Airborne375
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 276
- Reaction score
- 101
- Location
- Charleston, SC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
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.
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.eace
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?
Yes again, I'm smarter than you and we both know it.
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.
The GOP will let the economy go off a cliff rather than debt spend to prevent a massive recession?
Yes or no
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.
...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...
:lol: and the win goes to lpastIm 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 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 pocket...
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
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...
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.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.
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.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.
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.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 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.
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.
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.
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.
so you'll take that bet?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.You're right, it has nothing to do with the GOP's support of personhood amendments criminalizing abortion and birth control.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
It did stimulate the economy. But it wasn't purpose of it. That was my point.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As predicted, you do not have the courage to actually answer this.
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.
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.
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
Correction. Reagan wasn't a Conservative.
If you apply the criteria objectively and refuse to worship at his Cult Alter.
First of all, the notion that massive military spending did not boost the economy is entirely bat****.
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.
obvious Child said:Oh Look. Cpwill wrong again (this should surprise absolutely no one ever).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.
Unless you want to argue that Reagan was a tried and true liberal when he stimulated the economy with a massive arms build up...
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.
I'm getting extremely abusive to you because you don't ever bother to ditch your ideology and come into the real world.
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.
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?
....
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.
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?