Republicans have a poor understanding of economics. They should have no place in making policy

[The Rabbi]

Seems our history has a few examples of depression/recessions beginning with Republicans and then Democrats elected to remedy.

LOL! No... That's the myth you're responding to.

No, more like our history.

Really?
Let's see: Recession of 1920--GOP does nothing. Recession ends after 18 months with big jump in growth.
1929. Recession made worse by the Progressive Herbert Hoover and turned into Depression by the Progressive FDR.
2000. GW Bush inherits Clinton recession and failed foreign policy. Turns it around in 18 months until Democrats retake Congress.
2008. Obama inherits bottoming recession, turns it into the Great Recession. Incomes flat for 7 years.
Quite a record there.

 

[Dad2three]

Has the deficit gone down because of something Barack Obama has cut...or has it gone down because of Sequestration...the Sequestration that he's been very vocal about wanting to abolish because it's not letting him spend the money that he wants to?

There are a lot of factors involved in the deficit going down.

Ending Bush's wars and tax giveaways to the rich being the top two. Reforming Medicare and Medicaid as part of the ACA is another.

Yes, I will give Sequetration its credit as well. And I will give a growing economy credit.

How has Medicare and Medicaid been "reformed" by the ACA to save money? Come on, Joe...don't tell me you still believe THAT fairy tale!

First of all, under the health care bill, Medicare spending continues to go up year after year. The health care bill tries to identify ways to save money, and so the $500 billion figure comes from the difference over 10 years between anticipated Medicare spending (what is known as “the baseline”) and the changes the law makes to reduce spending. (Look at slide 15 of this nifty tutorial on the law’s impact on Medicare by the Kaiser Family Foundation to see a chart of the year by year savings.)


The savings actually are wrung from health-care providers, not Medicare beneficiaries. These spending reductions presumably would be a good thing, since virtually everyone agrees that Medicare spending is out of control. In the House Republican budget, lawmakers repealed the Obama health care law but retained all but $10 billion of the nearly $500 billion in Medicare savings, suggesting the actual policies enacted to achieve these spending reductions were not that objectionable to GOP lawmakers.

The Obama health care law also raised Medicare payroll taxes by $113 billion over 10 years, further strengthening the program’s financial condition, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Since about half of the $500 billion stems from reduced outlays for Medicare hospitalization expenses, the payroll taxes and those reductions would add about $358 billion to Medicare trust fund balances.

Fact Checking the GOP debate 500 billion in cuts to Medicare - The Washington Post

 

[Dad2three]

Seems our history has a few examples of depression/recessions beginning with Republicans and then Democrats elected to remedy.

LOL! No... That's the myth you're responding to.

No, more like our history.

Really?
Let's see: Recession of 1920--GOP does nothing. Recession ends after 18 months with big jump in growth.
1929. Recession made worse by the Progressive Herbert Hoover and turned into Depression by the Progressive FDR.
2000. GW Bush inherits Clinton recession and failed foreign policy. Turns it around in 18 months until Democrats retake Congress.
2008. Obama inherits bottoming recession, turns it into the Great Recession. Incomes flat for 7 years.
Quite a record there.

lol, Progressive Hoover?

1921 and All That

Every once in a while I get comments and correspondence indicating that the right has found an unlikely economic hero: Warren Harding. The recovery from the 1920-21 recession supposedly demonstrates that deflation and hands-off monetary policy is the way to go.

But have the people making these arguments really looked at what happened back then? Or are they relying on vague impressions about a distant episode, with bad data, that has been spun as a confirmation of their beliefs?

OK, I’m not going to invest a lot in this. But even a cursory examination of the available data suggests that 1921 has few useful lessons for the kind of slump we’re facing now.


Brad DeLong has recently written up a clearer version of a story I’ve been telling for a while (actually since before the 2008 crisis) — namely, that there’s a big difference between inflation-fighting recessions, in which the Fed squeezes to bring inflation down, then relaxes — and recessions brought on by overstretch in debt and investment. The former tend to be V-shaped, with a rapid recovery once the Fed relents; the latter tend to be slow, because it’s much harder to push private spending higher than to stop holding it down.

And the 1920-21 recession was basically an inflation-fighting recession — although the Fed was trying to bring the level of prices, rather than the rate of change, down. What you had was a postwar bulge in prices, which was then reversed:

Money was tightened, then loosened again:

Discount rates are a problematic indicator, but here’s what happened to commercial paper rates:



....All of this has zero relevance to an economy in our current situation, in which the recession was brought on by private overstretch, not tight money, and in which the zero lower bound is all too binding.


So do we have anything to learn from the macroeconomics of Warren Harding? No.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/1921-and-all-that/?_r=0

 

[Dad2three]

Seems our history has a few examples of depression/recessions beginning with Republicans and then Democrats elected to remedy.

LOL! No... That's the myth you're responding to.

No, more like our history.

Really?
Let's see: Recession of 1920--GOP does nothing. Recession ends after 18 months with big jump in growth.
1929. Recession made worse by the Progressive Herbert Hoover and turned into Depression by the Progressive FDR.
2000. GW Bush inherits Clinton recession and failed foreign policy. Turns it around in 18 months until Democrats retake Congress.
2008. Obama inherits bottoming recession, turns it into the Great Recession. Incomes flat for 7 years.
Quite a record there.

'2000. GW Bush inherits Clinton recession and failed foreign policy. Turns it around in 18 months until Democrats retake Congress.'



PLEASE give me the bills the Dems passed that created Dubya's great recession?

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Yeah, Dubya did well ignoring all the warnings on 9/11 and invading Iraq, lol

 

[Dad2three]

Ronald Reagan’s First Term – $656 billion increase

Ronald Reagan’s Second Term – $1.036 trillion increase

Barack Obama’s First Term – $5.806 trillion increase

A lie. Shocking.

Yes, Ronnie tripled the debt that EVERY other US Prez created, Dubya doubled it and Obama will, even though Dubya handed him the worst economy since the GOP's great depression and Korean war levels of revenues (less than 15% of GDP), Obama will increase debt by only 70%

Barack Obama will have increased the national debt by more than all of the other Presidents that we've ever had COMBINED by the time he leaves office! When he took office the national debt stood at $10.6 trillion...it's now over 18 trillion with two years to go. When he leaves office it will be over 20 trillion dollars.

You think Reagan was a big spender when he spent less than 2 trillion in the same amount of time? Did you fail math at the elementary school level and then just give up trying to learn it after that?

You've got less than two trillion dollars and you've got more than 10 trillion. Now which person spent more? Duh?

October 1, 2009

US Begins Fiscal Year $11,776,112,848,656.17 in Debt

SAME AS EVERY OTHER US PREZ, OBAMA STARTS HIS FIRST BUDGET OCT AFTER COMING INTO OFFICE!!

AND WHAT WAS DRIVING HIS DEBT AGAIN? oh right Bush tax cuts, UNFUNDED wars and Dubya's great recession!!!

 

[Dad2three]

The higher the moocher class receives food stamps the louder the Democrats scream children are going hungry. Moochers should have to work for their food and at the very least turn around, take their hats off and bow when they say "thank you for providing my food for me so I can buy my beer and cigarettes and gas for my Tahoe" when they exit the grocery store check out.

Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know

Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know


Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala A theory of a divided nation

In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.

Blue States are from Scandinavia Red States are from Guatemala The New Republic



Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households


Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

Contrary to Entitlement Society Rhetoric Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly Disabled or Working Households mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[Listening]

It's like listening to a chant.

A real bad one.

 

[Faun]

Seems our history has a few examples of depression/recessions beginning with Republicans and then Democrats elected to remedy.

You mean like the recession of 1920?
No, history is filled with mild recessions that became Depressions after Democrats took power.

This is why you're the forum jester -- you say the darndest things. You don't even care how foolish you look. Like here ... you idiotically claim Democrats turn recessions into depressions, yet here, in the real world, the Great Depression was in full swing by 1932, before Democrats took over.

But as usual, the entertainment you provide at your expense is greatly appreciated. Thanks!

 

[regent]

Seems our history has a few examples of depression/recessions beginning with Republicans and then Democrats elected to remedy.

You mean like the recession of 1920?
No, history is filled with mild recessions that became Depressions after Democrats took power.

This is why you're the forum jester -- you say the darndest things. You don't even care how foolish you look. Like here ... you idiotically claim Democrats turn recessions into depressions, yet here, in the real world, the Great Depression was in full swing by 1932, before Democrats took over.

But as usual, the entertainment you provide at your expense is greatly appreciated. Thanks!

This is sort of a new/old Republican strategy, change history to fit one's argument. The first time I encountered this changing history was arguing with a poster that insisted Truman was a Republican and he stuck to that premise. The "Truman was a Republican" has now been expanded to fit many political events; Hoover was a liberal is another, FDR caused the Great Depression still another, By changing history, the discussion is diverted to another topic-was Truman a Republican.

 

[Faun]

Seems our history has a few examples of depression/recessions beginning with Republicans and then Democrats elected to remedy.

You mean like the recession of 1920?
No, history is filled with mild recessions that became Depressions after Democrats took power.

This is why you're the forum jester -- you say the darndest things. You don't even care how foolish you look. Like here ... you idiotically claim Democrats turn recessions into depressions, yet here, in the real world, the Great Depression was in full swing by 1932, before Democrats took over.

But as usual, the entertainment you provide at your expense is greatly appreciated. Thanks!

This is sort of a new/old Republican strategy, change history to fit one's argument. The first time I encountered this changing history was arguing with a poster that insisted Truman was a Republican and he stuck to that premise. The "Truman was a Republican" has now been expanded to fit many political events; Hoover was a liberal is another, FDR caused the Great Depression still another, By changing history, the discussion is diverted to another topic-was Truman a Republican.

What you say is very true. I recently had an argument with a conservative blaming Clinton and Reno for Ruby Ridge. He wouldn't believe me that it happened in under Bush in 1992 until I pulled it up on my phone and showed him.

.... that was when he switched from talking about Ruby Ridge to Waco.

 

[Dragonlady]

It's a simple question, Dad...

How much debt has Barack Obama created during his six years in office compared to Ronald Reagan's eight years in office? Your continued insistence on using the percentage of increase is laughably misleading and you know it.

Dad is using correct comparisons. Percentage of GNP was the comparison all Republicans wanted to make in the first year of Obama's administration because it was higher than Bush's. Then it was pointed out that until October of 2008, they were still operating under Bush's last budget.

Since that time, Republican don't want to talk percentages of GNP because they make Obama look good compared to any Republican president. And if there's one thing Republicans can't stomach it's making Obama look good.

 

[Dad2three]

Seems our history has a few examples of depression/recessions beginning with Republicans and then Democrats elected to remedy.

You mean like the recession of 1920?
No, history is filled with mild recessions that became Depressions after Democrats took power.

This is why you're the forum jester -- you say the darndest things. You don't even care how foolish you look. Like here ... you idiotically claim Democrats turn recessions into depressions, yet here, in the real world, the Great Depression was in full swing by 1932, before Democrats took over.

But as usual, the entertainment you provide at your expense is greatly appreciated. Thanks!

This is sort of a new/old Republican strategy, change history to fit one's argument. The first time I encountered this changing history was arguing with a poster that insisted Truman was a Republican and he stuck to that premise. The "Truman was a Republican" has now been expanded to fit many political events; Hoover was a liberal is another, FDR caused the Great Depression still another, By changing history, the discussion is diverted to another topic-was Truman a Republican.

After 40+ years of right wing 'think tanks' and the propaganda they push, then old Ronnie using a smile and head gesture when he got caught in a lie, the conservatives figure they'll follow Ronnie's lead, act like it's based in some fact (welfare queens? lol) and just keep moving. The death of the 4th estate happened when the media went softball on Ronnie after the assassination attempt, IMO

To bad there aren't any Goldwater cons left...

 

[Interpol]

I'd say Republicans have a great understanding of economics. And of government.
After all, they know how to use government to distribute wealth to them and all their friends. The country is still basically living under the theory of Trickle Down economics from 1981. Just base everything around tax cuts, load up the pockets of big-time job creators and they'll expand business in America, invest in more employees, and in general, trickle the wealth down to every hard-working American who wants to participate.

Of course, it has never worked, but that's because their plan is truly a cynical one that was only ever meant to make their buddies in finance rich and so that they could use government as a revolving door into a cushy private industry job.

 

[Dad2three]

Seems our history has a few examples of depression/recessions beginning with Republicans and then Democrats elected to remedy.

LOL! No... That's the myth you're responding to.

No, more like our history.

Really?
Let's see: Recession of 1920--GOP does nothing. Recession ends after 18 months with big jump in growth.
1929. Recession made worse by the Progressive Herbert Hoover and turned into Depression by the Progressive FDR.
2000. GW Bush inherits Clinton recession and failed foreign policy. Turns it around in 18 months until Democrats retake Congress.
2008. Obama inherits bottoming recession, turns it into the Great Recession. Incomes flat for 7 years.
Quite a record there.

The US Recession of 1920–1921: Some Austrian Myths

The US recession of 1920–1921 is endlessly cited by Austrians as proof that Keynesian economic policies are not needed to stimulate an economy out of recession or depression. Unfortunately, Austrians are deeply ignorant about the recession of 1920–1921. This recession was atypical, occurred shortly after the WWI, and recent research shows that the GDP contraction was not especially severe.

Libertarians claim that the recession of 1920–1921 was short. Of course, what they don’t say is that a recession lasting 18 months is in fact a very long one by the standards of the post-1945 US business cycle. The average duration of US recessions in the post-1945 era of classic Keynesian demand management (1945–1980) and the neoliberal era (1980–2010) has been about 11 months

...In the post 1945 period this was cut to about 11 months. Thus the average duration of recessions was essentially cut in half after 1945, because of countercyclical fiscal and monetary policy. Even expansions in the post-1945 business cycle became longer


...In other words, the average length of post-1945 expansions became 43% higher compared with that of 1919 to 1945, and 85% higher than between 1854 to 1919.


(2) Severity of the Recession

Libertarians seem unaware that recent economic research has shown that the downturn of 1920–1921 was not as severe as previously thought.


(3) Deflation and Positive Supply Shocks

Although deflation was very severe, one significant cause of the deflation was a positive supply shock in commodities due to the resumption of shipping after the war



(4) No Major Financial Crisis

The recession of 1920–1921 also had no serious financial crisis: although some bank failures occurred, there were no mass bank runs and collapses in 1920–1921


(5) The Federal Reserve’s Role

It is perfectly clear that the Federal Reserve had a role both in contributing to the cause of the recession and in ending it.


....A commentator there has in fact unintentionally provided an important counterargument against the Austrians.

If Austrians think that the 1890s recession and high unemployment in that decade do not provide evidence against their theories (since the US had a national banking system and fractional reserve banking in the 1890s, instead of the pure laissez faire they advocate), then why on earth do they endlessly invoke 1920–1921 as if it proves the Austrian position?

If they really believe that 1890s America (where there was no central bank) cannot be invoked as a criticism of Austrian theory, then it is absurd in the extreme for Austrians to invoke 1920–1921 as vindication of their theories, when, in that period, America had a central bank! By your own definition, it was even less of a laissez faire system than 1890s America.


Social Democracy for the 21st Century A Post Keynesian Perspective The US Recession of 1920 8211 1921 Some Austrian Myths

 

[Ernie S.]

Ronald Reagan’s First Term – $656 billion increase

Ronald Reagan’s Second Term – $1.036 trillion increase

Barack Obama’s First Term – $5.806 trillion increase

A lie. Shocking.

Yes, Ronnie tripled the debt that EVERY other US Prez created, Dubya doubled it and Obama will, even though Dubya handed him the worst economy since the GOP's great depression and Korean war levels of revenues (less than 15% of GDP), Obama will increase debt by only 70%

Barack Obama will have increased the national debt by more than all of the other Presidents that we've ever had COMBINED by the time he leaves office! When he took office the national debt stood at $10.6 trillion...it's now over 18 trillion with two years to go. When he leaves office it will be over 20 trillion dollars.

You think Reagan was a big spender when he spent less than 2 trillion in the same amount of time? Did you fail math at the elementary school level and then just give up trying to learn it after that?

You've got less than two trillion dollars and you've got more than 10 trillion. Now which person spent more? Duh?

So debt is equivalent to spending now, is it? How about, which one inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression?

Do you mean the recession that's officially been over since 2009? Dude...IT'S BEEN SIX FREAKING YEARS SINCE BARRY TOOK OFFICE!

And 11+ million PRIVATE sector jobs under Obama since passing the 'job killer' Obamacares. Go figure

Yup! Some people have 3 or 4 of them and still get food stamps. 10 hours a week at Mickey D's is not a job, you dunce.

 

[Dad2three]

A lie. Shocking.

Yes, Ronnie tripled the debt that EVERY other US Prez created, Dubya doubled it and Obama will, even though Dubya handed him the worst economy since the GOP's great depression and Korean war levels of revenues (less than 15% of GDP), Obama will increase debt by only 70%

Barack Obama will have increased the national debt by more than all of the other Presidents that we've ever had COMBINED by the time he leaves office! When he took office the national debt stood at $10.6 trillion...it's now over 18 trillion with two years to go. When he leaves office it will be over 20 trillion dollars.

You think Reagan was a big spender when he spent less than 2 trillion in the same amount of time? Did you fail math at the elementary school level and then just give up trying to learn it after that?

You've got less than two trillion dollars and you've got more than 10 trillion. Now which person spent more? Duh?

So debt is equivalent to spending now, is it? How about, which one inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression?

Do you mean the recession that's officially been over since 2009? Dude...IT'S BEEN SIX FREAKING YEARS SINCE BARRY TOOK OFFICE!

And 11+ million PRIVATE sector jobs under Obama since passing the 'job killer' Obamacares. Go figure

Yup! Some people have 3 or 4 of them and still get food stamps. 10 hours a week at Mickey D's is not a job, you dunce.

You mean those 'job creators' aren't providing good jobs for the lowest SUSTAINED tax burden in 80+ years? Perhaps we need to look into that?


The Spectacular Myth of Obama's Part-Time America—in 5 Graphs
A falsifiable claim, falsified

MUCH more here Bubba

The Spectacular Myth of Obama s Part-Time America mdash in 5 Graphs - The Atlantic


Here's What Obama's 'Part-Time America' Really Looks Like
The president's critics love this talking point. But since 2010, full-time jobs are up 7.6 million, and part-time jobs have declined by more than 900,000.

Here s What Obama s Part-Time America Really Looks Like - The Atlantic

 

[The Rabbi]

Seems our history has a few examples of depression/recessions beginning with Republicans and then Democrats elected to remedy.

You mean like the recession of 1920?
No, history is filled with mild recessions that became Depressions after Democrats took power.

This is why you're the forum jester -- you say the darndest things. You don't even care how foolish you look. Like here ... you idiotically claim Democrats turn recessions into depressions, yet here, in the real world, the Great Depression was in full swing by 1932, before Democrats took over.

But as usual, the entertainment you provide at your expense is greatly appreciated. Thanks!

This is sort of a new/old Republican strategy, change history to fit one's argument. The first time I encountered this changing history was arguing with a poster that insisted Truman was a Republican and he stuck to that premise. The "Truman was a Republican" has now been expanded to fit many political events; Hoover was a liberal is another, FDR caused the Great Depression still another, By changing history, the discussion is diverted to another topic-was Truman a Republican.

Link to anyone saying Truman was a Republican?


I heard all kinds of made up crap from liberals. Like Hoover was a laissez faire Republican. Or FDR got us out of the Depression. The smelly goat is a great one for making up stuff so he's on iggy.
But anyone is free to argue against what I wrote. Liberalism always fails. Keynesianism always fails. It is the most failed government policy idea since single payer.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's a simple question, Dad...

How much debt has Barack Obama created during his six years in office compared to Ronald Reagan's eight years in office? Your continued insistence on using the percentage of increase is laughably misleading and you know it.

Dad is using correct comparisons. Percentage of GNP was the comparison all Republicans wanted to make in the first year of Obama's administration because it was higher than Bush's. Then it was pointed out that until October of 2008, they were still operating under Bush's last budget.

Since that time, Republican don't want to talk percentages of GNP because they make Obama look good compared to any Republican president. And if there's one thing Republicans can't stomach it's making Obama look good.

There is no such measure as GNP. Your ignorance is revealed for all.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'd say Republicans have a great understanding of economics. And of government.
After all, they know how to use government to distribute wealth to them and all their friends. The country is still basically living under the theory of Trickle Down economics from 1981. Just base everything around tax cuts, load up the pockets of big-time job creators and they'll expand business in America, invest in more employees, and in general, trickle the wealth down to every hard-working American who wants to participate.

Of course, it has never worked, but that's because their plan is truly a cynical one that was only ever meant to make their buddies in finance rich and so that they could use government as a revolving door into a cushy private industry job.

Since you can't define what "trickle down theory" is much less back up anything of what you say your post is pretty well useless.
Democrats have controlled Congress and the White House for 8 years. During that time incomes for the middle class have stagnated while the rich have gotten richer. The debt has grown from 11T to over 18T, an unprecedented growth. The deficit has declined from the peak levels of the recession but is still well above pre-recession levels, despite record revenue to the Treasury.
These are the measures of the Obama economy. And they stink.

 

[JoeB131]

The higher the moocher class receives food stamps the louder the Democrats scream children are going hungry. Moochers should have to work for their food and at the very least turn around, take their hats off and bow when they say "thank you for providing my food for me so I can buy my beer and cigarettes and gas for my Tahoe" when they exit the grocery store check out.

40% of households getting foodstamps have at least one person in the household that has a job. The thing is, big corporations like WalMart and McDonalds actually instruct their employees how to apply for food stamps and section 8 and medicaid.