Krugman

[Cancel 2016.2]

I think you are confusing a recitation of the facts with an argument. There is no logic to explain. That's what happened.

So, you think the tax cuts magically appeared the next day in the pockets of the people?

You think that the tech/telecom/internet bubble bursting and 9/11 had no impact on jobs?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I think you are confusing a recitation of the facts with an argument. There is no logic to explain. That's what happened.

Bottom line is that you are pretending it is the tax cuts that caused the unemployment rate to go up. That said, you are correct, there most certainly wasn't any logic in your comment.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

1) When the cuts were signed into law, the unemployment rate was at 4.5% (which is actually below the full employment level of 5%). Now, did the tax cuts magically appear the next day in people's pockets Darla? Because that is what Dung wants you to believe.

2) Yeah, I tossed Clinton in just as a jab at those that continue to pretend that it was Bush that caused everything bad in the past four years.

3) That said, the internet/telecom/tech bubble bursting was the primary cause of the rise in unemployment. It was the primary cause for the recession. 9/11 then exacerbated the situation and prolonged the downturn. But again, do tell me... which of those tax situations allows for more money in the hands of consumers? Consumer spending drives the economy. While people like Dung and Krugman would rather take that money from the people and let the idiots in Washington spend it frivolously... the reality of the matter is that you and I will spend our money far more efficiently than either Bush or Obama or any other dolt in DC.

So the bottom line is the bush tax cuts were enacted and we proceeded to lose millions of jobs, and you take that as evidence that tax cuts stimulate job growth because if only it would have.

The no true scotsman defense. Got it.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

So the bottom line is the bush tax cuts were enacted and we proceeded to lose millions of jobs, and you take that as evidence that tax cuts stimulate job growth because if only it would have.

The no true scotsman defense. Got it.

So bottom line is that you are going to continue to ignore everything written and just continue propagating the moronic view above?

Or can you answer the simple questions posed to you?

Do you think the tax cuts magically appeared in peoples pockets the next day?

Do you acknowledge the tech/telecom/internet bubble bursting effected job growth?

Do you acknowledge the fact that 9/11 occurred?

Anything darla? Or are you going to disappear like Dung?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

So the bottom line is the bush tax cuts were enacted and we proceeded to lose millions of jobs, and you take that as evidence that tax cuts stimulate job growth because if only it would have.

The no true scotsman defense. Got it.

That said, by your logic, everything Obama has done is a complete failure... because jobs are still below they are when he took office.

 

[Bonestorm]

1) When the cuts were signed into law, the unemployment rate was at 4.5% (which is actually below the full employment level of 5%). Now, did the tax cuts magically appear the next day in people's pockets Darla? Because that is what Dung wants you to believe.

2) Yeah, I tossed Clinton in just as a jab at those that continue to pretend that it was Bush that caused everything bad in the past four years.

3) That said, the internet/telecom/tech bubble bursting was the primary cause of the rise in unemployment. It was the primary cause for the recession. 9/11 then exacerbated the situation and prolonged the downturn. But again, do tell me... which of those tax situations allows for more money in the hands of consumers? Consumer spending drives the economy. While people like Dung and Krugman would rather take that money from the people and let the idiots in Washington spend it frivolously... the reality of the matter is that you and I will spend our money far more efficiently than either Bush or Obama or any other dolt in DC.

In the current economic climate with aggregate demand still well below trend, the issue of efficient allocation of capital is largely irrelevant. What is important is to increase aggregate demand by using deficit financed increases in government spending in the short-term with tax increases in the long-term to pay down the deficit after a real economic recovery. That's the great thing about the federal government. It has the ability to borrow at low rates to and spend lots of money to boost demand and get the private sector going again. Your point about efficient allocation of capital is a good one when the economy is operating at full demand or close to it, but doesn't work all that well under the conditions we have now.

What you want to do is to try to grow the economy by lowering aggregate demand through government cuts. It makes no sense.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

So bottom line is that you are going to continue to ignore everything written and just continue propagating the moronic view above?

Or can you answer the simple questions posed to you?

Do you think the tax cuts magically appeared in peoples pockets the next day?

Do you acknowledge the tech/telecom/internet bubble bursting effected job growth?

Do you acknowledge the fact that 9/11 occurred?

Anything darla? Or are you going to disappear like Dung?

I acknowledge that millions of jobs were lost in the years immediately following the bush tax cuts. I do not believe that "magic" had anything to do with it.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

That said, by your logic, everything Obama has done is a complete failure... because jobs are still below they are when he took office.

I certainly agree he could have done much better. I would have not extended the bush tax cuts (though considering the economy at the time I would have extended the portion for the middle class) nor would I have allowed nearly half of the stimulus to be made up of tax cuts since they are among the least effective stimulatives available. He is way to conservative for me, I agree.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

In the current economic climate with aggregate demand still well below trend, the issue of efficient allocation of capital is largely irrelevant. What is important is to increase aggregate demand by using deficit financed increases in government spending in the short-term with tax increases in the long-term to pay down the deficit after a real economic recovery. That's the great thing about the federal government. It has the ability to borrow at low rates to and spend lots of money to boost demand and get the private sector going again. Your point about efficient allocation of capital is a good one when the economy is operating at full demand or close to it, but doesn't work all that well under the conditions we have now.

What you want to do is to try to grow the economy by lowering aggregate demand through government cuts. It makes no sense.

I do agree that proper application of Keynesian theory can benefit the economy in a downturn. The problem Dung is that the government (both parties) never adhere to proper application of the theory. They never pay the debt down. Even if they raise taxes for more revenue, they just continue right along spending more than they bring in. Ike was the last President to preside over a fiscal year reduction in our national debt. Ike.

Also, you don't have to raise taxes to account for the paydown in debt. You can also cut the waste in federal spending. But again, they never do. They, like you, just keep on sticking future generations with more and more of our bills.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I certainly agree he could have done much better. I would have not extended the bush tax cuts (though considering the economy at the time I would have extended the portion for the middle class) nor would I have allowed nearly half of the stimulus to be made up of tax cuts since they are among the least effective stimulatives available. He is way to conservative for me, I agree.

Let me guess... you buy into the nonsense that welfare stamps are the best use of stimulus?

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Let me guess... you buy into the nonsense that welfare stamps are the best use of stimulus?

Well unemployment benefits are, and yes, I believe the data show that food stamps are as well. You have to give money to people who are going to spend it...that's stimulative.

 

[cancel2 2022]

I do agree that proper application of Keynesian theory can benefit the economy in a downturn. The problem Dung is that the government (both parties) never adhere to proper application of the theory. They never pay the debt down. Even if they raise taxes for more revenue, they just continue right along spending more than they bring in. Ike was the last President to preside over a fiscal year reduction in our national debt. Ike.

Also, you don't have to raise taxes to account for the paydown in debt. You can also cut the waste in federal spending. But again, they never do. They, like you, just keep on sticking future generations with more and more of our bills.

It's funny as I was going to say much the same thing.

 

[Bonestorm]

I do agree that proper application of Keynesian theory can benefit the economy in a downturn. The problem Dung is that the government (both parties) never adhere to proper application of the theory. They never pay the debt down. Even if they raise taxes for more revenue, they just continue right along spending more than they bring in. Ike was the last President to preside over a fiscal year reduction in our national debt. Ike.

Kind of like cutting taxes without actually cutting spending? I understand your point, but the problem I have with it is that there is no possible way to ensure that people in the future will do what is necessary as part of a long-term plan. You do the right thing now and hope that others follow the long-term plan that you envision, but there is no way to ensure that they do. I don't see that as a good reason not to do the right thing now.

And the Ike talking point is stupid. Clinton raised taxes and followed it up with spending reductions. The trouble was that the government had to make interest payments and, while it never actually made the debt clock tick backward, it was approaching that. And then Bush was elected. The fact of the matter is that when the government actually comes close to paying down debt, the Republicans will cut taxes and you will support them.

Also, you don't have to raise taxes to account for the paydown in debt. You can also cut the waste in federal spending. But again, they never do. They, like you, just keep on sticking future generations with more and more of our bills.

At this point, you do have to raise taxes to pay down debt. That's why Paul Ryan's Republican wet dream budget doesn't achieve balance, i.e. continues running deficits, until 2040.

 

[Bonestorm]

It's funny as I was going to say much the same thing.

Well, the proper application of austerity policies produces the same result, more debt. The difference is that with Keynesian policies you eliminate unnecessary human suffering and have actual economic growth so that the conditions for the proper application of Keynesian policies can be implemented given the political will to do it.

With austerity, you have debt, cut spending resulting in no growth which gives rise to new debt which requires more cuts which further cuts growth which leads to new debt which leads to further cuts and lower growth and new debt . . .

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Kind of like cutting taxes without actually cutting spending? I understand your point, but the problem I have with it is that there is no possible way to ensure that people in the future will do what is necessary as part of a long-term plan. You do the right thing now and hope that others follow the long-term plan that you envision, but there is no way to ensure that they do. I don't see that as a good reason not to do the right thing now.

Not quite... because cutting taxes means the money is in the hands of the consumers. It means that the government will eventually have to either reduce spending or it will have to take more money from the people. We all know how much the politicians like telling people their taxes are going to be raised.

The right thing now would be to pay down debt. Not keep increasing it. Especially when the idiots in DC have proven that they are going to waste the stimulus on short term stop gaps (which we do not need) rather than solving problems.

And the Ike talking point is stupid.

Why is it stupid Dung? Because it is 100% FACT. Take a look at the fiscal year ending debt for the past 60 years. Show me any other where the total national debt went down.

Clinton raised taxes and followed it up with spending reductions. The trouble was that the government had to make interest payments and, while it never actually made the debt clock tick backward, it was approaching that.

Yeah, those interest payments were on what again? Oh yeah, the debt that you want to keep increasing. Guess what, those interest payments are quite a bit larger thanks to Bush and Obama. Also, interest payments are a government expense. It is fucking absurd to pretend otherwise.

And then Bush was elected. The fact of the matter is that when the government actually comes close to paying down debt, the Republicans will cut taxes and you will support them.

Wow... so again, the tech/telecom/internet bubble never burst in your world? 9/11 didn't happen?

Also... who controlled the purse strings in those years where we actually came close to reducing the debt? Oh yeah, that same Republican Congress. Yes, I will support tax cuts. Because out of the two choices:

1) tax cuts and the government keeps on outspending revenue
2) tax increases and the government keeps on outspending revenue

I choose the former. More money in my pocket and less in the hands of the government.

At this point, you do have to raise taxes to pay down debt. That's why Paul Ryan's Republican wet dream budget doesn't achieve balance, i.e. continues running deficits, until 2040.

and Obama's wet dream keeps deficit spending in the neighborhood of a trillion dollars a year.

But you do highlight why your spend spend spend strategy always fails. Sooner or later you have to increase taxes to the point that it harms the economy in order to pay for what you have been spending. You want us to follow the European example of continuing to push the payback further and further into the future until their is no choice but severe pain. That is where Europe is at. Yet you and Krugman and the other warped Keynesians continue to pretend that more spending is the solution.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Also Dung... spending under Clinton went up every year.

 

[Bonestorm]

Not quite... because cutting taxes means the money is in the hands of the consumers. It means that the government will eventually have to either reduce spending or it will have to take more money from the people. We all know how much the politicians like telling people their taxes are going to be raised.

The right thing now would be to pay down debt. Not keep increasing it. Especially when the idiots in DC have proven that they are going to waste the stimulus on short term stop gaps (which we do not need) rather than solving problems.

We just have a fundamental disagreement here. The weird thing is how impervious to fact you are. Austerity isn't working.

Why is it stupid Dung? Because it is 100% FACT. Take a look at the fiscal year ending debt for the past 60 years. Show me any other where the total national debt went down.

It's stupid because the last time we were on our way to doing just that there was this guy named Bush elected to office who decided to cut taxes and you supported it and now our fiscal situation is shit. So yes, it's a fact, but the reason why it is a fact has everything to do with the guy that you voted for and the policies that he enacted that you supported.

Yeah, those interest payments were on what again? Oh yeah, the debt that you want to keep increasing. Guess what, those interest payments are quite a bit larger thanks to Bush and Obama. Also, interest payments are a government expense. It is fucking absurd to pretend otherwise.

Those interest payments were largely on debt incurred by your savior St. Ronnie of the Blessed Deficit, who exploded spending and incurred higher debts than any president since the end of WWII.

Wow... so again, the tech/telecom/internet bubble never burst in your world? 9/11 didn't happen?

Yes, that's exactly my meaning. Aren't you the guy that complains about my so-called penchant for straw man arguments. And really, ripping this statement from the prior statements makes it easier for you to attack it but this was part of a more complete argument. You are bitching about politicians not following through on the hard part of Keynesian theory. Well, the politicians that are primarily responsible for that over the past 20 years are Republicans and they did so in pursuit of policies that you supported.

Also... who controlled the purse strings in those years where we actually came close to reducing the debt? Oh yeah, that same Republican Congress. Yes, I will support tax cuts. Because out of the two choices:

1) tax cuts and the government keeps on outspending revenue
2) tax increases and the government keeps on outspending revenue

I choose the former. More money in my pocket and less in the hands of the government.

Exactly. You, like pretty much every other Republican out there don't give a damn about debt and deficits. You care about tax cuts.

and Obama's wet dream keeps deficit spending in the neighborhood of a trillion dollars a year.

Not really.

But you do highlight why your spend spend spend strategy always fails. Sooner or later you have to increase taxes to the point that it harms the economy in order to pay for what you have been spending. You want us to follow the European example of continuing to push the payback further and further into the future until their is no choice but severe pain. That is where Europe is at. Yet you and Krugman and the other warped Keynesians continue to pretend that more spending is the solution.

Actually, that isn't where "Europe" is at. That's where the PIIGS are. The PIIGS aren't "Europe" and have very little in common with the United States. And Keynesian policies don't always fail (frankly, your alacrity in flip flopping on Keynes is amazing) and worked pretty well following the Great Depression and WWII. The difference today is that we can borrow money at cheap rates and put it to socially useful purposes rather than to build shit to blow up shit.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

We just have a fundamental disagreement here. The weird thing is how impervious to fact you are. Austerity isn't working.

LOL the thing you are impervious to is the fact that more spending won't work either. The point you continue to miss is that once the hole is that deep, you take the pain. That is the path you wish for the US to continue on.

It's stupid because the last time we were on our way to doing just that there was this guy named Bush elected to office who decided to cut taxes and you supported it and now our fiscal situation is shit. So yes, it's a fact, but the reason why it is a fact has everything to do with the guy that you voted for and the policies that he enacted that you supported.

No matter how many times you want to reiterate the nonsense that it was tax cuts that caused the fiscal situation, it won't change the fact that it is pure nonsense. Clinton and the Rep Congress had the benefit of one of the greatest revenue booms (relative to GDP) and they STILL raised the debt year over year.

Now, you can go on pretending that there wasn't a recession that began in 2000 if you wish. But the rest of us are going to be honest about what occurred.

Those interest payments were largely on debt incurred by your savior St. Ronnie of the Blessed Deficit, who exploded spending and incurred higher debts than any president since the end of WWII.

Who controlled the purse strings Dung? Reagan... $1.6 Trillion in additional Debt with the Dem Congress. Bush $1.4 trillion (four years) with a Dem Congress. Clinton $1.6 Trillion in additional debt with a Dem, then Rep Congress.

Regardless, Clinton also had one of the greatest revenue runs thanks to the tech/telecom/internet revolution. Yet he still didn't pay down the debt. He knew going into each fiscal year that the interest payments from the national debt were a part of his expenses. No matter how much you or any other idiot tries to blame Reagan (as if he alone was responsible), the bottom line is that every President and every Congress since Ike has raised the debt.

Yes, that's exactly my meaning. Aren't you the guy that complains about my so-called penchant for straw man arguments. And really, ripping this statement from the prior statements makes it easier for you to attack it but this was part of a more complete argument. You are bitching about politicians not following through on the hard part of Keynesian theory. Well, the politicians that are primarily responsible for that over the past 20 years are Republicans and they did so in pursuit of policies that you supported.

When you pull your head out of your ass long enough to see what is going on, you will notice that I am criticizing both parties. Pretending that because I support the lesser of the two evils means I support their fiscal irresponsibility is absurdity at its finest.

Exactly. You, like pretty much every other Republican out there don't give a damn about debt and deficits. You care about tax cuts.

Straw man.

You obviously cannot comprehend what you read. I do care about the debt and deficits. I have bitched about the two parties being irresponsible. Yet again you pretend that if a person supports the lesser of two evils over the greater of two evils that said person must not want to rid us of both evils. That is where you tiny little mind continues to be derailed.

Actually, that isn't where "Europe" is at. That's where the PIIGS are. The PIIGS aren't "Europe" and have very little in common with the United States. And Keynesian policies don't always fail (frankly, your alacrity in flip flopping on Keynes is amazing) and worked pretty well following the Great Depression and WWII. The difference today is that we can borrow money at cheap rates and put it to socially useful purposes rather than to build shit to blow up shit.

1) you are a moron.

2) I am not flip flopping on Keynes. I am saying when properly applied it works. When it is warped into what you and Krugman want to pretend it is... it does not work.

3) Just because money can be borrowed cheap doesn't mean we should just keep borrowing. Eventually the money has to be repaid. You are like the moron that will go out and max out credit cards at 0% interest only to find out in the future that you are fucked when you have to pay it back or refi it at higher rates.

 

[Phantasmal]

do explain... why is it that Obama extended the Bush tax cuts? Two thirds of which went to lower and middle income families?

You do only remember the parts you like, I have noticed. It was called compromise. He wanted the tax cuts or the lower incomes, but the Republicans wouldn't give those unless he also cut taxes for the very rich. Remember...

 

[Phantasmal]

Recall that it was an all or nothing deal. Either all tax cuts were going to be extended or none were going to be extended and Obama chose to extend them all rather than raising taxes on lower and middle income families. Also, too, Obama was able to get extended unemployment assistance and the payroll tax holiday that the Republicans opposed.

Also, too, I love the fact that this is your attack angle in this thread. Obviously, you don't want to touch the austerity issue.

Thank you, that is the way I remember it.