Why we want stimulus now and worry about deficits later

[ilia25]

I'll fucking swear any fucking time I fucking want mother fucker.

Like you have any other choice

Since forever huh? Real precise math there bub.

Yes, moron, GDP has been growing exponentially since the ancient history. It was growing like that in the colonies long before the Revolution, and it was certainly growing exponentially in all the history of the USA.

It would take some damn big catastrophe to break that trend -- and even if it happens, the debt would the least of your worries.

Do you even listen to yourself"

"GDP has been growing exponentially since the ancient history"

FYI here is an example of exponential growth

Here is a graph of the growth of GDP

The reason the 2 charts don't look the same is because growth rates increase and decrease over time while exponential growth only increases at the same rate over time.

You'd think that if you're going to criticize the mathematical prowess of others that you would not be so ignorant of the subject as you obviously are.

Both your charts show an exponential growth, you dimwit. The they just have different coefficients. And in any case, if you extrapolate the blue line for the 30 next years you will arrive to the same numbers -- 50-70 trillions. That is unless we manage to break the trend that goes back for millennia.

 

[Cammmpbell]

I don't know what is your problem -- lack of math skills, or lack of imagination? In 30 years US GDP is going to be 50 to 70 trillion. That would make 16 trillion debt irrelevant, don't you think?



Another thing all right wing types show is that they have no trust in democracy. For all their talk about the Constitution and Founding Fathers, they don't think that such thing as a government for the people, by the people ever possible.

The government does what people want it to do. If people want a temporary tax, then that is what a democratic government will do. It is just that a temporary tax almost never needed since any country can simply grow out of its debt -- as long as it borrows in its own currency.

We didn't even have that to be concerned about till Reagan and the Bushes. Bill Clinton raised taxes, balanced the annual budget and bought back $450 billion of debt. George W. Bush cut taxes twice using reconciliation to block Democrat opposition, started two wars, one totally unnecessary then doubled the national debt from $5.7 to nearly $12 trillion. When he left office he left Obama an annual interest payment of $450 billion and it's more now.

Well you really shouldn't be counting Social Security in those surplus numbers so your figures are off a bit

FactCheck.org : The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000.

And a lot of that small surplus was due to the tech bubble and that quickly popped as soon as BJ Bill left office.

So it's not really that great an accomplishment.

BTW the national debt under Billy Boy increased from 4 trillion to nearly 6 trillion so tell me what good are surpluses when debt increases every year?

OK....you people don't have a clue but just say something magic happened under Clinton's watch. Compare any goddamned thing you can think of to Reagan and the Bushes.

Total U S Debt


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38(Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

 

[Papageorgio]

Sure -- the unemployment was growing pre-stimulus and stopped growing shortly after it the stimulus was approved. Let me know what word you did not understand this time.

Outside of your "opinion" these figures above show no positive effect the 2009 stimulus had on this economy.

For the 1000 time, w/o the stimulus those figures would be even worse, because the unemployment growth would not stop in 2009.

You keep saying that but you have no proof. We have a long term issue and it was made worse.

 

[ilia25]

Outside of your "opinion" these figures above show no positive effect the 2009 stimulus had on this economy.

For the 1000 time, w/o the stimulus those figures would be even worse, because the unemployment growth would not stop in 2009.

You keep saying that but you have no proof. We have a long term issue and it was made worse.

Ther will never be enough proof for those living in denial. For the rest of us there is plenty.

 

[Oddball]

Yeah, the rest of you who believe in unicorns and pixie dust.

 

[saveliberty]

Both your charts show an exponential growth, you dimwit. The they just have different coefficients. And in any case, if you extrapolate the blue line for the 30 next years you will arrive to the same numbers -- 50-70 trillions. That is unless we manage to break the trend that goes back for millennia.

Look dumbass this is the definition of an exponent:

Definition of Exponent

An Exponent is a mathematical notation that implies the number of times a number is to be multiplied by itself.
Examples of Exponent

In the expression a7, the exponent is 7. 'a' is the base.
In 24, 4 is the exponent. It indicates that 2 is to be multiplied by itself 4 times.
24 = 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 = 16

Exponent - Math Dictionary

Exponential curve then, are similiar to Skull Pilot's curve, not yours. I conclude that you are either ignorant of many things or simply a liar of the first order. Your graph has differing slopes and sometimes appears to have less slope. Fail.

What is the rise over run on your graph? I know, do you? Now take that and run it out 30 more years. You're not going to get anywhere close to 50-70 trillion. Try less than 20.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Reagan and the Bushes ran up the national debt by $9 trillion. They left Obama with an annual interest payment, which unlike the debt has to be paid or we go into default, of $450,000,000,000 his first year....more now. I suggest you knock about a trillion and a half off of Obama's debt and add it to the Reagan-Bushes.

"Reagan and Bush" is no longer an acceptable response. Try something else.
You and others on your side have been stating all along that you believe deficit spending will boost the economy.
So.....Why is it you run away from the issue and blame previous admin's for what Obama has done?. If you really believe deficit spending is good for the country ,you should stand up and be proud to say Obama spent trillions.
So which is it?

Oh but it is. They were the first ones in 232 years to cut taxes for the wealthy and borrow trillions from foreign banks. By god I know. I was here. The Republican partty used to cry at the thought of debt. Now all they do is blame those who did the best they could to prevent it. Bill Clinton raised taxes and began to correct the problem...then along came George.

No it is not. You lefties have been making excuses for Obama's ineptitude by blaming past admins.
It is time you people suck it up and recognize that you have no fall back position.
It's Obama's watch. Tough shit.

 

[Listening]

Bullshit -- the reason the economy remains depressed is that large sums of money in the private sector are sitting idle, neither spent, nor invested. That is precisely the reason why, by borrowing and spending those idle money, the stimulus adds to the aggregate demand.

An article of faith.....large sums of money don't sit idle. They just don't go where YOU want them to.

 

[Listening]

OK, but there are plenty of shovel-ready projects, so that is not an argument against the stimulus in principle.

Garbage....even the moron-in-chief admitted that was NOT the case.

 

[Listening]

And that is an obvious fallacy. The reason the economy went into recession is the drop in the private sector demand. Which means a lot of money in private sector are neither spent, nor invested -- rather they are sit as idle cash.

Thus, borrowing those idle money by the government has zero effect on the economy. And when the government spends those borrowed money, it increases the aggregate demand.

And the fact that there are huge sums of idle cash in the US economy is just that -- a fact, not a theory:
U.S. Companies Sitting On Cash Choose Stock Buybacks Over Jobs
Banks Are Swimming in Cash - Graphic - NYTimes.com

Also the owners of that idle cash are begging the government to borrow it because even 0.5% interest is better than 0. That is why the interest on the government debt is at record lows. This would be a perfect time to repair our highways, hire teachers, build a particle accelerator or more f-22s fighters that are "too expensive". If only the Republicans were not a mass of stupid morons.

It does no sit idle you idiot. It stays liquid.

Yes, they'd like the government to borrow it....and if it won't they can look for other investors. If the government borrows it...who pays it back....? Our kids. And we will still be in a recession 10 years from now.

 

[Cammmpbell]

"Reagan and Bush" is no longer an acceptable response. Try something else.
You and others on your side have been stating all along that you believe deficit spending will boost the economy.
So.....Why is it you run away from the issue and blame previous admin's for what Obama has done?. If you really believe deficit spending is good for the country ,you should stand up and be proud to say Obama spent trillions.
So which is it?

Oh but it is. They were the first ones in 232 years to cut taxes for the wealthy and borrow trillions from foreign banks. By god I know. I was here. The Republican partty used to cry at the thought of debt. Now all they do is blame those who did the best they could to prevent it. Bill Clinton raised taxes and began to correct the problem...then along came George.

No it is not. You lefties have been making excuses for Obama's ineptitude by blaming past admins.
It is time you people suck it up and recognize that you have no fall back position.
It's Obama's watch. Tough shit.

The excuse is built in. You and Dick Cheney may think the fact that Obama assumed a $450,000,000,000 annual interest payment on Reagan and the Bushes debt is not important but it only proves how goddamed ignorant you are. Multiply the annual interest by three and VOILA!! Subtract $1,500,000,000,000 from Obama's debt and add it to Reagan-Bushes.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Like you have any other choice



Yes, moron, GDP has been growing exponentially since the ancient history. It was growing like that in the colonies long before the Revolution, and it was certainly growing exponentially in all the history of the USA.

It would take some damn big catastrophe to break that trend -- and even if it happens, the debt would the least of your worries.

Do you even listen to yourself"

"GDP has been growing exponentially since the ancient history"

FYI here is an example of exponential growth

Here is a graph of the growth of GDP

The reason the 2 charts don't look the same is because growth rates increase and decrease over time while exponential growth only increases at the same rate over time.

You'd think that if you're going to criticize the mathematical prowess of others that you would not be so ignorant of the subject as you obviously are.

Both your charts show an exponential growth, you dimwit. The they just have different coefficients. And in any case, if you extrapolate the blue line for the 30 next years you will arrive to the same numbers -- 50-70 trillions. That is unless we manage to break the trend that goes back for millennia.

Do you even know what a millennium is? And an extrapolation is still just a guess. You have to assume way to much to state with any certainty what will be.

GDP is not an exponential curve even if it looks like one for a short time because the rate of growth changes and is sometimes negative and GDP will not approach infinity as exponential curves do.

Extrapolation of GDP depends on too many variables including population growth which is slowing in the US and over the next 50 years is expected to grow by the slowest rate in the history of the country.

 

[ilia25]

Do you even listen to yourself"

"GDP has been growing exponentially since the ancient history"

FYI here is an example of exponential growth

Here is a graph of the growth of GDP

The reason the 2 charts don't look the same is because growth rates increase and decrease over time while exponential growth only increases at the same rate over time.

You'd think that if you're going to criticize the mathematical prowess of others that you would not be so ignorant of the subject as you obviously are.

Both your charts show an exponential growth, you dimwit. The they just have different coefficients. And in any case, if you extrapolate the blue line for the 30 next years you will arrive to the same numbers -- 50-70 trillions. That is unless we manage to break the trend that goes back for millennia.

Do you even know what a millennium is? And an extrapolation is still just a guess. You have to assume way to much to state with any certainty what will be.

I expect at least 2% annual GDP growth and at least 2% inflation. You think I assume way too much?

GDP is not an exponential curve even if it looks like one for a short time because the rate of growth changes and is sometimes negative and GDP will not approach infinity as exponential curves do.

GDP growth may fluctuate short term, but it is exponential over long periods. And nothing prevents it from approaching infinity.

Just so you understand the exponential: nominal GDP grew about 5.3 times in the past 30 years. But since 1901 it expanded 2100 times.

Extrapolation of GDP depends on too many variables including population growth which is slowing in the US and over the next 50 years is expected to grow by the slowest rate in the history of the country.

That's why I used conservative numbers for both GDP and inflation so my numbers show a much slower growth (just over 3 times) than in the last 30 years (5.3 times).

 

[Skull Pilot]

Both your charts show an exponential growth, you dimwit. The they just have different coefficients. And in any case, if you extrapolate the blue line for the 30 next years you will arrive to the same numbers -- 50-70 trillions. That is unless we manage to break the trend that goes back for millennia.

Do you even know what a millennium is? And an extrapolation is still just a guess. You have to assume way to much to state with any certainty what will be.

I expect at least 2% annual GDP growth and at least 2% inflation. You think I assume way too much?

GDP is not an exponential curve even if it looks like one for a short time because the rate of growth changes and is sometimes negative and GDP will not approach infinity as exponential curves do.

GDP growth may fluctuate short term, but it is exponential over long periods. And nothing prevents it from approaching infinity.

Just so you understand the exponential: nominal GDP grew about 5.3 times in the past 30 years. But since 1901 it expanded 2100 times.

Extrapolation of GDP depends on too many variables including population growth which is slowing in the US and over the next 50 years is expected to grow by the slowest rate in the history of the country.

That's why I used conservative numbers for both GDP and inflation so my numbers show a much slower growth (just over 3 times) than in the last 30 years (5.3 times).

And you didn't factor in a decline in population growth did you? The decline in efficiency improvements as technologies improve?

You are assuming way too much.

And assuming that any system will reach infinity is fantastical at best.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/can-economic-growth-last/

 

[saveliberty]

ilia must be in denial over what exponential means. I note that we haven't seen the actual calculations made to get to 50-70 T GDP in thirty years. I dare you ilia. Put it down right here for us to see.

 

[saveliberty]

Here is a graph of the growth of GDP

The reason the 2 charts don't look the same is because growth rates increase and decrease over time while exponential growth only increases at the same rate over time.

You'd think that if you're going to criticize the mathematical prowess of others that you would not be so ignorant of the subject as you obviously are.

Let's do the math:

rise/run

15,000B - 10B./ 2011 4Q - 1947 2Q

14,990B./64.5 years

232.4B/ year

232.4B x 30 years = 6,972B

Add this result to the current 15,000B = 21,972B GDP in 2041.

 

[saveliberty]

I can already hear the but...but...but already, so here goes:

Let's look at the most recent and steeper part of the graph.

15,000B - 12,000B/ 2011 4Q - 2004 4Q

3,000B/7 years

428.57B/year

428.57B. x 30 years = 12,857.1B

Add to current = 27,857.1B GDP by 2041.

 

[Cammmpbell]

I can already hear the but...but...but already, so here goes:

Let's look at the most recent and steeper part of the graph.

15,000B - 12,000B/ 2011 4Q - 2004 4Q

3,000B/7 years

428.57B/year

428.57B. x 30 years = 12,857.1B

Add to current = 27,857.1B GDP by 2041.

What you guys should consider is when all this shit started.....after Reagan cut taxes and he and Bush's daddy borrowed $3 trillion from foreign banks.

Also.....what about the annual interest on the debt which must be paid or we default

2011 $454,393,280,417.03
2010 $413,954,825,362.17
2009 $383,071,060,815.42
2008 $451,154,049,950.63
2007 $429,977,998,108.20
2006 $405,872,109,315.83
2005 $352,350,252,507.90
2004 $321,566,323,971.29
2003 $318,148,529,151.51
2002 $332,536,958,599.42
2001 $359,507,635,242.41
2000 $361,997,734,302.36
1999 $353,511,471,722.87
1998 $363,823,722,920.26
1997 $355,795,834,214.66
1996 $343,955,076,695.15
1995 $332,413,555,030.62
1994 $296,277,764,246.26
1993 $292,502,219,484.25
1992 $292,361,073,070.74
1991 $286,021,921,181.04
1990 $264,852,544,615.90
1989 $240,863,231,535.71
1988 $214,145,028,847.73

 

[saveliberty]

Your chart is missing a few current years Crampedcell...

 

[naturegirl]

Your chart is missing a few current years Crampedcell...

Cammmmpbelllllll does that often. Either his sources conveniently leave stuff out or he does. I showed him yesterday where he did exactly the same thing.