Obama's budget is a nervous breakdown on paper

[Quantum Windbag]

I am not expecting anything -- I am just saying that a lot could change in 30 years. So it would be premature to fix now the fiscal problems that are projected 30 years down the road.

Obama has been very adamant about fixing economic problems immediately. The, "Do it now!" slogan. Why are you suggesting no plan and let everything fall where it may?

There are different kind economic problems, and they often require different solutions. Right now we need to stimulate the economy, and that means keeping up the spending and ignoring the deficits for now. If only because it is impossible to balance the budget in a depressed economy.

Actually, if we follow Keynes theories, we should now be concentrating on spending down the deficit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There are different kind economic problems, and they often require different solutions. Right now we need to stimulate the economy, and that means keeping up the spending and ignoring the deficits for now. If only because it is impossible to balance the budget in a depressed economy.

Funding entitlements doesn't stimulate the economy, it is meant for subsistance needs.

Any spending stimulates the economy.

Not according to Keynes.

 

[ilia25]

Obama has been very adamant about fixing economic problems immediately. The, "Do it now!" slogan. Why are you suggesting no plan and let everything fall where it may?

There are different kind economic problems, and they often require different solutions. Right now we need to stimulate the economy, and that means keeping up the spending and ignoring the deficits for now. If only because it is impossible to balance the budget in a depressed economy.

Actually, if we follow Keynes theories, we should now be concentrating on spending down the deficit.

I'm sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. We are in a classic Keynesian liquidity trap -- low inflation, low interest rates and high unemployment. And according to Keynes, borrowing money to rise the government spending -- any spending -- is the best way out of it.

 

[ilia25]

Curing cancer won't help with that either, the issue there is that Congress has exempted Medicare from following the law about how much it pays every year since it was enacted.

I did not get that -- you mean reducing the cost of Medicare will not reduce the budget deficit?

Because SS benefits are hardly enough to see the world. Still, like I said, we will have to adjust the retirement age in these cases.

We need to do it now, not later, which is what I have been saying. Because if we wait we are going to screw over a lot of people who are expecting to get paid.

I think they will understand that curing cancer might have something to do with it. Look, people are not that stupid. They can figure out that SS is for those too old to work, so it does not apply to them.

No, they are getting them cut because the government cannot find the money to pay them. The same thing is going to happen here if we don't do something now.

Greece can't find the money because it did not borrow in its own currency. And no, it is not going to happen here.

The goal being not spending more money than they government actually has.

Why? What's wrong with borrowing money if you can afford it? Besides, we are in a depression, cutting now will be a disaster. Greece had to do it because it borrowed in euro, but we don't have to.

Fascinating! How do you think we can accomplish that? Eliminate SS, Medicare, all other welfare programs and military?

SS, Medicare, and all the welfare programs are not needed to run the government, which is what I said.

Well, most Americans disagree -- they find the welfare state very useful. So do I -- and I don't understand why do you think we should be the only developed country in the world that does not have it.

 

[saveliberty]

There are different kind economic problems, and they often require different solutions. Right now we need to stimulate the economy, and that means keeping up the spending and ignoring the deficits for now. If only because it is impossible to balance the budget in a depressed economy.

Actually, if we follow Keynes theories, we should now be concentrating on spending down the deficit.

I'm sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. We are in a classic Keynesian liquidity trap -- low inflation, low interest rates and high unemployment. And according to Keynes, borrowing money to rise the government spending -- any spending -- is the best way out of it.

When the Japanese economy fell into a period of prolonged stagnation despite near-zero interest rates, the concept of a liquidity trap returned to prominence.[1] However, while Keynes's formulation of a liquidity trap refers to the existence of a horizontal demand curve for money at some positive level of interest rates, the liquidity trap invoked in the 1990s referred merely to the presence of zero interest rates (ZIRP), the assertion being that since interest rates could not fall below zero, monetary policy would prove impotent in those conditions, just as it was asserted to be in a proper exposition of a liquidity trap.

While this later conception differed from that asserted by Keynes, both views have in common first the assertion that monetary policy affects the economy only via interest rates, and second the conclusion that monetary policy cannot stimulate an economy in a liquidity trap. Declines in monetary velocity offset injections of short term liquidity.

Liquidity trap - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[saveliberty]

What was the key, then, to Britain's escape? It was certainly not Keynesianism - for Keynes's ideas were never tried.

The key economic figure in the National Government, Chancellor Neville Chamberlain, was a strong believer in protectionist tariffs and tight money.
Despite this, he was a keen reformer, setting aside cash for unemployment benefits, health and housing, but he drew the line at borrowing millions of pounds to spend on public works.
And although he approved a programme of aid to depressed areas, notably the coalfields of South Wales and Tyneside shipyards, it cost a tiny £2 million - a hundred times less than the programmes Keynes and Mosley had envisaged, and nowhere near enough to make a major impact.
In fact, the real key to Britain's recovery was probably the moment in September 1931 when the pound, battered by speculators, was forced off the gold standard.
Until then, the Bank of England had been compelled to keep interest rates high to maintain the ludicrously elevated value of sterling.

But as investors lost their faith in the pound at the height of the Depression, the Bank finally gave up the fight and abandoned the gold standard.
Now there was no need for the cripplingly high interest rates and by June 1932, bank rates were down to a barely noticeable 2 per cent - the ideal level to stimulate a recovery driven by private enterprise.


Read more: The great Keynes con: Labour 's plans to spend its way out of recession is an argument built on lies, says top historian | Mail Online

 

[saveliberty]

As a result, as early as 1935, the Depression in Britain was virtually over. By contrast, the U.S., where government intervention - in line with Keynesian thinking - was much more pronounced, did not begin to recover until the outbreak of World War II.
While President Franklin D. Roosevelt's innumerable government schemes and unprecedented welfare spending undoubtedly protected Americans against the ravages of poverty and unemployment, they certainly did nothing to bring recovery.


Read more: The great Keynes con: Labour 's plans to spend its way out of recession is an argument built on lies, says top historian | Mail Online

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There are different kind economic problems, and they often require different solutions. Right now we need to stimulate the economy, and that means keeping up the spending and ignoring the deficits for now. If only because it is impossible to balance the budget in a depressed economy.

Actually, if we follow Keynes theories, we should now be concentrating on spending down the deficit.

I'm sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. We are in a classic Keynesian liquidity trap -- low inflation, low interest rates and high unemployment. And according to Keynes, borrowing money to rise the government spending -- any spending -- is the best way out of it.

If we assume that liquidity traps actually exist, which is highly debatable, the normal actions have no effect on the economy. That means that government spending won't work, which is the same thing I said. I guess that means you agree with me that we should not use government spending to get out of the mess we are in.

 

[ilia25]

As a result, as early as 1935, the Depression in Britain was virtually over. By contrast, the U.S., where government intervention - in line with Keynesian thinking - was much more pronounced, did not begin to recover until the outbreak of World War II.
While President Franklin D. Roosevelt's innumerable government schemes and unprecedented welfare spending undoubtedly protected Americans against the ravages of poverty and unemployment, they certainly did nothing to bring recovery.

No recovery? The guy has no shame:

The economy started to recover in 1932, but it took long time to bring down the unemployment. BTW see that mini recession in 37? What happens is that Roosevelt decided that the recovery is well under way so he can start reducing the deficit and cutting spendings.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I did not get that -- you mean reducing the cost of Medicare will not reduce the budget deficit?

No, I mean Congress will not reduce the cost of Medicare.

I think they will understand that curing cancer might have something to do with it. Look, people are not that stupid. They can figure out that SS is for those too old to work, so it does not apply to them.

I think we will have flying cars powered by wind, but I wouldn't bet on it. I would, however, bet we will get those wind powered flying cars before we cure cancer.

As for people not being stupid, I simply supply this.

Why Do Republicans Hate Social Security?

Greece can't find the money because it did not borrow in its own currency. And no, it is not going to happen here.

Sure it isn't. You just said we are in a liquidity trap. If that is actually true the rest of the world isn't going to be borrowing in dollars either.

Why? What's wrong with borrowing money if you can afford it? Besides, we are in a depression, cutting now will be a disaster. Greece had to do it because it borrowed in euro, but we don't have to.

We are not in a depression, we are in a recovery from a recession. If you know enough about Keynes to think he was right about liquidity traps you should know he strongly advised that governments not run a deficit during boom times because it drags down the economy. Since you have repeatedly pointed out that is exactly what we have been doing you should actually agree with me that we need to cut the deficit and eliminate the debt.

Or you could just admit you do not really agree with Keynes and we can go from there.

Well, most Americans disagree -- they find the welfare state very useful. So do I -- and I don't understand why do you think we should be the only developed country in the world that does not have it.

I am willing to bet right here and now that no one disagrees, including you. Welfare programs are not required to run the government, they are run by the government. There is a difference.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Another right wing loon?

Nope.

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, discusses President Obama's budget proposal.
Cleaver says, “This budget is a nervous breakdown on paper. And it’s not just President Obama. I think he's put together a document that addresses education. We need to do it. Community colleges need to be upgraded. We got to have training for real jobs. We've got a lot of jobs that are going unfilled because we don't have the technology in the heads of graduating college students to deal with them."

Rep. Cleaver – Budget a 'nervous breakdown on paper' – CNN Press Room - CNN.com Blogs

Others have probably already pointed this out but -

In a live interview on TV news, he stated very clearly that he said Paul Ryan's "budget" is a " is a nervous breakdown on paper" and he's right.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Rev Denies Calling Obama Budget a “Nervous Breakdown on Paper”, Spox Says He Didn’t Hear the Question « 20 Pounds Of Headlines

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Another right wing loon?

Nope.

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, discusses President Obama's budget proposal.
Cleaver says, “This budget is a nervous breakdown on paper. And it’s not just President Obama. I think he's put together a document that addresses education. We need to do it. Community colleges need to be upgraded. We got to have training for real jobs. We've got a lot of jobs that are going unfilled because we don't have the technology in the heads of graduating college students to deal with them."

Rep. Cleaver – Budget a 'nervous breakdown on paper' – CNN Press Room - CNN.com Blogs

Others have probably already pointed this out but -

In a live interview on TV news, he stated very clearly that he said Paul Ryan's "budget" is a " is a nervous breakdown on paper" and he's right.

Actually, if you follow my link, you will see a video of the interview where he was clearly asked about Obama's budget and called it a nervous breakdown on paper. That is directly off the the CNN site, is clearly not edited, and that makes you a complete idiot for trying to argue he was talking about Ryan's budget from last year.

Not that anyone would be surprised by that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Rev Denies Calling Obama Budget a “Nervous Breakdown on Paper”, Spox Says He Didn’t Hear the Question « 20 Pounds Of Headlines

He didn't hear the question? Why did he clearly respond with the words "This budget is a nervous breakdown on paper"? Only a complete idiot would believe that one.

 

[Listening]

Rev Denies Calling Obama Budget a “Nervous Breakdown on Paper”, Spox Says He Didn’t Hear the Question « 20 Pounds Of Headlines

He didn't hear the question? Why did he clearly respond with the words "This budget is a nervous breakdown on paper"? Only a complete idiot would believe that one.

And there you have it !

 

[ilia25]

Actually, if we follow Keynes theories, we should now be concentrating on spending down the deficit.

I'm sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. We are in a classic Keynesian liquidity trap -- low inflation, low interest rates and high unemployment. And according to Keynes, borrowing money to rise the government spending -- any spending -- is the best way out of it.

If we assume that liquidity traps actually exist, which is highly debatable, the normal actions have no effect on the economy. That means that government spending won't work, which is the same thing I said.

Only the monetary policy is losing its effectiveness. That is why Keynes suggested that the fiscal stimulus, e.g. increasing spending, should be used instead to stimulate the economy.

BTW the fact that Fed injected 600 billion of freshly printed money into the system with no significant effect on inflation or economic growth is a very good indication that liquidity trap exists and we are living it.

 

[saveliberty]

As a result, as early as 1935, the Depression in Britain was virtually over. By contrast, the U.S., where government intervention - in line with Keynesian thinking - was much more pronounced, did not begin to recover until the outbreak of World War II.
While President Franklin D. Roosevelt's innumerable government schemes and unprecedented welfare spending undoubtedly protected Americans against the ravages of poverty and unemployment, they certainly did nothing to bring recovery.

No recovery? The guy has no shame:

The economy started to recover in 1932, but it took long time to bring down the unemployment. BTW see that mini recession in 37? What happens is that Roosevelt decided that the recovery is well under way so he can start reducing the deficit and cutting spendings.

It is a well known and accept fact that the US economy did not recover until after WWII. Britian didn't follow your messiah and the US did. Your theory is a total failure. Even Keynes abandoned Keynes.

 

[ilia25]

As a result, as early as 1935, the Depression in Britain was virtually over. By contrast, the U.S., where government intervention - in line with Keynesian thinking - was much more pronounced, did not begin to recover until the outbreak of World War II.
While President Franklin D. Roosevelt's innumerable government schemes and unprecedented welfare spending undoubtedly protected Americans against the ravages of poverty and unemployment, they certainly did nothing to bring recovery.

No recovery? The guy has no shame:

The economy started to recover in 1932, but it took long time to bring down the unemployment. BTW see that mini recession in 37? What happens is that Roosevelt decided that the recovery is well under way so he can start reducing the deficit and cutting spendings.

It is a well known and accept fact that the US economy did not recover until after WWII. Britian didn't follow your messiah and the US did. Your theory is a total failure. Even Keynes abandoned Keynes.

Well, you are an idiot. I just showed you the numbers but you keep repeating your dumb slogans. That is how people end up voting for Republicans -- by denying the facts they don't like.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. We are in a classic Keynesian liquidity trap -- low inflation, low interest rates and high unemployment. And according to Keynes, borrowing money to rise the government spending -- any spending -- is the best way out of it.

If we assume that liquidity traps actually exist, which is highly debatable, the normal actions have no effect on the economy. That means that government spending won't work, which is the same thing I said.

Only the monetary policy is losing its effectiveness. That is why Keynes suggested that the fiscal stimulus, e.g. increasing spending, should be used instead to stimulate the economy.

BTW the fact that Fed injected 600 billion of freshly printed money into the system with no significant effect on inflation or economic growth is a very good indication that liquidity trap exists and we are living it.

I see you are actually ignoring the fact that government spending has actually increased under Obama, and that it has had no appreciable affect on the economy. Yet you still want to argue that government spending always has a net positive effect on the economy.

BTW, the fact that quantitative easing didn't work is simply evidence, and can be interpreted according to multiple theories. I can easily argue that this proves that the entire way the government is handling the situation is based on a faulty line of reasoning, and that it serves to prove the Keynes was completely wrong. In other words, it don't prove nothing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No recovery? The guy has no shame:

The economy started to recover in 1932, but it took long time to bring down the unemployment. BTW see that mini recession in 37? What happens is that Roosevelt decided that the recovery is well under way so he can start reducing the deficit and cutting spendings.

It is a well known and accept fact that the US economy did not recover until after WWII. Britian didn't follow your messiah and the US did. Your theory is a total failure. Even Keynes abandoned Keynes.

Well, you are an idiot. I just showed you the numbers but you keep repeating your dumb slogans. That is how people end up voting for Republicans -- by denying the facts they don't like.

You do know that, by arguing that the economy recovered before WWII, you are actually arguing against Keynes, don't you? When he went to Roosevelt and explained what needed to be done it was rejected as being too simple, and Roosevelt followed the advice of people who thought Keynes was an idiot.