Thread: The deficit is down!!!

Originally Posted by gunnut

I agree with you that Bush was wreckless with money. I don't deny that. I've always said Bush's domestic policies were atrocious.

Now, why do you attack Bush's spending while defending Obama's spending, which is 3 times worse?

I can attack Obama's spending because I also attacked Bush's spending. That makes me consistent.

You, on the other hand, railed about Bush's spending but then used it to justify Obama's spending. Doesn't that make you...what's the word I'm looking for...hippie...hydrogen...hypochondriac...it's definitely an "H" word...

Please answer the question. I railed against new federal programs with no funding and borrowing money to cut taxes as a long term stratagy. revenue is part of the equation.

Originally Posted by DOR

So, who do you think is going to pay for the clean-up?
Part of fiscal responsibility is taking care of existing obligations, which is this case involved a doubling of the national debt between 2001 and 2008.
Someone has to pay the bills.

Right, and part of that fiscal responsibility is to NOT add more responsibilities on top of the stuff we can't take care of right now. Obamacare did the opposite. It added an eternal obligation as time goes by, and funded the first 6 years of benefits with 10 years of tax receipts. Is that responsible?

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

Please answer the question. I railed against new federal programs with no funding and borrowing money to cut taxes as a long term stratagy. revenue is part of the equation.

I'm against this new payroll tax decrease. I was against the "stimulus" spending.

Revenue is part of the equation. But your Obamacare uses 10 years of tax receipts to pay for 6 years of benefits. How do you explain that?

Originally Posted by gunnut

I was against the "stimulus" spending.

Personally, I would not be in favor of the worst depression since the 1930s.
And, make no mistake, that's what was staring us in the face. Depression.

I'm also not in favor of more benefits for the rich at the expense of the less well-off. Not fair.
So, since it was the richer folks who got us into the unprecidented mess, what's wrong with asking them to clean it up?

Originally Posted by gunnut

I'm against this new payroll tax decrease. I was against the "stimulus" spending.

Revenue is part of the equation. But your Obamacare uses 10 years of tax receipts to pay for 6 years of benefits. How do you explain that?

The real savings are in the following decade because of stricter cost controls on medicare and efficencies. Of course Ryan's plan to keep the medicare specific taxes and eliminate the program will save more.

Originally Posted by DOR

Personally, I would not be in favor of the worst depression since the 1930s.
And, make no mistake, that's what was staring us in the face. Depression.

Please provide the empirical evidence that 1) a Keynesian "stimulus" even works and 2) the 2009 "stimulus" stimulated.

Originally Posted by DOR

I'm also not in favor of more benefits for the rich at the expense of the less well-off. Not fair.

Is the government entitled to take your money? I'm not asking whether they can pass laws to tax you. I'm asking whether, philosophically, the money you earn is really just the government's money, as that's the argument you are making here.

Originally Posted by DOR

So, since it was the richer folks who got us into the unprecidented mess, what's wrong with asking them to clean it up?

What was Congress' role in sowing the seeds for the bubble? How much responsibility do you give to Bill Gates? To Donald Trump? Is it all rich people?

Shek- have you read Greenspan's paper? I'd really like to hear your thoughts on that.

Shek,

You're the one who won't accept hard data to make a point about fiscal responsibility, so how in the world would you expect me to convince you that the fundamental basis of budgetary politics of the last six or seven decades has some small value?

Why bother?

Or, show me -- no, PROVE to me -- that Prof. Keynes was wrong.

Is the government entitled to take your money?

Only in a civilized society.

I'm asking whether, philosophically, the money you earn is really just the government's money, as that's the argument you are making here.

What an absurd notion. Where are you going with this, because it really isn't very helpful.

If you want to argue that all police, fire services, courts, education, traffic enforcement, disaster relief and other services typically provided by government should instead be provided by some other means, then just say so and we can deal with that argument on its merits.

But, to question the entire notion of government isn't very helpful.

What was Congress' role in sowing the seeds for the bubble?

Neither is changing the subject.

Mom 'n Pop Small Business, Inc., don't deserve to be punished by the kinds of policies the "I've got mine, Jack." party advocates.
It just isn't fair.

Discuss.

Originally Posted by DOR

Shek,

You're the one who won't accept hard data to make a point about fiscal responsibility, so how in the world would you expect me to convince you that the fundamental basis of budgetary politics of the last six or seven decades has some small value?

Why bother?

Or, show me -- no, PROVE to me -- that Prof. Keynes was wrong.


Only in a civilized society.


What an absurd notion. Where are you going with this, because it really isn't very helpful.

If you want to argue that all police, fire services, courts, education, traffic enforcement, disaster relief and other services typically provided by government should instead be provided by some other means, then just say so and we can deal with that argument on its merits.

But, to question the entire notion of government isn't very helpful.


Neither is changing the subject.

Mom 'n Pop Small Business, Inc., don't deserve to be punished by the kinds of policies the "I've got mine, Jack." party advocates.
It just isn't fair.

Discuss.

Dor:

Your conclusion regarding "fiscal responsibility" has been questioned repeatedly on common sense grounds. The statistical methodology you used to reach it was painstakingly questioned. Yet so far as I've seen you haven't countered with anything resembling a coherent, factual defense. Instead you simply declare the same conclusion over and over. Where's the meat?

And why so derisive? Did you have to respond to Shek's rhetorical question by saying "what an absurd notion"?

JAD_333,
All I heard was a lot of preconceived bias with no single digit of data in support.
All I offered was 60+ years of hard data, and a few comments about the absurdity of a single political myth.

Common sense is good.
I like common sense.
I challenged conventional wisdom, and was attacked for it.
All without a shred of evidence.

Originally Posted by DOR

JAD_333,
All I heard was a lot of preconceived bias with no single digit of data in support.
All I offered was 60+ years of hard data, and a few comments about the absurdity of a single political myth.

Common sense is good.
I like common sense.
I challenged conventional wisdom, and was attacked for it.
All without a shred of evidence.

DOR,
Using the data, your basic methodology, and what is taught in any undergraduate statistics course, I demonstrated the exact opposite of what you claimed. Also, do you not understand that statistics cannot be used to PROVE anything, but can only be used to DISPROVE something? Lastly, it is common practice that if one makes an assertion, then that person is ready to carry the burden of evidence. If you are a "professional" economist (even though there is no such thing), then providing evidence to back up your assertions should be easy as 1-2-3. The appeal to authority fallacy doesn't hold any water here.

The White House is bringing forward it's deficit reduction plan this week. It will be interesting to see if it is front loaded with tax cuts and back loaded with the deficit savings ala the republican plan or if it is an actual deficit reduction plan today not just a promise we will ask future americans to make sacrifices 10-20 years from now. I think the right just got played and the unseriousness of Ryan's taxcut and unspecified cuts the next ten years then massive sacrifices the following ten years is going to be hard to deny in comparison to a plan that cuts the deficit this decade and next.


Now the Donald at least we already know how he corrects for massive debt http://robertweed.com/blog/weekly-po...p-embarrassed/

OK, Shek, OK.

If you've never met an economist who was actually working as an economist, then I suppose you might have a different view of the world.

Personally, I've been working, as an economist, professionally, for a long time. 27 years, to be exact.

And, despite what an academic class on statistics might tell you, the real world does, indeed, accept proof based on numbers.

What it doesn't accept is constant denial in the face of simple statements of fact.
Not in my experience, anyway.

Maybe you've had different experiences; I'm willing to accept that.

DOR,

as a New Keynesian and a centrist i have some sympathy for your viewpoint. however, speaking as a moderator i've noticed you have yet to directly address shek's points re: statistics, especially his post 208.

you're speaking in generalities and haven't discussed the specifics, and ultimately you're not really doing your argument any good as a result.