djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 17, 2011 11:17:32 GMT -5
I will take that as admission that Krugman is a moron. from a false premise, an infinite number of false conclusions can be drawn.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 17, 2011 11:19:13 GMT -5
revenues as a % of GDP are at a post WW2 low. note the steady drop in spending as a % of GDP under Clinton. the 90's are a model for how we get back to solvency. note also the sharp reversal of fortune under Bush. this despite the fact that the leadership in congress was largely unchanged during that period, which belies the "blame the democratic congress" mantra. You can't read your own graph. i can read it just fine.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 17, 2011 11:20:55 GMT -5
revenues as a % of GDP are at a post WW2 low. note the steady drop in spending as a % of GDP under Clinton. the 90's are a model for how we get back to solvency. note also the sharp reversal of fortune under Bush. this despite the fact that the leadership in congress was largely unchanged during that period, which belies the "blame the democratic congress" mantra. You can't read your own graph. We see a decrease in revenue from about 1999 or 2000 (still under Bill Clinton and the recession that Bush inherited from him) that drops until 2003 when it PLUNGES! Gee, what happened THEN? OMG, the Bush tax cuts!!!! precisely! i have been trying to get this out of someone for the last week. THANK YOU FOR PROVING MY POINT!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 17, 2011 11:25:35 GMT -5
So clearly we can see that when a GOPer is in power, we get more revenue as a % of the income and when a socialist neophyte and his cronies come to power (like Pelosi), we get HUGE surges in outlays. Thank you for proving my points! LOVE YOU!!! forgive me if i doubt your sincerity here. however, there is something else that the graph shows, if you want to be non-partisan about it. the budget decline actually started under a democratic congress during both Reagan and up to the second year of Clinton. it reversed course due to the need for aggregate demand in 2007. this was a bipartisan effort. it could easily have been blocked by the GOP, but it wasn't. and it was overseen by a Republican president. i have no dog in this fight, affectionate one. i am just a deficit hawk. i want something done. and i want it done now. if Obama is offering $4T over ten years, i think we should grab it, and make it happen.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 17, 2011 11:26:54 GMT -5
uggh, i hate to wade into a P&M discussion so i'm going to stick to facts. Both a $1T reduction in spending and a $4T reduction in spending are grossly insufficient to solve the problem. The chart in the upper left here www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html seems to indicate that we are on on target from 2011-2016 to add 5.3T to the debt. We need to cut that to below zero IMMEDIATELY becuase the SS and especially medicare costs are going to go through the roof in the years following 2016, so we need to start gaining ground and actually running a surplus now so that our total debt outstanding is decreased. that is only true if you assume that no economic growth will take place, and that nothing will be done to fix entitlements. i think that both of those assumptions are false.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 17, 2011 11:28:54 GMT -5
A number of commentators seem shocked at how unreasonable Republicans are being. “Has the G.O.P. gone insane?” they ask.Where were these same commentators when BHO added 5 trillion dollars to the debt and blew spending well past the trillion dollar deficit mark?. Obama was not the first to do that. Bush was, with the 2009 budget. the CBO predicted a $1.2T deficit two weeks BEFORE OBAMA TOOK OFFICE. and the commentators were panicking about the economy, of course. and that was entirely justified, imo. now that the immediate crisis is over, we can focus on the damages. the time to focus on them was NOT in the midst of the crisis, however.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 17, 2011 11:34:49 GMT -5
Why, yes, it has. But this isn’t something that just happened, it’s the culmination of a process that has been going on for decades. Anyone surprised by the extremism and irresponsibility now on display either hasn’t been paying attention, or has been deliberately turning a blind eye.
"Wow, not spending what you don't have is suddenly insane? Who knew? Then again, Krugman believes in government spending to stimulate the economy even if it crowds our the wealth creating private sector"
the private sector does not deploy capital in an economic downturn. the failure to recognize that is what causes long term stagnation or depressions.
"or creates so much debt that what is collected in tax revenues is increasingly going towards interest on a malignant debt. Certainly, the BHO stimulus by their own benchmarks has failed miserably."
which is not to say that the stimulus had no positive effect. it did. it just fell short, for a variety of reasons.
i won't argue with you about the long term impact of the deficit. which is why i am in favor of taking the deepest cut in the deficit that we can get RIGHT NOW.
but apparently my fellow Republicans in congress don't share my interest.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 17, 2011 11:38:10 GMT -5
President Obama has made it clear that he’s willing to sign on to a deficit-reduction deal that consists overwhelmingly of spending cuts, and includes draconian cuts in key social programs, up to and including a rise in the age of Medicare eligibility.
"Liar. BHO has refused to name specifics."
that is totally untrue. he HAS named specifics. he just has not made any speeches about them. the GOP leadership is well aware of the specifics, and have leaked them to the press. if you go looking, you can find them. means testing of medicare was one of them. i read about that one a week ago.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 17, 2011 11:41:16 GMT -5
Yet Republicans are saying no. Indeed, they’re threatening to force a U.S. default, and create an economic crisis, unless they get a completely one-sided deal. And this was entirely predictable.
"Again with the compromise or one-sided arguement nonsense. Since when must a good deal involve compromise?"
that is a red herring. we are not talking about ANY good deal. we are talking about a good deal in a divided congress. and when we say "good deal", we are talking about "the best deal which can be made". if you view it in that way, i would say "whenever the sides have fundamental disagreement", which they clearly do, in this case.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 17, 2011 11:43:24 GMT -5
First of all, the modern G.O.P. fundamentally does not accept the legitimacy of a Democratic presidency — any Democratic presidency. We saw that under Bill Clinton, and we saw it again as soon as Mr. Obama took office.
"Again, utter nonsense and lies. "
i don't think he is lying, here. i think he IS exaggerating. if you think there is nothing to the argument, that is fine. i am not going to stand here and defend hyperbole.
"Seriously, is THIS what passes for scholarly thought from a Nobel Prize Lauraete?"
no, this is what passes for political outrage by a normally staid economist. i think it is funny, candidly.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 17, 2011 11:52:02 GMT -5
Put it this way: If a Republican president had managed to extract the kind of concessions on Medicare and Social Security that Mr. Obama is offering, it would have been considered a conservative triumph. But when those concessions come attached to minor increases in revenue, and more important, when they come from a Democratic president, the proposals become unacceptable plans to tax the life out of the U.S. economy.
"Wow, love the demagouging. These cuts are are not inextricably linked to tax hikes. Give us the cuts and not the hikes: problem solved and crisis passed. So simple even Krugman should understand that."
this shows me that you are really not getting the point of the article. it is not for the GOP to decide how the deficit is cut. this is a divided congress. one half cannot dictate how to do business to the other. in that environment, both sides need to feel pain.
here is the thing- if the goal is reducing the deficit, then the GOP should not have any issue with closing loopholes. it was, in fact, part of the rhetoric of the GOP extending back at least two years.
if the goal is making the president look bad, and making Democrats suffer politically for the crisis, then what the GOP is doing makes perfect sense.
what Krugman and others are angry about is that this political brinksmanship crap is very very dangerous stuff, and has wide impact on the US and the world. we have a shared goal, Republicans and Democrats, in making sure that the US maintains it;s standing in the world. and to shirk that responsibility for utterly uncompromising callow gamesmanship is really a shitty thing to do.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 17, 2011 12:00:08 GMT -5
But there has been no such price. Mr. Bush squandered the surplus of the late Clinton years, yet prominent pundits pretend that the two parties share equal blame for our debt problems. Dear God, ENOUGH LIES!!!! 1. Most of the surplus was skimming was the SS trust fund! Remove that and you have only 2 years of surpluses and one of those a mere 1 billion! first of all, there was no surplus. so you can fault Krugman for that. he should have said that Bush squandered a balanced budget. and that would be largely correct.2. Much of the enhanced revenue was from a powerful but unsustainable tech boom, NOT Clinton! most of it was from cutting costs relative to GDP and raising taxes. at least that is what the OTA says.3. The GOP restrained Clinton from his tax and spend, spread the wealth around nonsense and they must receive both the credit and the blame for what surpluses were there. Clinton was no wild eyed liberal. he was a moderate pragmatist. not terribly different than Reagan and Obama in that respect. and yes, i really do mean that.4. Krugman completely ignores that BHO had increased the deficit by an order of magnitude from the 2007 budget under Bush and the GOP Congress (note this does include SS surpluses since the Democrats love to toss that around). this is where i part ways from my conservative counterparts. what happened after 2007 had little to do with congress. the nation responded to an emergency by throwing money at it, which is absolutely a rational response. i don't blame Bush for that, and i don't blame Obama for following through on that effort. but it is largely unimportant at this point. what matters is what we do NOW.So there has been no pressure on the G.O.P. to show any kind of responsibility, or even rationality — and sure enough, it has gone off the deep end. If you’re surprised, that means that you were part of the problem.BHO is the insane one with his out of control spending. Did Bush spend too much? Oh yeah: but Obama is Bush spending on mega steroids! Yet Krugman lambasts the GOP! again, this is not really true. the 2009 budget was $1.2 in deficit before Obama darkened the WH door (pun not intended).Seriously, how sad is this? *I* am smarter in economics and fiscal history than a Nobel Prize Laurate Economist! Up is down, freedom is slavery, life is death, and it's all crashing down. yes. the sky is falling and i want my mommy. now, can we please get down to business?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 17, 2011 12:02:12 GMT -5
actually, the Nobel became a joke when it was awarded to Kissinger, imo. but Krugman is an outstanding economist, no matter what the right says. he knows his s(*t. particularly when it comes to international trade. it may surprise not a few here to learn that Krugman is opposed to such stalwarts as the federal minimum wage. so although he is a social liberal, he is hardly what i would call a socialist. i won't even bother to comment about your skewering of Keynsianism, other than to say that Laffer is a Keynsian. Interesting that you could not dispute a SINGLE point I made. I will take that as admission that Krugman is a moron. not only could i. i believe i disputed all but one of your assertions. Krugman is no moron. PS- i appreciate your enthusiasm for the topic, and the time you took in your reply. hopefully you feel the same way, even if you no longer feel the "love". ;]
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Jul 17, 2011 12:08:59 GMT -5
4. He fails to offer proof that supply side economics might be valid. He notes that taxes were raised under Reagan, but that is not a proof or an invalidation of supply side economics. i have but one question for you. verrip- do you believe that cutting top incremental income tax rates increases tax revenue in the general case? I have heard reasonable arguments on both sides from somewhat level headed people about whether cutting rates increase revenues. I think the barbs in your question are 'top incremental income tax rates' and 'in the general case'. However, my experience is that it is unlikely that you would ask such a question without being confident that you have either the correct or a strongly justifiable answer. I'd like to hear that answer.
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Jul 17, 2011 12:24:19 GMT -5
i came to this board a month ago, verrip. and every day i post here there are no less than 5 posts saying that Obama is a communist who is destroying our nation. what i love about Krugman is that he is saying something different. it is the same thing i love about Bachmann candidly. i get really tired of the same shit OVER and OVER and OVER again. i just want to hear a fresh perspective. if nobody else here does.....tough shit. you are getting one anyway. Krugman's perspective is hardly fresh. He's been saying the same shit, different day, for years. Though there is excessive exuberance in some of the conservatives on this board, there is equally excessive exuberance from the liberal side as well. We have Krugmans here as well as Coulters. As to the relative intensities of both, well, that largely depends on where one views the action. I'd agree that there is crap on the board, but mostly it's that back-slapping, 'you da man', konstant kliquish karma-ing and sycophantism that some folks just can't stop themselves from doing. Now, that's enough to make anybody puke.
|
|
txbo
Familiar Member
Joined: Apr 1, 2011 4:07:47 GMT -5
Posts: 547
|
Post by txbo on Jul 17, 2011 12:30:17 GMT -5
I'd agree that there is crap on the board, but mostly it's that back-slapping, 'you da man', konstant kliquish karma-ing and sycophantism that some folks just can't stop themselves from doing. Now, that's enough to make anybody puke. Darn, I know I should not have given Paul a karma point. I apologize.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 17, 2011 12:33:33 GMT -5
i have but one question for you. verrip- do you believe that cutting top incremental income tax rates increases tax revenue in the general case? I have heard reasonable arguments on both sides from somewhat level headed people about whether cutting rates increase revenues. I think the barbs in your question are 'top incremental income tax rates' and 'in the general case'. However, my experience is that it is unlikely that you would ask such a question without being confident that you have either the correct or a strongly justifiable answer. I'd like to hear that answer. i don't think there is much debate on the subject after the publication of OTA Paper 81, which describes the revenue effect of tax changes. the first version of this paper was done under a democratic president and a republican congress. the second was done under a republican president and a republican congress. i have little doubt that it is basically correct. you can read it here, and draw your own conclusions. i doubt it would take you a day to do so: www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/ota81.pdf
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Jul 17, 2011 12:35:16 GMT -5
Txbo. Let me guess. You were lit at the time? ;D
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 17, 2011 12:35:53 GMT -5
i came to this board a month ago, verrip. and every day i post here there are no less than 5 posts saying that Obama is a communist who is destroying our nation. what i love about Krugman is that he is saying something different. it is the same thing i love about Bachmann candidly. i get really tired of the same shit OVER and OVER and OVER again. i just want to hear a fresh perspective. if nobody else here does.....tough shit. you are getting one anyway. Krugman's perspective is hardly fresh. it is on this board since my arrival. i can't judge beyond that time frame, nor was my comment directed at any other venue.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 17, 2011 12:38:41 GMT -5
i came to this board a month ago, verrip. and every day i post here there are no less than 5 posts saying that Obama is a communist who is destroying our nation. what i love about Krugman is that he is saying something different. it is the same thing i love about Bachmann candidly. i get really tired of the same shit OVER and OVER and OVER again. i just want to hear a fresh perspective. if nobody else here does.....tough shit. you are getting one anyway. We have Krugmans here as well as Coulters. this comparison, which you have now made twice, strikes me as bizarre. but maybe it is just me.
|
|
txbo
Familiar Member
Joined: Apr 1, 2011 4:07:47 GMT -5
Posts: 547
|
Post by txbo on Jul 17, 2011 12:41:45 GMT -5
Txbo. Let me guess. You were lit at the time? ;D He actually made a good point for once and I felt great after a good swim.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jul 17, 2011 13:02:06 GMT -5
will take that as admission that Krugman is a moron. And out of touch with reality..
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 17, 2011 13:13:10 GMT -5
will take that as admission that Krugman is a moron. And out of touch with reality.. do you really think so, PI? i don't. i think he exaggerated a bit, but i think his analysis of the empasse is pretty revealing. and for the record, i don't even dismiss BUSH as being a moron. this, despite the fact that i really do hate him.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 22:47:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2011 13:37:03 GMT -5
President Obama has made it clear that he’s willing to sign on to a deficit-reduction deal that consists overwhelmingly of spending cuts, and includes draconian cuts in key social programs, up to and including a rise in the age of Medicare eligibility. These are extraordinary concessions. As The Times’s Nate Silver points out, the president has offered deals that are far to the right of what the average American voter prefers — in fact, if anything, they’re a bit to the right of what the average Republican voter prefers!
Overwhelming spending cuts. Cutting millions while spending billions is what President Obama is about. Sure he will cut, but only if he doesn't agree to a limitation on how much he can spend. As for "average American", average seems to depend on which party your a member of.
Yet Republicans are saying no. Indeed, they’re threatening to force a U.S. default, and create an economic crisis, unless they get a completely one-sided deal. And this was entirely predictable. Yes, they want MEANINGFUL spending cuts & have the power to either shut down the government or get what they want. The got that power because President Obama is a mediocre politician that over spend & misjudged the American people. Mediocre because he didn't see that he was out of touch with Americans & didn't realize that Democrats would lose control of the house. Out of touch with Americans, the proof is sitting in our house of representatives, make that our Republican house of representatives.
First of all, the modern G.O.P. fundamentally does not accept the legitimacy of a Democratic presidency — any Democratic presidency. We saw that under Bill Clinton, and we saw it again as soon as Mr. Obama took office.
Maybe if they changed the name from Democrats to Socialist (what they really are) they would be recognized by everybody.
As a result, Republicans are automatically against anything the president wants, even if they have supported similar proposals in the past. Mitt Romney’s health care plan became a tyrannical assault on American freedom when put in place by that man in the White House. And the same logic applies to the proposed debt deals.
All bets were off when President Obama blew the budget. Even programs that were ok in the past now need cutting. As for as assault on American freedom, sorry but I could care less about someone pushing "American Freedom" when they are trying to basically overthrow the government with socialist programs.
Put it this way: If a Republican president had managed to extract the kind of concessions on Medicare and Social Security that Mr. Obama is offering, it would have been considered a conservative triumph. But when those concessions come attached to minor increases in revenue, and more important, when they come from a Democratic president, the proposals become unacceptable plans to tax the life out of the U.S. economy.
Yes President Obama is wanting to cut something that someone has already earned so that he can use the money to buy more votes for his "programs". He has gone to far & the next election will show that.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 17, 2011 13:46:17 GMT -5
First of all, the modern G.O.P. fundamentally does not accept the legitimacy of a Democratic presidency — any Democratic presidency. We saw that under Bill Clinton, and we saw it again as soon as Mr. Obama took office.
Maybe if they changed the name from Democrats to Socialist (what they really are) they would be recognized by everybody.
socialists advocate the public ownership of the means of production. which Democrats advocate that?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 17, 2011 13:51:08 GMT -5
Put it this way: If a Republican president had managed to extract the kind of concessions on Medicare and Social Security that Mr. Obama is offering, it would have been considered a conservative triumph. But when those concessions come attached to minor increases in revenue, and more important, when they come from a Democratic president, the proposals become unacceptable plans to tax the life out of the U.S. economy.
Yes President Obama is wanting to cut something that someone has already earned so that he can use the money to buy more votes for his "programs"He has gone to far & the next election will show that. .
i am not following you here, tex. are you saying that Obama is buying votes using the money from the rich? how so, given that the current tax policies are MORE favourable than they were under Bush?
|
|