Dung gets his wish

[Bonestorm]

Yet you think running even higher deficits than in the early 1980's is a good thing? What do you think will happen now dung? Should we keep running those insane deficits? Sooner or later you HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.

Well, the high deficits really began in 1983. I should have been more precise. What happened in 1983 and thereafter?

 

[The Dude]

Yet brakes are what the idiots in DC are applying to the economy by their negligent spending. Or are you like Dung and actually believe that if the government becomes fiscally responsible that corporations won't start investing in R&D and growth projects again?

The more fiscally irresponsible DC is, the more the corps and individuals hammer on the brakes. A fiscally irresponsible DC means higher taxes down the road, because we know they aren't going to cut spending.

No unlike you I'm not a partisan hack, none of your fear mongering has ever come to fruition!

 

[Airstrip One]

Well, let's just run the debt up to $50 Trillion and see what happens...

 

[The Dude]

Not that it's not important, but conservatards are mouse quiet on military and drug control spending.
They must be mocked!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Well, the high deficits really began in 1983. I should have been more precise. What happened in 1983 and thereafter?

Inflation was killed due to the Fed actions in 1981 and 1982, interest rates and inflation came down and the economy took off... IN early 1983. Let me guess, you think the deficit spending that occurred AFTER the growth started somehow caused the growth of the economy? ROFLMAO... you are such a hack.

Growth exploded BEFORE the high deficits. AFTER 1983, what happened to growth rates? Oh yeah, the high deficits put a damper on the growth. It shows what I have stated... we can handled a couple years of higher deficit spending... but it cannot be ongoing or it hampers the growth of the economy.

Also... those high rates of deficit spending to gdp... 1983-1986 was 6%; 4.8%;5%; 5.1%....

for 2009-2012... 10.1%; 9%; 8.7%; 8.5%

It is fucking insane to have deficit spending at that level for that many years...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

No unlike you I'm not a partisan hack, none of your fear mongering has ever come to fruition!

No, you are just an idiot... it is not fear mongering Mr. GED... it is basic economics.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Not that it's not important, but conservatards are mouse quiet on military and drug control spending.
They must be mocked!

Yet when asked on this thread, what was the number one thing I pointed to when discussing with Dung what should be cut?

 

[Bonestorm]

Inflation was killed due to the Fed actions in 1981 and 1982, interest rates and inflation came down and the economy took off... IN early 1983. Let me guess, you think the deficit spending that occurred AFTER the growth started somehow caused the growth of the economy? ROFLMAO... you are such a hack.

Growth exploded BEFORE the high deficits. AFTER 1983, what happened to growth rates? Oh yeah, the high deficits put a damper on the growth. It shows what I have stated... we can handled a couple years of higher deficit spending... but it cannot be ongoing or it hampers the growth of the economy.

You said "The more fiscally irresponsible DC is, the more the corps and individuals hammer on the brakes." So is it your contention that the economy grew from November 1982 to July 1990 despite increasing fiscal irresponsibility (partcularly in FY83 (funny isn't it that the end of the recession matches up precisely with the beginning of the highest deficit spending as a percentage of GDP since the end of WWII))? So, like, the single largest period of economic expansion would have been more expansive if not for government deficit spending.

Isn't the more obvious explanation that deficit spending increased growth?

And, no, growth did not explode before the deficits. They occurred at exactly the same time. The recession ended in November 1982, which was the first month of FY83, which was a high deficit year. And let's not forget 1982. It came in at a not too shabby 4% deficit as percentage of GDP, second highest since

Also... those high rates of deficit spending to gdp... 1983-1986 was 6%; 4.8%;5%; 5.1%....

For those keeping score at home, 6% (1983) was the highest deficit to GDP ration since 1946. 4.8% (1984) was the second highest (at the time). 5% (1985) was the second highest (beating out 1984). 5.1% was the second highest (beating out 1984 and 1985). Together, these were the four highest deficits since the end of WWII.


And it just so happens that the economy was growing rapidly at this time, notwithstanding SF's claims that deficits are a drag on growth.

for 2009-2012... 10.1%; 9%; 8.7%; 8.5%

It is fucking insane to have deficit spending at that level for that many years...

Not given the depth and length of the recession.

 

[Howey]

Lobbying should never be eliminated... what should be banned are the bribes that are called 'lobbying'.

I have to disagree. There's no difference between lobbying and bribery:

lobbying present participle of lob·by
Verb
Seek to influence (a politician or public official) on an issue: "booksellers lobbied their representatives".

brib·er·y
/ˈbrīb(ə)rē/
Noun
The giving or offering of a bribe.

I think you were a tad biased in your other comment with regards to the two parties. That is where you were wrong.

Please show me the bias in this statement. Was it the use of "rape"? Sorry. I couldn't think of a better term to use to describe the effect it would have on our seniors. Perhaps "dismantle"?

I don't think anyone doesn't want spending cut. It's which spending that's the problem. Whereas the left is willing to cut subsidies, unnecessary and outdated, business incentives, streamline government and defense spending, lower costs and look at non-evasive entitlement cuts, the right only wants to cut a couple of ineffective subsidies and rape entitlements.

The democrats have verbally expressed the willingness to work with the other side, the other side refuses to.

The problem is the vast mismanagement in DC. But you think DC is the solution. They are not. They are the problem.



Spending on infrastructure is one thing. But that is not where the money is going Dung. It is going to special interest groups. Just look at the pork in the fiscal cliff deal. That tells you where the problem lies.

1) Yes, beginning with the DoD.. at least 30% reductions can be done over the next couple of years.
2) You can cut spending in Medicare without cutting entitlements. Obama declared he found $500B in waste. Start there Dung.
3) Social security can be fixed with a doughnut hole solution. Re-implement a portion of the tax for those making more than say $250k or $500k or whatever the number needs to be to help the solvency issue.
4) Cut everything else back to 2007 levels adjusted for inflation and population.

Do the above and the deficit is gone

Obviously I would go further and simplify the tax code as discussed before.

Other than the unnecessary jabs at Dung, we seem to agree more than disagree, SF. It's more the details where we differ. One more thing I'd like to add to your list is unpopular, but I (personally) see nothing wrong with it.

Means testing Medicare and Social Security. It's money paid out to the upper incomes who don't need it. Deny Medicare and Social Security to individuals with incomes greater than 500k per year.

 

[The Dude]

No, you are just an idiot... it is not fear mongering Mr. GED... it is basic economics.

You peddle shit to old ladies.
You burned yourself in the deficit post!
Did we run deficits during WWII?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You said "The more fiscally irresponsible DC is, the more the corps and individuals hammer on the brakes." So is it your contention that the economy grew from November 1982 to July 1990 despite increasing fiscal irresponsibility (partcularly in FY83 (funny isn't it that the end of the recession matches up precisely with the beginning of the highest deficit spending as a percentage of GDP since the end of WWII))? So, like, the single largest period of economic expansion would have been more expansive if not for government deficit spending.

Isn't the more obvious explanation that deficit spending increased growth?

And, no, growth did not explode before the deficits. They occurred at exactly the same time. The recession ended in November 1982, which was the first month of FY83, which was a high deficit year. And let's not forget 1982. It came in at a not too shabby 4% deficit as percentage of GDP, second highest since

[TABLE="width: 192"]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63, width: 64"]1983q1[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 64, align: right"]8.5[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, width: 64, align: right"]5.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63"]1983q2[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]12.5[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]9.3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63"]1983q3[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]12.6[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]8.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63"]1983q4[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]11.8[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]8.5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63"]1984q1[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]13.6[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]8.0[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63"]1984q2[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]10.8[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]7.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63"]1984q3[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]7.3[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]3.9[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63"]1984q4[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]6.0[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]3.3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63"]1985q1[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]8.5[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]3.8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63"]1985q2[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]5.8[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]3.4[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63"]1985q3[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]8.2[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]6.4[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63"]1985q4[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]5.8[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]3.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63"]1986q1[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]6.0[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]3.9[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63"]1986q2[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]3.8[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]1.6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63"]1986q3[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]6.3[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]3.9[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63"]1986q4[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]4.7[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]1.9[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63"]1987q1[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]6.1[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]2.2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63"]1987q2[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]6.7[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]4.3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63"]1987q3[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]6.8[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]3.5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63"]1987q4[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]10.3[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]7.0[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63"]1988q1[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]5.5[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]2.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63"]1988q2[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]9.2[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]5.2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63"]1988q3[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]6.8[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]2.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl63"]1988q4[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]8.7[/TD]
[TD="class: xl64, align: right"]5.5[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Again, as stated before, during and coming out of a recession it is acceptable to have deficit spending. But once out, you stop the deficit spending or you will curb growth.

For those keeping score at home, 6% (1983) was the highest deficit to GDP ration since 1946. 4.8% (1984) was the second highest (at the time). 5% (1985) was the second highest (beating out 1984). 5.1% was the second highest (beating out 1984 and 1985). Together, these were the four highest deficits since the end of WWII.
And it just so happens that the economy was growing rapidly at this time, notwithstanding SF's claims that deficits are a drag on growth.

So growth went tumbling DOWN yet the continued high deficits had nothing to do with that? Um... OK dung... whatever you want to believe in your fantasy world.

tell us... what did GDP growth do in each of those years???

[/quote]Not given the depth and length of the recession.[/QUOTE]

LMAO... which is precisely why your level of stupidity, that has been tried by DC has led to what? Oh yeah, persistently high unemployment and one fiscal mess after another.

 

[The Dude]

Growth was up during WWII deficit spending
Any decent economist will tell you growth will go down during austerity spending cuts.
Having said that I hope Obama attacks y'all's bootstrapper spending
Fucking goose steppers

 

[Bonestorm]

Again, as stated before, during and coming out of a recession it is acceptable to have deficit spending. But once out, you stop the deficit spending or you will curb growth.

Again, as I stated before, the highest deficit spending coincided with the end of the 1981-1982 recession. That recession ended in November 1982. FY1983 began Nov. 1, 1982 and in that fiscal year we had the highest deficit spending since the end of WWII, which was followed by successive years of high deficit spending after the recession had ended.

Also, following the 1982 we had both fiscal and monetary policy geared towards growth. Once inflation was under control the FED cut interest rates to accommodate growth and the federal government ran high deficits. Together, there policies enabled the economy to rebound rather quickly. Here's the output gap following during and following the 1981-82 recession:

By contrast, the FED is presently at the zero bound and cannot use the traditional monetary policy tool to help stimulate growth. That's why we end up with suboptimal and non-traditional FED policies like QEs I, II and III and Operation Twist. The FED cannot (or will not) do much to stimulate growth. On top of that, you want fiscal policy to pull back as well, notwithstanding that we aren't anywhere close to having rebounded from the last recession. Here's the present output gap:

I don't get it. Why in the world would it be wise to induce another recession when we aren't even close to having rebounded from the last one?

So growth went tumbling DOWN yet the continued high deficits had nothing to do with that? Um... OK dung... whatever you want to believe in your fantasy world.

tell us... what did GDP growth do in each of those years???

No, growth did not "tumble down." The economy quickly reached its potential output (because both fiscal and monetary policy were geared towards growth) and resumed the traditional level of growth.

LMAO... which is precisely why your level of stupidity, that has been tried by DC has led to what? Oh yeah, persistently high unemployment and one fiscal mess after another.

It wasn't enough. That's why we need more.