- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 37,380
- Reaction score
- 10,655
- Location
- US Southwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
But that is just it, we are not "spending like mad" (that is unless you think deficit=spending) and cutting back on govt spending in a time of lowered overall spending causes a worse outcome.So until we reach the unattainable goal of "full employment", we should pay absolutely zero attention to the deficit and spend like madmen?
Who cares what the deficit would be if all discretionary spending was zero, the point is that revenue has not rebounded......becuse the economy has not rebounded......be cause we are nowhere near "full" employment. Until employment has rebounded, focusing on deficits is a losing game. Cutting govt spending in a time of lowered spending overall leads to MUCH SLOWER REBOUND.
We see this basic macro effect here, we see it even more so in the EU.
You have always had this quirk in thinking that associating Bush's last year with Obama somehow makes your argument better, when in fact it shows just how dishonest your arguments always are. Hint, Obama wasn't the POTUS until Jan of 2009, so why you would even include "Dec 2007" data when talking about him is just so WEIRD.
Again, you just won't face up to the fact that you are getting EXACTLY what you want.......and you still are not happy. I don't understand why you are not jumping for joy.
But that is just it, we are not "spending like mad" (that is unless you think deficit=spending) and cutting back on govt spending in a time of lowered overall spending causes a worse outcome.
You guys complain about the horrible spending of the EU, but they have gone full on with austerity, and look at their results.
We still have not hired on the millions who were fired from local govt cutbacks (the BIGGEST sector of job losses post 2007) so we have had a lowered level of austerity for going on 6 years.....and look at our very slow recovery.
But lets double down and see what happens. Do you want to make a bet on how this will turn out?
But that is just it, we are not "spending like mad" (that is unless you think deficit=spending) and cutting back on govt spending in a time of lowered overall spending causes a worse outcome.
You guys complain about the horrible spending of the EU, but they have gone full on with austerity, and look at their results.
We still have not hired on the millions who were fired from local govt cutbacks (the BIGGEST sector of job losses post 2007) so we have had a lowered level of austerity for going on 6 years.....and look at our very slow recovery.
But lets double down and see what happens. Do you want to make a bet on how this will turn out?
I'll take your shift in topic to be your concession.Wait until PPACA kicks in and then repeat your wish for a "rebound" in employment.
It is not a short term problem.You're still making the argument that we shouldn't be worried about how much our government spends. Fact is, they are spending drastically more than their income, and that is a problem.
Addicts.....home economies....I'm not going to get into bad analogy competition. If you can't discuss the real things going on, this is pointless.Austerity is a bad idea because it's like forcing a heroine addict to go cold-turkey. You'll likely end up doing even more damage. Likewise, it's not smart to give a heroine addict a higher dose of heroine to try to fix the problem. You have to slowly ween the addict off. We can't just cut spending immediately, and adding revenue will change nothing. We have to slowly reduce our spending so as to not shock the economy.
What you said was very contradictory, as even you dispute what you said. First you said that sequestration is ALREADY "having consequences" and then you said "Again, and I've repeated this many times, presidents and our government doesn't control the economy." So my point, that the gov't is, in fact, killing private jobs, by denying a permit to proceed on the XL pipeline stands.
Who cares what the deficit would be if all discretionary spending was zero, the point is that revenue has not rebounded......becuse the economy has not rebounded......be cause we are nowhere near "full" employment. Until employment has rebounded, focusing on deficits is a losing game. Cutting govt spending in a time of lowered spending overall leads to MUCH SLOWER REBOUND.
We see this basic macro effect here, we see it even more so in the EU.
Fine - then please show me a major increase in expenditures or ANY major policy the Fed has done since Obama took over that he has strongly disapproved of?
Oh con, we have already gone over the difference between US vs EU govt spending before, you saw that the % of spending/GDP difference was not that much, and the point is that the principle is the same.....you are going to have a slower rebound when you cut govt spending during an economic downturn.After Obama telling you how great Europe was you still don't get it. The economies of Europe and the U.S. are entirely different. The European economy is based upon massive govt. spending and entitlements creating cradle to grave coverage. When you cut back spending there you create the disaster we are seeing there now. The U.S. economy was based upon the private sector so cutting back govt. spending actually makes more money available to the private sector for investment and growth thus job creation. Cutting govt. spending in the U.S. isn't nearly the disaster as it is in Europe because Europe's economy has always been based upon govt. spending.
Oh con, we have already gone over the difference between US vs EU govt spending before, you saw that the % of spending/GDP difference was not that much, and the point is that the principle is the same.....you are going to have a slower rebound when you cut govt spending during an economic downturn.
I'll take your shift in topic to be your concession.
Kuehn argues that the most substantial downsizing of government was attributable to the Wilson administration, and occurred well before the onset of the 1920-21 recession. Kuehn notes that the Harding administration raised revenues in 1921 by expanding the tax base considerably at the same time that it lowered rates. Kuehn also argues that Woods underemphasizes the role the monetary stimulus played in reviving the depressed economy and that, since the 1920-21 recession was not characterized by a deficiency in aggregate demand, fiscal stimulus was unwarranted. Economist Paul Krugman, who is critical of the Austrian interpretation, notes that the monetary base expanded significantly from 1922-1925, and that this expansion was accompanied by a reduction in commercial paper rates.[15] Allan Metzger suggests that deflation and the flight of gold from hyper-inflationary Europe to the U.S. also contributed to the rising real money stock and economic recovery.[16]Sorry, but it's the opposite.
Great Depression - massive increase in government spending for year after year. Result? It took 13 years and a world war to get unemployment back down to pre-crash levels.
1920/21 Depression - spending cut in half, tax rates cut. Result? Economy was back to normal within 3 1/2 years AND the national debt went down.
There has been, on average, a recession every 6 years since America came into being; almost all of them resolved themselves without big government help.
All government spending does is skew the economy to become dependent on government handouts.
That might work for a socialist/communist economy (for a while). But a free market-based economy - it does not work so well.
Recessions are about price adjustments. Usually, from prices that have gone too high and need to be lower to keep the 'free market' balance.
They are healthy, necessary things for an economy.
If the government had just stepped back and let market forces do their thing - unemployment (imo) would be way below what it is now, the DOW would probably be far higher then today, the housing market would be stronger and there would be a lot less people on food stamps.
It is not a short term problem.
Addicts.....home economies....I'm not going to get into bad analogy competition. If you can't discuss the real things going on, this is pointless.
Spending more money in the afghan serge. Bailing out GM, Walstreet and the banks. Keeping the Bush tax cuts as long as he.
Policy: surge, drone strikes, rendition, not properly doing health care reform, not being able to get past GOP fear mongering and close Gitmo.
That's a start.
Kuehn argues that the most substantial downsizing of government was attributable to the Wilson administration, and occurred well before the onset of the 1920-21 recession. Kuehn notes that the Harding administration raised revenues in 1921 by expanding the tax base considerably at the same time that it lowered rates. Kuehn also argues that Woods underemphasizes the role the monetary stimulus played in reviving the depressed economy and that, since the 1920-21 recession was not characterized by a deficiency in aggregate demand, fiscal stimulus was unwarranted. Economist Paul Krugman, who is critical of the Austrian interpretation, notes that the monetary base expanded significantly from 1922-1925, and that this expansion was accompanied by a reduction in commercial paper rates.[15] Allan Metzger suggests that deflation and the flight of gold from hyper-inflationary Europe to the U.S. also contributed to the rising real money stock and economic recovery.[16]
NO, I never said anything so far about cutting spending "when things get better", putting words in my mouth....but go on...You say we cannot increase gov't revenue or cut gov't spending until "things get better"
I have no idea what you are talking about that will "prevent more hiring". Increased stimulus would retain and increase govt employees that were lost post 2007.yet willingly ignore any factor that "automatically" both increase gov't spending AND prevent more hiring.
A totally confused statement based upon words put in my mouth.You cannot have it both ways, you either do something to help hiring (increasing gov't revenue) or stop increasing gov't spending until that happens.
You are conflating unemployment payout with "stimulus", not the same thing.We were assured that "stimulus" was needed and have been spending at "stimulus" levels since FY2009
The 2008 budget was Bush's last budget, did not account for the war spending, delayed much of the TARP payouts to 2009 and did not include the ARRA......and the ARRA was made up of a majority of tax cuts and unemployment payouts, it had a very small amount of actual "stimulus" spending.- which increased federal spending 20% over that of FY2008; with the addition of TARP and ARRA - BOTH of which were said to be "one time" increases, yet we never went back to the 2008 federal spending levels as the "baseline".
Thanks, for your response. I am a little embarrassed though, I inadvertently added an emoticon on my tiny hand held device for which I apologize. :3oops:
The 2008 budget was Bush's last budget, did not account for the war spending, delayed much of the TARP payouts to 2009 and did not include the ARRA......and the ARRA was made up of a majority of tax cuts and unemployment payouts, it had a very small amount of actual "stimulus" spending.
Comparing the '20 depression to the '29-'39 Great Depression is bizarro world, and complaining about economists understanding either depression is weird coming from an anon poster on the intertubes is amusing, but whatever gets you through the day...They can argue and interpret and rationalize and spin all they want (Krugman is REALLY good at spinning, imo).
Fact - during the 1920/21 Depression - tax rates were cut AND spending was cut almost in half and the depression was over within 3 1/2 years.
Credit who or whatever you wish - the fact remains that a depression was ended (relatively) quickly 'despite' a huge cut in government expenditures.
PLUS the recessions every (roughly) 6 years in U.S. history almost all resolving themselves without large government stimulus.
PLUS, add in that despite trillions of dollars in deficits since '08 - unemployment is still worse then the day Obama took over (much worse if you used the participation rate he had when he took over).
So this notion that one must spend one's way out of a recession/depression just does not hold water.
This again is just one of your most basic errors that you constantly repeat even after being shown time and again that you are wrong. The spending for the wars was not fully shown in the budgets, nor did war spending suddenly end.That my friend is an absolute lie, all war expenses are part of the 10.6 trillion dollar debt that Obama inherited.
Not all, and again, most of the payouts were delayed until 2009BY.TARP was a loan classified as an expense with most being repaid.
You read it here folks.....tax cuts serve no purpose and are failures.ARRA was proposed by Obama and included targeted tax cuts requiring some kind of action before allowed, it served no purpose and was a failure except to the unions who were bailed out. You keep buying the leftwing lies. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty
Who cares what the deficit would be if all discretionary spending was zero, the point is that revenue has not rebounded......becuse the economy has not rebounded......be cause we are nowhere near "full" employment. Until employment has rebounded, focusing on deficits is a losing game. Cutting govt spending in a time of lowered spending overall leads to MUCH SLOWER REBOUND.
We see this basic macro effect here, we see it even more so in the EU.
Those economists were interpreting numbers - I was posting facts.Comparing the '20 depression to the '29-'39 Great Depression is bizarro world, and complaining about economists understanding either depression is weird coming from an anon poster on the intertubes is amusing, but whatever gets you through the day...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?