Economics

[EdwardBaiamonte]

.
It is kind of like a libertarian country. You can theorize all you want, But in fact they ALWAYS fail .

of course if true you would not be so afraid to present your best example? What does your fear teach us?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Ah, but repubs have historically backed more programs than dems.

of course if true you would not be so afraid to provide your best example. What does your fear teach us?

 

[Rshermr]

why should we make government debt illegal?

then liberal govt has to raise taxes and expose the true cost of their failing programs.

Revenues could also increase from a growing economy. Recent indications are this is actually happening too. If trends continue, the government will be in the black within a few years.

If they are in the black, it will be something that the republican presidents have not seen in modern times. Truman had four surplus years, Johnson one surplus year,and Clinton had four surplus years. Since the end of wwII, Dems had 9 surplus years. And Eisenhauer had three surplus years.
So there you go. Dems had three times as many surplus years as repubs.
Conclusion, based on data, is that Repubs spend way more than dems. And repubs have had NO surpluses since 1960. None.

 

[Rshermr]

, it FAILED. Makes no difference if it passed the house.

of course it makes a difference. Many libs tried and failed with healthcare, for example, until Barry struck pay dirt building on the long long slow ascension of liberalism. Feel silly now?

Wow. That is a great senseless statement.

 

[Rshermr]

.
It is kind of like a libertarian country. You can theorize all you want, But in fact they ALWAYS fail .

of course if true you would not be so afraid to present your best example? What does your fear teach us?

But, me poor ignorant con, there ARE no examples. There ARE no libertarian countries. Never have been. Though some wealthy folks are trying to build on on a man made island.
There are libertarians, however. Most give it up by puberty. Some, however, are paid shills who push the concept. Like you, ed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And we have been much higher than we are today.

exactly today we're at 40% of GDP and its never been higher It has risen steadily from 8% in 1900. How odd that we universally agree America is in decline when its debt is at an all time high!! It pays to think before you post!

Yet if you decrease government spending, you necessarily decrease GDP, which increases the debt/GDP ratio you seem so concerned with.

What do you think is an appropriate debt/GDP ratio and why?

Yet if you decrease government spending, you necessarily decrease GDP

Because people can't spend and invest their own money without a huge government in DC spending trillions?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yet if you decrease government spending, you necessarily decrease GDP,

of course thats backwards.

It's how GDP is calculated. You're the one that was arguing about the importance of the levels of debt/GDP ratio. You're the one who doesn't understand that government spending goes into GDP calculation. So necessarily, if you decrease gov't spending, you decrease GDP which seems to contradict the results you want out of changes in the debt/GDP ratio.

I think it probably means you just don't know how GDP is calculated.

When govt is big as it was in East Germany, Red China etc. GDP was small because govt wastes money. We got a huge GDP from the stone age to here because Republicans invented or supplied things. Govt does not invent a thing so cant make the economy grow . All it can do is slow growth down. Do you understand now?

What's your argument here?

The government could pay people $2 trillion a year to dig holes and another $2 trillion to fill them in. That would add $4 trillion to GDP.

Is that something you'd support?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

then liberal govt has to raise taxes and expose the true cost of their failing programs.

Revenues could also increase from a growing economy. Recent indications are this is actually happening too. If trends continue, the government will be in the black within a few years.

If they are in the black, it will be something that the republican presidents have not seen in modern times. Truman had four surplus years, Johnson one surplus year,and Clinton had four surplus years. Since the end of wwII, Dems had 9 surplus years. And Eisenhauer had three surplus years.
So there you go. Dems had three times as many surplus years as repubs.
Conclusion, based on data, is that Repubs spend way more than dems. And repubs have had NO surpluses since 1960. None.

pure and perfect liberal ignorance of course. Clinton inherited boom from Bush 1, Bush 2
inherited bust from Clinton, Obama inherited bust from Bush 2. Mostly what happens depends on what trend a party inherits and who controls congress. For example it was Newt who made Clinton responsible and say" the era of big govt is over" Do you understand now?

 

[Rshermr]

of course thats backwards.

It's how GDP is calculated. You're the one that was arguing about the importance of the levels of debt/GDP ratio. You're the one who doesn't understand that government spending goes into GDP calculation. So necessarily, if you decrease gov't spending, you decrease GDP which seems to contradict the results you want out of changes in the debt/GDP ratio.

I think it probably means you just don't know how GDP is calculated.

When govt is big as it was in East Germany, Red China etc. GDP was small because govt wastes money. We got a huge GDP from the stone age to here because Republicans invented or supplied things. Govt does not invent a thing so cant make the economy grow . All it can do is slow growth down. Do you understand now?

What's your argument here?

The government could pay people $2 trillion a year to dig holes and another $2 trillion to fill them in. That would add $4 trillion to GDP.

Is that something you'd support?

Do you have a rational question??

 

[Rshermr]

exactly today we're at 40% of GDP and its never been higher It has risen steadily from 8% in 1900. How odd that we universally agree America is in decline when its debt is at an all time high!! It pays to think before you post!

Yet if you decrease government spending, you necessarily decrease GDP, which increases the debt/GDP ratio you seem so concerned with.

What do you think is an appropriate debt/GDP ratio and why?

Yet if you decrease government spending, you necessarily decrease GDP

Because people can't spend and invest their own money without a huge government in DC spending trillions?

No. Because government expenditures on goods and services are one of the components of GDP.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yet if you decrease government spending, you necessarily decrease GDP, which increases the debt/GDP ratio you seem so concerned with.

What do you think is an appropriate debt/GDP ratio and why?

Yet if you decrease government spending, you necessarily decrease GDP

Because people can't spend and invest their own money without a huge government in DC spending trillions?

No. Because government expenditures on goods and services are one of the components of GDP.

And if the people kept the money, their expenditures on goods and services would also be a component of GDP.

 

[Rshermr]

Yet if you decrease government spending, you necessarily decrease GDP

Because people can't spend and invest their own money without a huge government in DC spending trillions?

No. Because government expenditures on goods and services are one of the components of GDP.

And if the people kept the money, their expenditures on goods and services would also be a component of GDP.

Right. If their propensity to consume is 100%. Which it is not. And never has been. Which is why gov consumption is a much more stimulative factor than tax cuts. Tax cuts often go to savings, particularly among the more wealthy. Gov expenditures are stimulative. Private spending is stimulative. Some, in both cases are more stimulative than others.
Over time, cutting taxes has been proven to be less stimulative than government expenditures in most cases. To my knowledge, we have no gov projects that call for digging and then filling in holes. It would be stimulative, but the multiplier would be low. However, if you did what the gov wants to do and developed programs to make or repair infrastructure, it would be quite stimulative.
Basic economics, though not libertarian or austrian economics.
By the way, building or repairing infrastructure is not done by the gov. It is done, of course, by the private sector. The private sector is paid, sector eployees are paid, they buy more stuff, which provides more money to more private sector folks. Which should scratch your itch about private sector involvement. And, it makes economies take off, based on the economic history of this country. Cutting taxes to put more money in the hands of the private sector NEVER does in bad economic times (times of high unemployment).

 

[JimmieD]

The government could pay people $2 trillion a year to dig holes and another $2 trillion to fill them in. That would add $4 trillion to GDP.

Is that something you'd support?

Did you even read Ed's beef with the debt/GDP ratio? He thinks it's too high, yet he wants to decrease gov't spending. Necessarily this would decrease GDP. What I would or wouldn't do with boosting GDP is irrelevant to his self-defeating argument.

[
No. Because government expenditures on goods and services are one of the components of GDP.

Yup. It's only 18% of GDP. The biggest component is personal consumption which accounts for 69% of GDP and whose growth has been outpacing growth in government spending.

So Ed and Todd probably have more work to do before anyone should believe that gov't spending is having a net negative effect on GDP. If it does, it's not obvious from just looking at the data.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The government could pay people $2 trillion a year to dig holes and another $2 trillion to fill them in. That would add $4 trillion to GDP.

Is that something you'd support?

Did you even read Ed's beef with the debt/GDP ratio? He thinks it's too high, yet he wants to decrease gov't spending. Necessarily this would decrease GDP. What I would or wouldn't do with boosting GDP is irrelevant to his self-defeating argument.

[
No. Because government expenditures on goods and services are one of the components of GDP.

Yup. It's only 18% of GDP. The biggest component is personal consumption which accounts for 69% of GDP and whose growth has been outpacing growth in government spending.

So Ed and Todd probably have more work to do before anyone should believe that gov't spending is having a net negative effect on GDP. If it does, it's not obvious from just looking at the data.

so does this mean tax and spend is the way to make an economy grow or shrink?

 

[Rshermr]

So ed asks a really naive question:

so does this mean tax and spend is the way to make an economy grow or shrink?

Neither, me boy. It means nothing. Without knowing the condition of the economy. R Reagan found that tax and spend really, really helped the economy AFTER he had tried cutting taxes and cutting spending, driving the unemployment rate to 10.8%. Hoover found that no new taxes and cutting spending made things go the wrong way, driving the ue rate from under 4% to 23% in four years. Roosevelt drove the ue rate down by increasing taxes and spending stimulatively.
But, me poor ignorant con tool, the answer is not as simple as your simple mind would like it to be. Kinda like your shorts. Depends.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

driving the unemployment rate to 10.8%.

of course even a lower grade liberal will have the IQ to admit Volker's 21% interest rates drove unemployment to 10.8%; not Reagan. Sorry to rock your world.

 

[Rshermr]

driving the unemployment rate to 10.8%.

of course even a lower grade liberal will have the IQ to admit Volker's 21% interest rates drove unemployment to 10.8%; not Reagan. Sorry to rock your world.

Sorry, me boy. If that was the case, perhaps you would like to explain why after it was obvious it would hit 10.8% Reagans team did not lower taxes and cut spending. Because, you see dipshit, he did not. He RAISED taxes and spent enough to triple the national debt.

Relative to what happened in 1981 and 1982, from David Stockman who was the Director of Management and Budget for Reagan. Reagan's guy:

The Reagan administration hardly minded proposing massive cuts to both taxes and spending. But then things went haywire, Stockman notes. The tax cut ballooned from $500 billion over five years to $1 trillion after lobbyists added special-interest tax breaks for various industries. And on the spending side, the Reagan administration went hog-wild throwing money at the Pentagon. The inevitable happened: The deficit ballooned.

Then reagan RAISED taxes:

I was horrified," Stockman recalls. In 1982, 1983, and 1984, Reagan signed a series of tax hikes that, according to Stockman, recovered 40 percent of the original 1981 tax cut. Meanwhile, unemployment fell from nearly 11 percent in 1982 to 7.4 percent by Election Day 1984, and inflation slowed.

David Stockman Trashes Reaganomics, Bush Tax Cuts, And Hank "Incompetent, Reckless" Paulson
Read more: David Stockman Trashes Reaganomics, Bush Tax Cuts, And Hank "Incompetent, Reckless" Paulson - Business Insider
Stockman is in print stating clearly that the recession of 1982 was the result of the tax decrease of 1981.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No. Because government expenditures on goods and services are one of the components of GDP.

And if the people kept the money, their expenditures on goods and services would also be a component of GDP.

Right. If their propensity to consume is 100%. Which it is not. And never has been. Which is why gov consumption is a much more stimulative factor than tax cuts. Tax cuts often go to savings, particularly among the more wealthy. Gov expenditures are stimulative. Private spending is stimulative. Some, in both cases are more stimulative than others.
Over time, cutting taxes has been proven to be less stimulative than government expenditures in most cases. To my knowledge, we have no gov projects that call for digging and then filling in holes. It would be stimulative, but the multiplier would be low. However, if you did what the gov wants to do and developed programs to make or repair infrastructure, it would be quite stimulative.
Basic economics, though not libertarian or austrian economics.
By the way, building or repairing infrastructure is not done by the gov. It is done, of course, by the private sector. The private sector is paid, sector eployees are paid, they buy more stuff, which provides more money to more private sector folks. Which should scratch your itch about private sector involvement. And, it makes economies take off, based on the economic history of this country. Cutting taxes to put more money in the hands of the private sector NEVER does in bad economic times (times of high unemployment).

Right. If their propensity to consume is 100%. Which it is not.

You must have forgotten that savings and investment are also part of GDP.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The government could pay people $2 trillion a year to dig holes and another $2 trillion to fill them in. That would add $4 trillion to GDP.

Is that something you'd support?

Did you even read Ed's beef with the debt/GDP ratio? He thinks it's too high, yet he wants to decrease gov't spending. Necessarily this would decrease GDP. What I would or wouldn't do with boosting GDP is irrelevant to his self-defeating argument.

[
No. Because government expenditures on goods and services are one of the components of GDP.

Yup. It's only 18% of GDP. The biggest component is personal consumption which accounts for 69% of GDP and whose growth has been outpacing growth in government spending.

So Ed and Todd probably have more work to do before anyone should believe that gov't spending is having a net negative effect on GDP. If it does, it's not obvious from just looking at the data.

What I would or wouldn't do with boosting GDP is irrelevant to his self-defeating argument.

I'm more interested in your fear of the question.

 

[Dad2three]

Revenues could also increase from a growing economy. Recent indications are this is actually happening too. If trends continue, the government will be in the black within a few years.

If they are in the black, it will be something that the republican presidents have not seen in modern times. Truman had four surplus years, Johnson one surplus year,and Clinton had four surplus years. Since the end of wwII, Dems had 9 surplus years. And Eisenhauer had three surplus years.
So there you go. Dems had three times as many surplus years as repubs.
Conclusion, based on data, is that Repubs spend way more than dems. And repubs have had NO surpluses since 1960. None.

pure and perfect liberal ignorance of course. Clinton inherited boom from Bush 1, Bush 2
inherited bust from Clinton, Obama inherited bust from Bush 2. Mostly what happens depends on what trend a party inherits and who controls congress. For example it was Newt who made Clinton responsible and say" the era of big govt is over" Do you understand now?

LOL, Seriously?

I guess the 4 surpluses were because of the GOPers? Even though Clinton HAD to veto a $700+ billion tax cut AFTER HIS first one BECAUSE GOP wanted to starve the beast? What happened once Dubya got into office again?


Between 1981 and 1992, the national debt held by the public quadrupled. The annual budget deficit grew to $290 billion in 1992, the largest ever, and was projected to grow to more than $455 billion by Fiscal Year (FY) 2000

To Establish Fiscal Discipline, President Clinton:

Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote. Prior to 1993, the debate over fiscal policy often revolved around a false choice between public investment and deficit reduction. The 1993 deficit reduction plan showed that deficit and debt reductions could be accomplished in a progressive way by slashing the deficit in half and making important investments in our future, including education, health care, and science and technology research.

"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits." — Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994



"Clinton’s 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity." — Business Week, May 19, 1997