worship at his Cult Alter.

No worship here - I only worship one Man and Reagan wasn't Him. He was an excellent President, all things considered, and his supply-side driven recovery puts this demand-side driven one to shame; but that doesn't mean that everything he did is for some reason sacrosanct.

First of all, the notion that massive military spending did not boost the economy is entirely bat****.

Not really. At least spending on roads enables other wealth-creation. Spending money on tanks involves taking alot of resources and pouring them into utterly non-productive venues. Hell, we might as well credit George Bush with saving us from Depression by invading Iraq, if military spending is stimulative.

I never argued that Reagan was Kenysian. I merely pointed out that stimulus spending during Reagan worked to stimulate the economy. It does not matter if he thought the economic success was in-spite.

here is the conversation that took place:

obvious Child said:
cpwill said:
Since conservatives believe that government stimulative spending in fact is a drag on the economy, I strongly suspect that you are mirror-imaging.
Oh Look. Cpwill wrong again (this should surprise absolutely no one ever).

Unless you want to argue that Reagan was a tried and true liberal when he stimulated the economy with a massive arms build up...

There you are, very much indeed impugning that Reagan believed that a massive arms build up would stimulate the economy.

It's amusing how you switch from "economic data does not exist in a vacuum" to "economic data exists in a vacuum" when it suits your agenda.

Not really. You made a foolish argument, I demonstrated that it was false. I do not argue that economic data exists in a vacuum, which is why I prefer to be guided by case studies (such as this one) that include larger data samples, such as the entire OECD, than econometric models that assume magical multipliers and/or static scoring.

I'm getting extremely abusive to you because you don't ever bother to ditch your ideology and come into the real world.

Nah. You're being an asshole because that's what you always do when you feel your position is weak.
 
Last edited:
He has about the same amount of influence as he does over gas prices.

Interesting to note the "I Hate Obama" crowd isn't voting here.

It would have been interesting to see this poll when Bush was president. It would indeed.
 
The problem being that this is a broken-window fallacy. That money that went to pay the public employees came from somewhere, and funneling it through public employees doesn't improve the economy any more than moving money from your money market account into cash in your wallet makes you wealthier.



you have a real hard-on for these guys. what did successful people ever do to you?



....

definitionwrong.jpg




The Federal Registrar is beyond human comprehension. The States are almost as bad if not worse (depending on the state). According to the Small Business Association, the annual cost of the regulatory burden is $1.7 Trillion. We desperately need to start stripping regulation, assign clearer borders of responsibility between the different levels of governance, and reduce that burden. In addition, we need to provide some form of a "loser pays" incentive structure into the regulatory court system to incentivize regulators not to become abusive.



they are? do you have any support for this?



You are right, I am missing it. Link it, please, so I can stop missing it.



and you still have yet to answer my question about how you can support Obama when his plan cuts more from Medicare, and starts cutting for current seniors at that.






Ah im glad you finally admitted it....its the same with that broken window BS story of trickle down..the only difference is theres definitive PROOF there is no trickle down...just look at CEO pay and worker pay....the pigs have gotten fabulously richer stealing from the working class.


Successful people as YOU label them have done nothing to me...all things considered Im relatively successful more than the average person....the Pigs <your successful> have sucked most of the life out of this country....now they want whats left. They have left vast areas of nothing...<unemployment> where there used to opportunity and sent them to china out of greed so the pigs can get even more.
Theyve stripped workers of benefits and pensions..WHILE they just TOOK more for themselves....and lastly CP.
What have regular everyday americans ever done to make you what you are...how can you day after day profess taking everything off of working people and even COMBAT TROOPS to give more to the 1% that have it all as it is......I dont understand you one iota marine...I really dont....and please dont give me the I dont understand economics bs ok...I dont have to be an economist to see the rape of america being perpetrated by the teaparty types.....You people have attacked everything in america that was good about it......this isnt about the size of govt...this is about Obama and greed....where were all these deficit hawks. before obama got elected. Sleezy PHONY scum like Boehner who ALL OF A SUDDEN is a teatard and the rest of the gop.....know why they turned CP...not out of conviction, not out of what they the teartards are doing is right...for the BIG PAC CASH that Koch bros and Adelsen are throwing around to BUY THEM....so they and the rest of the pigs can pick the rest of our bones clean.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom