Members banned from this thread: BRUTALITOPS, The Anonymous, cancel2 2022, PostmodernProphet, Boris The Animal, J Craft, CFM, DBCooper, Cancel 2018.2, chink, RB 60, PraiseKek, TOP, Eagle_Eye, excommunicated, AnnieOakley, Tommatthews, Q-Tip, volsrock, Rob Larrikin and BodyDouble


Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 61213141516
Results 226 to 238 of 238

Thread: Trickle down voodoo-economics at work....

  1. #226 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    4,121
    Thanks
    253
    Thanked 1,189 Times in 895 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 88 Times in 87 Posts

    Default

    "Obama was your traditional big government Keynesian" R #225
    In his unique circumstance yes.
    Keynesian economics is NOT a viable long-term strategy.

    BUT !!

    For recovering the U.S. economy from "the worst recession since the Great Depression" it was adequate.
    When Bush / Cheney / Paulson left office, the U.S. was losing 800K private sector jobs per month.

    The voters put the economy in Democrat Obama's hands, and Obama cut the unemployment rate nearly in half.

    If Obama overreacted to the Bush recession, then even after Trump replaced Yellen, why were interest rates not immediately altered?

    Obama-bashers may not wish to admit it. But the truth is, Obama handled the Bush recession fairly well; SURELY better than Bush / Cheney / Paulson did!

    Bush / Cheney / Paulson's $700 $Billion $TARP didn't recover the U.S. economy. All $TARP did was keep the U.S. economy from succumbing to the Bush recession long enough for Bush / Cheney / Paulson to get outa town (DC).

    That threw the Bush / Cheney / Paulson "worst economic recession since the Great Depression" hot potato into Obama's lap.

    BUT !!

    Obama was such a resourceful, studious leader, Obama lead our nation through the Republican adversity with style.
    "and look what that produced." R #225
    It's called "economic recovery". And by quantifiable standards we emerged from the global recession ahead of many of our trading partners that were similarly afflicted.
    "It should be obvious to anyone why conservatives and libertarians should be against Trump. He has no grounding in belief. No core philosophy. No morals. No loyalty. No curiosity. No empathy and no understanding. He demands personal loyalty and not loyalty to the nation. His only core belief is in his own superiority to everyone else. His only want is exercise more and more personal power." smb / purveyor of fact 18/03/18

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sear For This Post:

    PoliTalker (04-17-2018), ThatOwlWoman (04-17-2018)

  3. #227 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    183,528
    Thanks
    71,923
    Thanked 35,503 Times in 27,049 Posts
    Groans
    53
    Groaned 19,565 Times in 18,156 Posts
    Blog Entries
    16

  4. #228 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    183,528
    Thanks
    71,923
    Thanked 35,503 Times in 27,049 Posts
    Groans
    53
    Groaned 19,565 Times in 18,156 Posts
    Blog Entries
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    Poli, with all the respect in world to you, CA, Evince, sear, and the others...

    ...arguing over whether it makes better sense to deal with the debt by cutting spending or raising taxes (whether in general or focused on the rich)…is the ultimate case of working INSIDE the box.

    Neither is truly feasible; neither will get us out of the problem; and neither will ever occur, because both require the consent of legislators…and legislators have no interest in either of those “solutions.” They do not even see them as “solutions”; they see them as impediments to re-election.

    Anyway, if an automobile has 300,000 miles on it…and spends more time in the repair shop than on the road…the question stops being “which repair shop should (or shall) we use”…and becomes “how do we get rid of this car and get a new (or newer) one?”

    More to come.


    ...
    and then you take on a new car loan

  5. #229 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    183,528
    Thanks
    71,923
    Thanked 35,503 Times in 27,049 Posts
    Groans
    53
    Groaned 19,565 Times in 18,156 Posts
    Blog Entries
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello cawacko,



    That could be because we normally should not have to pay it down.

    As long as GDP rises faster than debt, then the Debt/GDP ratio improves.

    Most people don't understand why this is an important metric to watch.

    There is something more important than the debt.

    That is the Debt/GDP ratio.

    Check out this valuable resource:

    http://www.usdebtclock.org/

    Notice the debt is $21 trillion.

    The GDP is $19.9 trillion.

    The ratio of Debt/GDP is 106.2%.

    That last figure is the most important figure.

    Some debt is healthy up to a certain point.

    Our problem is not that we have debt.

    It is that the debt we have is too high for the size of our economy.

    Obviously, a larger economy can carry a larger debt than a small one can, so the amount that is OK depends on the size of the economy. That's why we look at the Debt/GDP ratio.
    spot on



    I have asked for over a decade the right what level of debt is acceptable

    they have always refused to tell me that %

  6. #230 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    62,856
    Thanks
    3,734
    Thanked 20,360 Times in 14,088 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 616 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sear View Post
    In his unique circumstance yes.
    Keynesian economics is NOT a viable long-term strategy.

    BUT !!

    For recovering the U.S. economy from "the worst recession since the Great Depression" it was adequate.
    When Bush / Cheney / Paulson left office, the U.S. was losing 800K private sector jobs per month.

    The voters put the economy in Democrat Obama's hands, and Obama cut the unemployment rate nearly in half.

    If Obama overreacted to the Bush recession, then even after Trump replaced Yellen, why were interest rates not immediately altered?

    Obama-bashers may not wish to admit it. But the truth is, Obama handled the Bush recession fairly well; SURELY better than Bush / Cheney / Paulson did!

    Bush / Cheney / Paulson's $700 $Billion $TARP didn't recover the U.S. economy. All $TARP did was keep the U.S. economy from succumbing to the Bush recession long enough for Bush / Cheney / Paulson to get outa town (DC).

    That threw the Bush / Cheney / Paulson "worst economic recession since the Great Depression" hot potato into Obama's lap.

    BUT !!

    Obama was such a resourceful, studious leader, Obama lead our nation through the Republican adversity with style.

    It's called "economic recovery". And by quantifiable standards we emerged from the global recession ahead of many of our trading partners that were similarly afflicted.
    You've read the same data I have on where this recovery ranks among post war recessions and it was a weak one. And there's a reason if was at weak as it was and that's because they tried to use the gov't as the driver even after we passed the worst patch. Hence the continual blaming of Congress for not passing additional stimulus bills after we were out of the trough.

  7. #231 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello sear,

    Quote Originally Posted by sear View Post
    I doubt you're really this obtuse.
    I am not the subject.

    Warning: People who stray from the issue and begin talking about me often end up on my permanent Ignore List. I make it very clear that my rules are more strict than the site rules. Warnings are rare and few. When I say permanent I mean permanent. If you doubt my word just try it out. It's a one way trip. I will have my civil discourse with respectful posters unmarred by personal invective. That is how I enjoy this place, and I mean to filter out anyone who slips below that standard. I'd like to discuss this thread and many more with you, but only on the level I enjoy. If you agree then simply avoid talking about me personally and we can talk about almost anything else. Otherwise I will not hesitate to vanish from your discussions as I will never be reading another word you post. I am not currently angry at you, just letting you know where I am coming from, that I have these high standards, and that I am not kidding about how I maintain them.

    Quote Originally Posted by sear View Post
    OF COURSE borrowing is a SHORT TERM benefit. The problems are:

    a) It's not simply a matter of having to pay the $money back. It has to be paid back with $interest. And the $interest on $20+ $Tril. is $mucho $dollaro.
    I understand this. I understand everything you are saying and have said in the previous posts. Much of it I agree with. I am telling you I used to completely agree with you. Ten years ago I could have written your post word for word and meant every word of it.

    I have since come to a higher understanding. I now understand why we can always carry a deficit, and probably always will. And it is not all bad. Yes, it is costly.

    Quote Originally Posted by sear View Post
    b) Therefore long term, which except in emergency is the only rational criterion, it costs $more!
    No, an emergency is not the only rational criterion. Yes, it costs more over the long term, but time means something different to a nation than it does to a living breathing mortal human. That's one of the reasons a national budget operates under different rules than a personal budget.

    Quote Originally Posted by sear View Post
    WHY ?!

    Because without debt, we have so much income (revenue) and so much outgo (spending). BUT !!

    With debt, we have the same income, BUT !! we have just as much outgo PLUS interest !! It's by far the worse deal, except in cases where the expense is invested.
    Much of our spending can be considered to be 'invested.' When we spend on public education, we are 'investing' in the next generation of Americans. When we spend on poverty assistance programs, we are 'investing' in society, expecting that some will be raised to middle class producers and tax payers. (That does happen, you know.) When we spend on infrastructure, we are 'investing' in capitalism, giving it all it needs to move at full speed. When we spend on unemployment and assistance for the families of laid off workers, we are 'investing' in the idea that if we help them get over the hump and they can get back to work and avoid foreclosure, which would cause further economic damage. During a recession, deficit spending *IS* 'investing' in our ailing economy so that we can get the GDP back up higher again.

    All of the above spending is 'investing' in the strength of our country and our economy.

    Quote Originally Posted by sear View Post
    In the vaguest of terms, generalities.
    But you did not quantify it in terms of:
    - $dollars
    - %GDP
    - or other useful standard.
    Baloney. I emphasized the DEBT/GDP ratio. That is a more useful standard than the level of the debt.

    Quote Originally Posted by sear View Post
    Merely that a little is good, a lot is bad, and you refuse to identify the demarcation between one & the other.

    So do balanced budgets.
    The difference is, balanced budgets eliminate interest payments,
    No, they don't. A balanced budget does not mean you have no debt. It means you have as much coming in as you have going out. The two are 'balanced.' Part of the outgo can be used for interest payments if there is debt. In our case there is debt, so a balanced budget would still include interest payments (servicing the debt.)

    Quote Originally Posted by sear View Post
    and we're paying $Hundreds of $Billions with a $B on debt service.
    That's not paying down the principle. It's merely keeping our creditors off our backs.
    We are actually our own creditors. Most US Debt is held by Americans.

    Quote Originally Posted by sear View Post
    You see PT. So far you've ignored these facts, and then pretend I don't hue to you, that your one narrow bogus reality is the only reality.
    What you are taking for 'me ignoring those points' is actually me accepting and agreeing with you on them. I don't have a 'one narrow bogus reality.' What I believe I have is a wider understanding. I accept everything you are saying and I posit that those considerations are not enough to evaluate why the USA has debt and what to do about it. So I add more factors to consider. And I am sure that even my assessment is incomplete. The more I learn, the more I modify it. That's why I went from complete agreement with you (about ten years ago) to feeling differently about it now.

    Quote Originally Posted by sear View Post
    To the contrary, no one I know has ever disputed it. I've already agreed with it. Just because it's true doesn't justify the overall principle.
    A little cocaine may elevate our energy level. Would you have all humanity strung out on cocaine?
    No, of course not. But US national debt and cocaine are two very different things.
    Last edited by PoliTalker; 04-16-2018 at 04:10 PM.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to PoliTalker For This Post:

    ThatOwlWoman (04-17-2018)

  9. #232 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Sear,

    Quote Originally Posted by sear View Post
    Keynesian economics is NOT a viable long-term strategy.
    I think it is. Why do you not believe so?

    Quote Originally Posted by sear View Post
    If Obama overreacted to the Bush recession, then even after Trump replaced Yellen, why were interest rates not immediately altered?
    Astute point.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  10. #233 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Ravenhenge in the Northwoods
    Posts
    88,289
    Thanks
    145,699
    Thanked 82,519 Times in 52,737 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 4,657 Times in 4,376 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Politalker says: "A balanced budget does not mean you have no debt. It means you have as much coming in as you have going out. The two are 'balanced.' Part of the outgo can be used for interest payments if there is debt. In our case there is debt, so a balanced budget would still include interest payments (servicing the debt.)"

    Thank you. This is basic econ 101 but is often misunderstood. The (R) base always seems to believe that when an (R) politician says "I'm in favor of a balanced budget" that that = lower taxes and cutting off social welfare program funding. We got just an email blast the other day from our own (R) U.S. Representative bleating about how he supports a balanced budget amendment.

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ThatOwlWoman For This Post:

    evince (04-17-2018), PoliTalker (04-17-2018)

  12. #234 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Central New Jersey
    Posts
    23,253
    Thanks
    13,544
    Thanked 12,185 Times in 7,629 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,051 Times in 998 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOwlWoman View Post
    Politalker says: "A balanced budget does not mean you have no debt. It means you have as much coming in as you have going out. The two are 'balanced.' Part of the outgo can be used for interest payments if there is debt. In our case there is debt, so a balanced budget would still include interest payments (servicing the debt.)"

    Thank you. This is basic econ 101 but is often misunderstood. The (R) base always seems to believe that when an (R) politician says "I'm in favor of a balanced budget" that that = lower taxes and cutting off social welfare program funding. We got just an email blast the other day from our own (R) U.S. Representative bleating about how he supports a balanced budget amendment.
    Yeah...the "balanced budget amendment" will be big with the Republicans this next election. For some reason, they think it would be wise not to go with the old standard..."elect us and we will do away with Obamacare."

    They've got less chance of passing anything that will lead to a "balanced budget"...than they had of eliminating Obamacare.

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Frank Apisa For This Post:

    PoliTalker (04-17-2018), ThatOwlWoman (04-17-2018)

  14. #235 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Ravenhenge in the Northwoods
    Posts
    88,289
    Thanks
    145,699
    Thanked 82,519 Times in 52,737 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 4,657 Times in 4,376 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    Yeah...the "balanced budget amendment" will be big with the Republicans this next election. For some reason, they think it would be wise not to go with the old standard..."elect us and we will do away with Obamacare."

    They've got less chance of passing anything that will lead to a "balanced budget"...than they had of eliminating Obamacare.
    Yep. It'll be difficult to ever balance a budget when you're handing out massive tax cuts to the 1% like candy at Halloween. Trick or treat, for real.

    Conservative "reasoning":

    John Q. Republican to Mrs. Republican: Honey, our household budget is out of control. We're spending more than we're bringing in. At this rate we'll be bankrupt in less than a year!

    Mrs. Republican: You're absolutely right, John. Tell you what, I'm going to cut back on the kids' lunches and after-school activities. No more soccer, ballet lessons, Little League, STEM camp. We'll cancel the family vacation to see the National Parks, and spend it at my mother's. I'll cut back on the food budget too. Macaroni and cheese and beans are healthier anyways.

    Mr. R.: Great ideas, thanks. Let's cancel cable and Internet too; we can just read old books. I'll give up dart league and the gym. When I go into the office tomorrow, I'm also going to ask my boss to cut my pay by 10%.

    Mrs. R.: Wonderful! I'll ask my boss to cut my pay by 10% as well! We can do this!

    One year later........


  15. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ThatOwlWoman For This Post:

    evince (04-17-2018), Frank Apisa (04-17-2018), PoliTalker (04-17-2018)

  16. #236 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOwlWoman View Post
    Yep. It'll be difficult to ever balance a budget when you're handing out massive tax cuts to the 1% like candy at Halloween. Trick or treat, for real.

    Conservative "reasoning":

    John Q. Republican to Mrs. Republican: Honey, our household budget is out of control. We're spending more than we're bringing in. At this rate we'll be bankrupt in less than a year!

    Mrs. Republican: You're absolutely right, John. Tell you what, I'm going to cut back on the kids' lunches and after-school activities. No more soccer, ballet lessons, Little League, STEM camp. We'll cancel the family vacation to see the National Parks, and spend it at my mother's. I'll cut back on the food budget too. Macaroni and cheese and beans are healthier anyways.

    Mr. R.: Great ideas, thanks. Let's cancel cable and Internet too; we can just read old books. I'll give up dart league and the gym. When I go into the office tomorrow, I'm also going to ask my boss to cut my pay by 10%.

    Mrs. R.: Wonderful! I'll ask my boss to cut my pay by 10% as well! We can do this!

    One year later........

    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to PoliTalker For This Post:

    Frank Apisa (04-17-2018)

  18. #237 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evince View Post
    spot on



    I have asked for over a decade the right what level of debt is acceptable

    they have always refused to tell me that %
    God you are truly a dopey bint, I've told you many times that the EU Stability Pact specifies that government deficit (3% of GDP) and debt (60% of GDP). Of course we all know that you'll forget again next week and ask the same stupid question! Here is your favourite website!!

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab...nd_Growth_Pact

    Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk

  19. #238 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello sear,



    I am not the subject.

    Warning: People who stray from the issue and begin talking about me often end up on my permanent Ignore List. I make it very clear that my rules are more strict than the site rules. Warnings are rare and few. When I say permanent I mean permanent. If you doubt my word just try it out. It's a one way trip. I will have my civil discourse with respectful posters unmarred by personal invective. That is how I enjoy this place, and I mean to filter out anyone who slips below that standard. I'd like to discuss this thread and many more with you, but only on the level I enjoy. If you agree then simply avoid talking about me personally and we can talk about almost anything else. Otherwise I will not hesitate to vanish from your discussions as I will never be reading another word you post. I am not currently angry at you, just letting you know where I am coming from, that I have these high standards, and that I am not kidding about how I maintain them.



    I understand this. I understand everything you are saying and have said in the previous posts. Much of it I agree with. I am telling you I used to completely agree with you. Ten years ago I could have written your post word for word and meant every word of it.

    I have since come to a higher understanding. I now understand why we can always carry a deficit, and probably always will. And it is not all bad. Yes, it is costly.



    No, an emergency is not the only rational criterion. Yes, it costs more over the long term, but time means something different to a nation than it does to a living breathing mortal human. That's one of the reasons a national budget operates under different rules than a personal budget.



    Much of our spending can be considered to be 'invested.' When we spend on public education, we are 'investing' in the next generation of Americans. When we spend on poverty assistance programs, we are 'investing' in society, expecting that some will be raised to middle class producers and tax payers. (That does happen, you know.) When we spend on infrastructure, we are 'investing' in capitalism, giving it all it needs to move at full speed. When we spend on unemployment and assistance for the families of laid off workers, we are 'investing' in the idea that if we help them get over the hump and they can get back to work and avoid foreclosure, which would cause further economic damage. During a recession, deficit spending *IS* 'investing' in our ailing economy so that we can get the GDP back up higher again.

    All of the above spending is 'investing' in the strength of our country and our economy.



    Baloney. I emphasized the DEBT/GDP ratio. That is a more useful standard than the level of the debt.



    No, they don't. A balanced budget does not mean you have no debt. It means you have as much coming in as you have going out. The two are 'balanced.' Part of the outgo can be used for interest payments if there is debt. In our case there is debt, so a balanced budget would still include interest payments (servicing the debt.)



    We are actually our own creditors. Most US Debt is held by Americans.



    What you are taking for 'me ignoring those points' is actually me accepting and agreeing with you on them. I don't have a 'one narrow bogus reality.' What I believe I have is a wider understanding. I accept everything you are saying and I posit that those considerations are not enough to evaluate why the USA has debt and what to do about it. So I add more factors to consider. And I am sure that even my assessment is incomplete. The more I learn, the more I modify it. That's why I went from complete agreement with you (about ten years ago) to feeling differently about it now.



    No, of course not. But US national debt and cocaine are two very different things.
    Nobody gives a shit about your ignore list!!

    Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 163
    Last Post: 11-10-2017, 10:05 AM
  2. It’s official — trickle-down economics is bunk.
    By ZappasGuitar in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 117
    Last Post: 12-19-2016, 09:27 PM
  3. Gee! Trickle-Down Economics FAILED, In Kansas!
    By Mr. Shaman in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-27-2016, 03:21 PM
  4. Trickle Down Economics Doesn't Work!
    By Mott the Hoople in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-06-2014, 09:37 AM
  5. The death of trickle-down economics
    By signalmankenneth in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-04-2012, 04:00 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •