Why we want stimulus now and worry about deficits later

[The Rabbi]

Welcome to the Rabbi Experience. Every political forum has a Rabbi. That's obligatory.

Rabbi=teacher.
Yes, You need one very badly.

You're an asshole. I already have one, thanks.

Two, judging from your posts. You shit out of one and talk out of the other.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're right. In the 1980s we had desperately high inflation and equally high unemployment. We faced new and strong competition in what had been American monopoly industries like steel and autos. Recall the Misery Index?
Obama stumbled onto an economy that was basically sound (10 years of low inflation and unemployment) and managed to gin it up into a crisis. He has made this the worst recovery in history despite (or because of) record spending and meddling with the economy. Had he done absolutely nothing but played golf every day we would have seen unemployment about 6% today. Instead it is higher than when he took office 3 yewars ago.
So you are correct there is no comparison between the two. 1980s recession was far worse. Fortunately we had Ronald Reagan for president so he laid the groundwork for the longest post war expansion until then. SOmethng Clinton benefitted from.
Thanks for pointing out that they were different. I knew you weren't a total buffoon.

Ronald Reagan started the mess we are in today. Ronald Reagan singlehandedly wiped out the political cost of being fiscally irresponsible. That is the single most damaging act our nation has suffered in the last 40 years.

Exactly! He and Bush41 borrowed over $3 trillion 1980's dollars to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. We may never get straightened out from the mess they and George W. Bush made.

Tax receipts increased after Reagan cut tax rates. No borrowing needed.

 

[Immanuel]

Ronald Reagan started the mess we are in today. Ronald Reagan singlehandedly wiped out the political cost of being fiscally irresponsible. That is the single most damaging act our nation has suffered in the last 40 years.

Exactly! He and Bush41 borrowed over $3 trillion 1980's dollars to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. We may never get straightened out from the mess they and George W. Bush made.

Tax receipts increased after Reagan cut tax rates. No borrowing needed.

Not sure I understand what you are saying here.

I don't believe that President Reagan gave us a surplus, therefore, borrowing was still needed. I didn't go back to check the accuracy of your statement about increased revenue after cutting taxes, but even if revenue did increase, if it was not enough to "balance the budget" then it was probably still fiscally irresponsible. <cue the conservative anger for pointing that out against Reagan> The truth is that regardless of what one does in regards to revenue, if you are still spending more than you are bringing in, you are borrowing.

By the way, I still think very highly of President Reagan.

Immie

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Exactly! He and Bush41 borrowed over $3 trillion 1980's dollars to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. We may never get straightened out from the mess they and George W. Bush made.

Tax receipts increased after Reagan cut tax rates. No borrowing needed.

Not sure I understand what you are saying here.

I don't believe that President Reagan gave us a surplus, therefore, borrowing was still needed. I didn't go back to check the accuracy of your statement about increased revenue after cutting taxes, but even if revenue did increase, if it was not enough to "balance the budget" then it was probably still fiscally irresponsible. <cue the conservative anger for pointing that out against Reagan> The truth is that regardless of what one does in regards to revenue, if you are still spending more than you are bringing in, you are borrowing.

By the way, I still think very highly of President Reagan.

Immie

No borrowing was needed to "fund" the tax cuts.
According to this source....

Historical Tables | The White House

Table 1.1
Tax receipts went from $403.9 billion in 1980 to $667.7 billion in 1988.

 

[Immanuel]

Tax receipts increased after Reagan cut tax rates. No borrowing needed.

Not sure I understand what you are saying here.

I don't believe that President Reagan gave us a surplus, therefore, borrowing was still needed. I didn't go back to check the accuracy of your statement about increased revenue after cutting taxes, but even if revenue did increase, if it was not enough to "balance the budget" then it was probably still fiscally irresponsible. <cue the conservative anger for pointing that out against Reagan> The truth is that regardless of what one does in regards to revenue, if you are still spending more than you are bringing in, you are borrowing.

By the way, I still think very highly of President Reagan.

Immie

No borrowing was needed to "fund" the tax cuts.
According to this source....

Historical Tables | The White House

Table 1.1
Tax receipts went from $403.9 billion in 1980 to $667.7 billion in 1988.

Thanks for the link.

I have to say, I don't understand what borrowing to fund the tax cuts really means. Nor do I remember (or feel like going back to review the reasons) why revenues increased in those years. Was it solely due to the tax cuts or were there other factors involved?

Not asking you that question, just commenting on the information provided.

Immie

 

[hortysir]

2008 5.8
2009 9.3
2010 9.6

You do realize that the average for an entire year is not necessarily the peak don't you?

Yup

I was just pointing out the ever-rising numbers during the Obamamessiah's reign

 

[hortysir]

I can show you this:

Initial Unemployment claims:

Ooooooh!!!


That's pretty!


Do you still have the crayons so you can write down the source data for that?

I'd be glad to if you answer this question:

Why would you need someone else to look up initial unemployment claims for you? Are you that uninformed?

No.

I just don't blindly accept an unsubstantiated graph.
Ask Chris.

 

[hortysir]

Only an idiot would post such nonsense...

Why don't you provide a graph that shows how the workforce is shrinking????

Unemployment is only measured by workforce (which is shrinking at an epidemic rate) and those actively receiving unemployment..

Those who have exhausted their benefits and remain jobless are NOT factored into the equation - and that number is GROWING EVERYDAY.

You remember those 99er's??? now they've all been eaten by the unemployment singularity...

They'll finally be satisfied when what used to be the middle class has been reduced to the equivalant of a Malaysian day laborer. In other words financial slavery.

Why use income? Why not use total compensation?

because it doesn't fit into their little bubble they've made for them selves

 

[ilia25]

Again, you're flat out wrong about Bam Bam spending us out of a recession.

The fact is that the recession of 81-82 was more severe than this one and we came out of it faster and stronger than we are coming out of this one.

Did you read my post? I told you that 82-82 recession was deliberately created by the government. Read again: 82-82 recession was deliberately created by the government. Get it? Got it?

Now since it was the government that created the conditions for 81-82 recession (by tightening money supply), the government could quickly end the recession at will by removing those conditions (by loosening money supply).

And all of this has nothing to do with 2008, when the economy went into a deep recession against the will of the government, so the usual loosening the money supply was not enough to pull the economy out of it.

It was actually 2 recessions the raising of interest rates was only part of the equation. the Oil embargo had a huge impact on the economy as well to say it was caused solely by the government is too simplistic but then again....

The point is that in 81 the Fed's fund rate was set at 20%, so they could pull the economy from any recession at will by lowering the rate. In 2008 the rate was set to under 5%, so they quickly hit the 0% bound -- and it was not enough to stop the recession. Fed did not have enough room in 2008.

That is why we needed all sorts of unconventional policy, including the stimulus.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ooooooh!!!


That's pretty!


Do you still have the crayons so you can write down the source data for that?

I'd be glad to if you answer this question:

Why would you need someone else to look up initial unemployment claims for you? Are you that uninformed?

No.

I just don't blindly accept an unsubstantiated graph.
Ask Chris.

Then ask me in a courteous grown-up manner and I'll happily link you to the raw data.

 

[ilia25]

Tax receipts increased after Reagan cut tax rates. No borrowing needed.

Not sure I understand what you are saying here.

I don't believe that President Reagan gave us a surplus, therefore, borrowing was still needed. I didn't go back to check the accuracy of your statement about increased revenue after cutting taxes, but even if revenue did increase, if it was not enough to "balance the budget" then it was probably still fiscally irresponsible. The truth is that regardless of what one does in regards to revenue, if you are still spending more than you are bringing in, you are borrowing.

By the way, I still think very highly of President Reagan.

Immie

No borrowing was needed to "fund" the tax cuts.
According to this source....

Historical Tables | The White House

Table 1.1
Tax receipts went from $403.9 billion in 1980 to $667.7 billion in 1988.

And that increase was way too small to keep up with spending. We could only balance the budget after Clinton had risen the taxes in the 90s.

 

[Oddball]

And that increase was way too small to keep up with spending. We could only balance the budget after Clinton had risen the taxes in the 90s.

Rewrite history much?

Given the baseline trends of the time, the budget was going to balance all by itself by 2002.

But that doesn't credit politicians, bureaucrats and technocrats for all the good which happens in America, so it goes to the Memory Hole.

 

[hortysir]

I'd be glad to if you answer this question:

Why would you need someone else to look up initial unemployment claims for you? Are you that uninformed?

No.

I just don't blindly accept an unsubstantiated graph.
Ask Chris.

Then ask me in a courteous grown-up manner and I'll happily link you to the raw data.

No


A grown-up would, unasked, link their source.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No.

I just don't blindly accept an unsubstantiated graph.
Ask Chris.

Then ask me in a courteous grown-up manner and I'll happily link you to the raw data.

No


A grown-up would, unasked, link their source.

The source link shows up every time you quote the post, genius.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And that increase was way too small to keep up with spending. We could only balance the budget after Clinton had risen the taxes in the 90s.

Rewrite history much?

Given the baseline trends of the time, the budget was going to balance all by itself by 2002.

But that doesn't credit politicians, bureaucrats and technocrats for all the good which happens in America, so it goes to the Memory Hole.

The deficit in 2002 was 317 billion.

 

[Oddball]

And that increase was way too small to keep up with spending. We could only balance the budget after Clinton had risen the taxes in the 90s.

Rewrite history much?

Given the baseline trends of the time, the budget was going to balance all by itself by 2002.

But that doesn't credit politicians, bureaucrats and technocrats for all the good which happens in America, so it goes to the Memory Hole.

The deficit in 2002 was 317 billion.

You may or may not have heard that there was a helluva lot of spending that went on, over and above the baseline projections of 1992, that happened between that date and 2002.

Try reading for comprehension next time.

 

[hortysir]

Then ask me in a courteous grown-up manner and I'll happily link you to the raw data.

No


A grown-up would, unasked, link their source.

The source link shows up every time you quote the post, genius.

Maybe on your browser and with your Editor settings, but when I quote a Pic-post I see the pic not the img tags



I can honestly say that by now I really don't care about the source.
I still see a struggling economy in spite of the boatload of cash we threw at it.

 

[ilia25]

And that increase was way too small to keep up with spending. We could only balance the budget after Clinton had risen the taxes in the 90s.

Rewrite history much?

Given the baseline trends of the time, the budget was going to balance all by itself by 2002.

And that statement of yours is, of course, bullshit. In 1992 (and that after the taxes were risen by George H. W. Bush) CBO projected 2002 budget deficit at 4% of potential GDP.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/49xx/doc4930/doc11.pdf

 

[NYcarbineer]

No


A grown-up would, unasked, link their source.

The source link shows up every time you quote the post, genius.

Maybe on your browser and with your Editor settings, but when I quote a Pic-post I see the pic not the img tags



I can honestly say that by now I really don't care about the source.I still see a struggling economy in spite of the boatload of cash we threw at it.

That I was able to deduce that from your original comment is why you didn't get one.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rewrite history much?

Given the baseline trends of the time, the budget was going to balance all by itself by 2002.

But that doesn't credit politicians, bureaucrats and technocrats for all the good which happens in America, so it goes to the Memory Hole.

The deficit in 2002 was 317 billion.

You may or may not have heard that there was a helluva lot of spending that went on, over and above the baseline projections of 1992, that happened between that date and 2002.

Try reading for comprehension next time.

So the trend predictions are useless since no one can predict events that might have a major impact on revenues/spending?

No shit. So why did you bring them up?