Republicans fall quiet in face of Obama deficit success

[Eric Cartman]

Except you don't drive an economy based on spending. The general problem is that you site GDP as the be all indicator of economic health, without understanding why the metric was created, or without actually learning economics in the first place.

I somehow missed this part of your post earlier.

I figured as a "1%er wannabe" that you would be fine with GDP as our economic measuring stick (metric if you will). I think it is useful but limited, especially when it comes to income distribution.

I would probably prefer the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare or the Genuine Progress Indicator or maybe even the Happy planet index. What ever floats your boat.

 

[Mertex]

What surplus would that be?

If you don't know you are not as bright as you think you are.

Have you ever seen a budget surplus which makes the public debt increase for 3 years in a row?

Something else was rising while the public debt was falling. By process of elimination, even you will be able to figure out what it was.

Good, you finally admit that the public debt was falling.

Show me where I said it wasn't.

Don't you know what you post?
Up above, I bolded it for you. You implied that the public debt had increased (during the time of Clinton's surplus) insinuating that therefore there was no Surplus.

I said the national debt was increasing and also there wasn't a surplus, which there never was.

You said "public debt" it's right there on your post. The national debt did increase and I showed you why. When you have a surplus, it causes the Public debt to decrease, but the national debt goes up.
You can continue to claim there was no surplus, but the facts don't back you up. So at this point it's like arguing with the wall. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

I suppose it's always easier to create strawman than to actually address what I say.

The problem is that you deny having said what you said. You called it the "public debt", now you are claiming you said the national debt. You obviously are scrambling to prove you are right, but you just showed that you don't really know what you are talking about.

You're a disingenuous debater, one that moves the goal posts when confronted with facts.

 

[AmazonTania]

Don't you know what you post?
Up above, I bolded it for you. You implied that the public debt had increased (during the time of Clinton's surplus) insinuating that therefore there was no Surplus.

No, I implied that the national debt increased, insinuating that there was no surplus. If I posted public debt in one of my earlier post, it's clearly a mistype as majority of my post concentrates solely on the national debt and the 'supposed' surplus. I don't see where you are going with this. Other than claiming victory due to a small error, which is not even related to the heart of the argument.

Never seen a budget surplus which increases the national debt. Not only for just one year, but for three years of a 'surplus.' Strange anomaly that was...

You can continue to claim there was no surplus, but the facts don't back you up. So at this point it's like arguing with the wall. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

I have all the facts to back me up, and I use all of them facts presented on this post:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-of-obama-deficit-success-27.html#post7304751

Whether or not you want to ignore this post is up to you, but it clearly refutes your original statement. Which was the only thing I was concentrating on:

The last Republican doofus obliterated a surplus.

What surplus would that be?

The problem is that you deny having said what you said. You called it the "public debt", now you are claiming you said the national debt. You obviously are scrambling to prove you are right, but you just showed that you don't really know what you are talking about.

You're a disingenuous debater, one that moves the goal posts when confronted with facts.

Okay, so I mistyped on an earlier post and said Public Debt instead. And?

I'm not scrambling to prove that I'm right. I am right. If you want to nitpick and concentrate on one minor detail that I don't dispute, be my guest. You have your first point, whatever that may have been.

The facts are, there was no surplus and I even explained how there was never a one, including how the public debt decreased. At this point, all you've got was a red herring. Mazel Tov.

 

[AmazonTania]

Except you don't drive an economy based on spending. The general problem is that you site GDP as the be all indicator of economic health, without understanding why the metric was created, or without actually learning economics in the first place.

I somehow missed this part of your post earlier.

I figured as a "1%er wannabe" that you would be fine with GDP as our economic measuring stick (metric if you will). I think it is useful but limited, especially when it comes to income distribution.

If you understand the origins of GDP then you should understand that GDP was created during the Great Depression as a measuring stick for Government. As during this time, Congress wanted a measurement of how effective their policies were, not how well the economy was doing.

Its a flawed metric, and doesn't differentiates between good spending, nor bad.

I would probably prefer the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare or the Genuine Progress Indicator or maybe even the Happy planet index. What ever floats your boat.

I'm in the gloom and doom business. It doesn't matter to me what metric anyone uses, so long as I get paid.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Current national debt 16,823,301,525,180 and counting rapidly Democrats strangely quiet on that.

How much on the Iraq fiasco?

How much to mitigate the Bush Great Recession

How many jobs not recovered by a recalcitrant Speaker and a Minority Leader?

Housing is up 22% in my region.

How many new highs in the Stock Market?

Throwing GWB under the bus hasn't fixed the Republican Brand. It's fallen and it can't get up.

 

[Totino]

well, whooop dee doo !!

what about the DEBT ?

still over $16,000,000,000,000,000

and the libs/democrats just keep the debt hole deeper and deeper.

Keynesians like to dig. If they had if there way we would just give everyone a shovel and pay them to dig holes.

 

[Political Junky]

Current national debt 16,823,301,525,180 and counting rapidly Democrats strangely quiet on that.

How much on the Iraq fiasco?

How much to mitigate the Bush Great Recession

How many jobs not recovered by a recalcitrant Speaker and a Minority Leader?

Housing is up 22% in my region.

How many new highs in the Stock Market?

Throwing GWB under the bus hasn't fixed the Republican Brand. It's fallen and it can't get up.

Yes, the economy is up in spite of the GOP's best efforts to fuck it up.

 

[AmazonTania]

Current national debt 16,823,301,525,180 and counting rapidly Democrats strangely quiet on that.

How much on the Iraq fiasco?

How much to mitigate the Bush Great Recession

How many jobs not recovered by a recalcitrant Speaker and a Minority Leader?

Housing is up 22% in my region.

How many new highs in the Stock Market?

Throwing GWB under the bus hasn't fixed the Republican Brand. It's fallen and it can't get up.

Yes, the economy is up in spite of the GOP's best efforts to fuck it up.

GDP is up, if that is what you mean by 'the economy.'

 

[Eric Cartman]

If you understand the origins of GDP then you should understand that GDP was created during the Great Depression as a measuring stick for Government. As during this time, Congress wanted a measurement of how effective their policies were, not how well the economy was doing.

Its a flawed metric, and doesn't differentiates between good spending, nor bad.

Being flawed in no way means it isn't relevant. "good or bad spending?" who determines that? Sound like some of that Austrian economics nonsense.

 

[AmazonTania]

Its a flawed metric, and doesn't differentiates between good spending, nor bad.

Being flawed in no way means it isn't relevant.

It does if you are using it incorrectly. There are ways it can be used effectively, and then there are other ways in which GDP seems like a bogus metric.

"good or bad spending?" who determines that?

Individuals do.

Sound like some of that Austrian economics nonsense.

It would to you. More spending and debt seems to be the only trick up your sleeves. Colour me unsurprised when we discover that it's ineffective for the... However many times it's been tried already.

 

[usmcstinger]

Oh my, the deficit reduced $800 Billion under Obama ... more than predicted.
My comment ^^
Rachel Maddow
Show

And you can trust what she says?

 

[Eric Cartman]

Its a flawed metric, and doesn't differentiates between good spending, nor bad.

Being flawed in no way means it isn't relevant.

It does if you are using it incorrectly. There are ways it can be used effectively, and then there are other ways in which GDP seems like a bogus metric.

"good or bad spending?" who determines that?

Individuals do.

Sound like some of that Austrian economics nonsense.

It would to you. More spending and debt seems to be the only trick up your sleeves. Colour me unsurprised when we discover that it's ineffective for the... However many times it's been tried already.

You have messed up your quotes, I didn't make the first statement that you attribute to me.

At this point I think you are just trying to be difficult. GDP is not flawed but like any metric it has limits. There is no reason to know the history of it any more than you need to know the history of a scale in order to know when to use it and its limitations.

More spending equals more production which translates to more income and round and round we go. It doesn't have to equal more debt.

Please feel free to enlighten us with your solutions to our economic woes.

 

[ilia25]

Its a flawed metric, and doesn't differentiates between good spending, nor bad.

It does if you are using it incorrectly. There are ways it can be used effectively, and then there are other ways in which GDP seems like a bogus metric.



Individuals do.

Sound like some of that Austrian economics nonsense.

It would to you. More spending and debt seems to be the only trick up your sleeves. Colour me unsurprised when we discover that it's ineffective for the... However many times it's been tried already.

You have messed up your quotes, I didn't make the first statement that you attribute to me.

At this point I think you are just trying to be difficult.

I don't think she's trying, that's what she is. It's impossible to argue with person who constantly contradicts herself and keeps inventing concepts on the fly.

 

[ilia25]

When the government declared a $236 billion surplus, it borrowed $248 billion.

And from whom exactly the government borrowed those $248 billion?

 

[JQPublic1]

well, whooop dee doo !!

what about the DEBT ?

still over $16,000,000,000,000,000

and the libs/democrats just keep the debt hole deeper and deeper.

Keynesians like to dig. If they had if there way we would just give everyone a shovel and pay them to dig holes.

WOW! The debt is increasing so fast it went from 16 trillion to 16 quadrillion overnite.
16,000,000,000,000=16trillion............16,000,000,000,000,000=16 quadrillion as posted above.

 

[Totino]

Its a flawed metric, and doesn't differentiates between good spending, nor bad.

It does if you are using it incorrectly. There are ways it can be used effectively, and then there are other ways in which GDP seems like a bogus metric.



Individuals do.

Sound like some of that Austrian economics nonsense.

It would to you. More spending and debt seems to be the only trick up your sleeves. Colour me unsurprised when we discover that it's ineffective for the... However many times it's been tried already.

You have messed up your quotes, I didn't make the first statement that you attribute to me.

At this point I think you are just trying to be difficult. GDP is not flawed but like any metric it has limits. There is no reason to know the history of it any more than you need to know the history of a scale in order to know when to use it and its limitations.

More spending equals more production which translates to more income and round and round we go. It doesn't have to equal more debt.

Please feel free to enlighten us with your solutions to our economic woes.

GDP is not flawed? Are you serious?

Let's count the ways

Let's look at imputations. GDP counts home value as "rent" that homeowners don't have to pay, and calculates the amount of "rent" they think the home would be worth. They then count that as part of the GDP. Was there a transaction taking place? Absolutely not. They're made up transactions using made up government numbers. Another example is your checking account. Free checking accounts get a value assigned by the government even though they're free, because if they weren't free, you'd have to pay for it. The government adds a value to this service even though there's no exchange of money actually taking place and even though it's actually free. Between homes and checking accounts, these numbers alone added over 1 trillion to the GDP in 2003. That's nearly 10% of the 11 trillion we had as GDP in 2003. Not to mention, look at the housing bubble. It did amazing things for GDP. What happened when the bubble burst? We had between 2-3 million empty homes. That's all wasted capital who's only function then becomes bankrupting people who can't pay for the homes.

Do you know what hedonic adjustments are? They're "guesses" made by the government in which cash never actually exchanges hands. For instance a computer that cost $500 actually contributes more to GDP than $500 because the government assigns it a higher value than $500 under the idea that since we have better technology now than before, it must be contributing to economic output more. Just because something is twice as powerful doesn't mean that it has twice as much utility. Did more than $500 actually exchange hands? No, it's a fictitious number and made up money. Hedonic adjustments are BS and overstate the value of products, and thus also inflate GDP. For instance in 2003, hedonic adjustments made up 35% of the GDP. Meaning that 35% of the GDP in 2003 was simply made up. The government inflated the value, and the exchange of money never took place. Another reason the gov uses hedonics is to make inflation appear lower to pad their CPI numbers. And by keeping inflation low, you make the real GDP number artificially higher.

Another important aspect to look at is the fact that the GDP only adds. So for instance if we look at natural resources, the extraction and then selling of natural resources increases GDP. Except that natural resources are actually an asset. As we continue to take the resources, it harms future generations because the resources will be depleted. Because it's a national asset, we should also be accounting for the depletion as well as the economic exchanges taking place for the resources.

I could go on and on about the inaccuracies of GDP, but there's a few for you. Sure more spending in theory results in more production. But when you're simply making up spent money as the government does in the case of housing and in the case of hedonics, there's not actually spending taking place or transactions taking place. It's made up money. Just in the two examples above we've accounted for nearly 45% of the GDP being made up by the government. Yet you wish to tell me that GDP isn't inaccurate? Yeah okay buddy. And we haven't even begun to talk about how ridiculous it is to try and use GDP as a barometer of the overall economy. Do you need a lesson on that too?

 

[JQPublic1]

I could go on and on about the inaccuracies of GDP, but there's a few for you. Just in the two examples above we've accounted for nearly 45% of the GDP being made up by the government. Yet you wish to tell me that GDP isn't inaccurate? Yeah okay buddy.

I know one thing that is inaccurate and I can see that for myself. This is an unveiled, empirical example of things that are inaccurate:

well, whooop dee doo !!

what about the DEBT ?

still over $16,000,000,000,000,000

 

[Spoonman]

Oh my, the deficit reduced $800 Billion under Obama ... more than predicted.
My comment ^^
Rachel Maddow Show

So what you are really saying is the republicans austerity program is working.

 

[Totino]

I could go on and on about the inaccuracies of GDP, but there's a few for you. Just in the two examples above we've accounted for nearly 45% of the GDP being made up by the government. Yet you wish to tell me that GDP isn't inaccurate? Yeah okay buddy.

I know one thing that is inaccurate and I can see that for myself. This is an unveiled, empirical example of things that are inaccurate:

well, whooop dee doo !!

what about the DEBT ?

still over $16,000,000,000,000,000

That's nice. As you'll notice, the picture in his original post (which I couldn't quote because I didn't have enough posts on the forum), is accurate. So do you have anything to say besides continually quoting someone else's typo to say to me? Or is that about all you have? Don't bother responding unless you have something intelligent to say about MY posts.

 

[AmazonTania]

And from whom exactly the government borrowed those $248 billion?

Social Security Administration, Department of Labour, Health and Human Services, Veteran Affairs, Office of Personal Management.

Just to name a few.