Not to mention blatantly false. If you look at who pushed to make deficits, it's pretty much all Republicans. Of course some of them helped fix them as well. But Reagan and GW Bush really are primarily responsible, with the help of Congressional Republicans.
100% of Republican Senators Against 100% of Reagan's Budgets
- Thread starter JollyRoger
- Start date
Not to mention blatantly false. If you look at who pushed to make deficits, it's pretty much all Republicans. Of course some of them helped fix them as well. But Reagan and GW Bush really are primarily responsible, with the help of Congressional Republicans.
countrygrl
King
You realize that that means the end of national prosperity and capitalism, I hope?
Better that you feel the pain of the insurmountable debt you've brought down on this country and my generation rebuild it later, than for you continue to cruise through life ignorantly touting your unsustainable economic theories at my generations expense, only for my generation to incalculably suffer decades from now as a direct result of your generations selfish malfeasance.
Kick the can, kick the can.
Is there anything I could conceivably say to you to get you to get you to stop accusing me of being responsible for the actions of those that I oppose?
I guess people being responsible for their own actions is a concept you just can't wrap your mind around.
BuckeyeJim
King
How many of those Republicans were in office during GWBII, GWBI, and Reagan?
Is it possible that a portion of the Republicans now realize that the path we're on is dangerous and a potentially real threat to the vibrancy of our nation? Is it possible that people learn from past mistakes, or change positions due to scientific evidence on the ground?
Does the current magnitude of the deficits play a part in a change of heart?
Do you think this posturing would be any different if John McCain had run up these incredibly deficits?
countrygrl
King
Is there anything I could conceivably say to you to get you to get you to stop accusing me of being responsible for the actions of those that I oppose?
You saying something to me that would cause me to stop accusing you of holding hypocritical positions would start with an explanation of how Reagan could have balanced his budgets without suffering GDP setbacks. But I imagine you'll just snap your fingers and pretend "it is so," to go about your utterly closed minded world where deficit spending to get out of one stiff recession is good, but deficit spending to get out of another recession was bad.
You, Mr. Grad student, should write your dissertation on how you're completely against debt and asset bubbles, but are in total support of economic policies that promote government and consumer debt, and promote asset bubbles, and consequently allow monetarist theories to emit an umbra of superiority over classical forms of economics amalgamated with modern regulatory structures.
Most of them. At least in GW Bush's term. It gets fewer if you go all the way back 30 years to when Reagan first took office. But the Republicans who are whining about deficits now are mostly the same individual people who turned Clinton's surpluses into Bush's deficits.
No. Otherwise they would not have demanded that the Bush tax cuts be extended as the price to extend unemployment benefits. These people are not in any way acting as people who oppose deficits.
No. It's just politics. They have not in the past, and they are not now, acting in any way as if the deficits are important to them. They are just an excuse for class warfare.
Before the election. Before the economic collapse and the start of the Great Recession. McCain's economic advisers went on the political talk shows and made it clear that there would not be a balanced budget while McCain was president. And you didn't hear a peep about it from any of the Republicans in Congress. And then Republican policies crashed the economy. So the situation became even worse. So no, if McCain was president, the deficits would be larger, and no one on the right would be complaining about them.
This is just politics and class warfare.
Trying to balance the budget now will cause more Americans to be out of work in 2012. Pure and simply, they think that is their best chance to win the election.
Integral
Can't you hear it?
Cut, looks like you're getting flak for having my sig. 
--
The text of the R's "balanced budget" amendment is patently silly.
Its macro effects would be disastrous and a massive headache for the Fed besides. (I guess we'd have to switch to all 3- and 6-month T-bills and schedule them to not go over a fiscal year mark? Conducting monetary policy might still be doable, but it'd be far more difficult.)
So I'll take that as an admission that you are too damned closed minded to even read what I wrote.
Since you flat out refuse to even read what I write, and insist on simply making crap up and attributing it to me, let me say for the final time:
I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF PEOPLE I VOTED AGAINST!!!
Now either you read what I actually write, and admit that you have misrepresented my posts and positions almost every time you have responded to me, or I will never read anything you write again.
Grow up.
--
The text of the R's "balanced budget" amendment is patently silly.
Its macro effects would be disastrous and a massive headache for the Fed besides. (I guess we'd have to switch to all 3- and 6-month T-bills and schedule them to not go over a fiscal year mark? Conducting monetary policy might still be doable, but it'd be far more difficult.)
Yeah, those days are well behind me. I'm in no position to return to school. I'll change back tomorrow.
BuckeyeJim
King
Cutlass said:
What specific policies turned into deficits? Any chance you could provide a citation for how many were around before this point? I seem to remember the nation going into recession in 1999 when my father lost all kinds of money in his retirement when the dotcom bubble burst. Then I remember the country foundering for quite a bit. Hardly seems like Bush's fault for things like that and 9/11.
Isn't it possible to be in favor of low taxes and cutting spending in an effort to reduce budget deficits?
Do you have any evidence of this? Any evidence that they didn't care about deficits? Quotes? Citations? Anything? Again, is it possible to be in favor of tax cuts, but not be in favor of rising budgets? Say for instance a bunch of these senators were in favor of tax cuts, but not in favor of increases in spending for prescription drug coverage which played a significant factor in moving the budget out of whack. Can't they take a stance against social spending, or military spending, or pork projects, or anything really while justifying tax cuts and desiring a cut in deficits?
So because we didn't hear a peep it means we can definitely say we know what all of these people thought? I wish I possessed your omnipotence. I also seem to recall plenty of Republican candidates and Republican's decrying these gross budgets, auto bailouts, and TARP. So I don't think this holds much weight. Are there any quotes from these senators saying verifying your assertion that they'd be alright with 1.4 trillion dollar deficits? Or deficits in general? Anything? Bueler, Bueler, Bueler.
Also, attributing the economic problems of this nation to one party is utterly ignorant.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,204
So, purusing a standard Keynesian economic strategy, which is the standard for almost all foreign countries (and all countries during a recession), is now an attempt to drive the country into the group because presidents during boom times were poor planners unable to look beyond the next election?
countrygrl
King
So I'll take that as an admission that you are too damned closed minded to even read what I wrote.
Since you flat out refuse to even read what I write, and insist on simply making crap up and attributing it to me, let me say for the final time:
I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF PEOPLE I VOTED AGAINST!!!
Now either you read what I actually write, and admit that you have misrepresented my posts and positions almost every time you have responded to me, or I will never read anything you write again.
You just don't get it do you? You try to have your cake and eat it too, and you do it over, and over, and over again. Your partisanship has blinded you completely. The last time I had a solid period to post we were busy talking about Reagan versus Obama, recessions, and deficit spending to dig an economy out of a recession. It was then you said that you supported Obama's 1.4 trillion dollar deficits, deficits that dwarf what any Republican ever did, and vilified Reagan for having deficits even though he faced a recession himself. We agree that both recessions were equal in magnitude, but had different causes. Yet you continue to justify ongoing deficits with 9% unemployment WITH 3% GDP growth as a means of...growing GDP today, while vilifying Reagan who got the economy going while running deficits! Hypocrisy, having your cake and eating it too. You claim to be a Keynesian, and this to you, justifies today's deficits. You say that we need to have deficit spending to keep the economy going. Yet, you won't even provide the board with the most tacit admission that if Obama's long running deficits are getting the economy rolling that Reagan's more modest long running deficits did too - and did a better job at creating jobs and growing the economy at that.
Then, earlier, when I first came back, you insisted on trying to "prove" to me the superiority of monetarist theory by showing how short recessions are now, and how great economic growth has been with manipulated currency that promotes inflation versus classical economic theory. Yet again, you will not make a tacit admission that the whole graph since WWII is artificial in nature due to the gross amount of built in debt and artificially high asset bubbles that have artificially bloated national output for decades. When it is convenient for you to tout the benefits of debt and asset bubbles you will do it by citing senseless graphs. Yet on the other you will deride the gross debt and asset bubbles with super big font. Yeah...whatever.
Well, come to think of it now, maybe you did admit the problems with monetarist economics that have pushed further and further debt to grow the economy. Maybe you did it in this thread when you openly declared that a balanced budget will result in the end of capitalism as we know it. Monetarist policies that have produced all those great graphs you tout, that ride on personal debt, national debt, and asset bubbles, it all comes crashing down with something as simple as a balanced budget. Great plan guys.
And don't you get it? It doesn't matter who you voted for. It's what you believe, and what you say on this board that matters. You believe in monetarist economic theory. You tout it. You glorify it. You berate anybody who shows any differentiation from your line of thinking. You show all kinds of graphs that are inflated due to debt that you claim to be against in an effort to show your inherent superiority. Yet, you fail to recognize your own hypocrisy time and time again.
It's just blind, hackneyed partisanship, and anybody with half a clue can see through it.
Yep, that's why I made the thread - to point it out.
countrygrl
King
We've had six - count them six - straight quarters of growth. We had 3+% growth in the last quarter and it looks like we're growing even better now.
You can't sit here and blast Republicans for running deficits during periods of economic growth while simultaneously advocating 1.4 trillion dollar deficits that dwarf Republican deficits while we see growth rates that are in the 3% range.
Looks like the deficit spending is working.
Now that the "productive" class has had six quarters of benefitting from growth, we just need to wait it out until the employment situation for the "non-productive" class brightens for at least one quarter.
countrygrl
King
Looks like the deficit spending is working.
Now that the "productive" class has had six quarters of benefitting from growth, we just need to wait it out until the employment situation for the "non-productive" class brightens for at least one quarter.
If deficit spending under Reagan grew the economy and reduced unemployment, then it would seem that Obama should pull a page out of the Reagan playbook and direct that deficit spending in a more efficient manner.
But wait! Reagan's deficits were bad!
According to 100% of current GOP Senators.
That being said, the stock market recovered before the employment situation under Reagan and the same pattern seems to be emerging under O' Bama. Additionally, most econiomist will tell you that O' Bama inherited a bigger economic crisis than Carter inherited from Nixon/Ford, Raygun inherited from Carter, Clintoon inherited from Papa Bush, and Bush Baby inherited from Clintoon. These things do take time, though the "productive" class has already seen a payoff.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,204
AARRRGGGHHH!
The '1.4 trillion dollar deficit' was primarily a leftover from the Bush budget that was passed before Obama came to office. The expected deficit for the government that year was 1.2 trillion, Obama added .2 trillion to it. If that .2 trillion was enough to save us from a depression, then that is .2 trillion well spent.
lovett
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Messages
- 2,570
Yes. It's possible. But there is no reason to believe that it has occurred.
The Republicans have consistently espoused small government and balanced budgets and consistently, when in power (especially executive), run deficits and expanded government spending. Consequently, it is quite justifiable to believe that the same will happen in the future; despite espousing responsible fiscal policy they would not actually run a responsible fiscal policy if they were in power.
Politicians do this a lot. They say one thing when they are attempting to gain office, and another when they are in office. It's a simple matter of rational choice; when they are in office they wish to maximize their power and influence and they rationally do this best by expanding government. When they are out of office, they wish to maximize their power and influence and they rationally do this best by condemning government and thus winning votes.
You can see the same story with bi-partisan rhetoric. Nixon talked about a 'new age of national unity'. Bush Jr called himself a 'great unifier' and Obama stressed the need to work co-operatively. Yet, when in office, none of these people have run particularly bi-partisan adminstrations. In many cases they have run distinctly partisan ones. When in office, the incentives they face change. It is in their interests to be partisan.
countrygrl
King
If the .2 trillion was good enough for Obama to rescue us from a depression, was it good enough for Reagan to save us from a depression as well?
JollyRoger said:
This smells kinda strawmanny to me. And it sort of sidesteps my broader argument which is specifically centered at Cutlass and his hypo-hypocritical positions on monetary policy and Keynesian economics. Personally I am against any and all deficit spending at the federal level. A society needs to live within its means and deficit spending reduces a societies ability to equitably address the pitfalls that bring forth economic recession and promotes continued malfeasance and inefficiency. But with that said, if you look at the GDP and employment numbers this recession and Reagan's recession are quite comparable, Obama's situation may be marginally worse. Yet, if you look at deficit spending, GDP growth, and employment growth, Reagan's sizeably smaller deficits (both nominally and as a percentage of GDP) had a better effect on the economy than this current batch of gross, unsustainable, and irresponsible deficit spending. If Reagan was able to quickly boost the stock market, boost overall GDP, and boost employment for the non-productive class, then what is Obama's malfunction? Especially in the Keynesian context of, "deficit spending will help boost consumer spending and assist the economy in healing itself." We're into our third year of this crap and we've only been able to budge unemployment by a single point. How many hundreds of billions of dollars have we spent since 2009 to get a single point of unemployment to go down? It's been a waste. A crap spinning down into the center of the toilet. A big stinky floater that my generation will have to pay off for this generations comfort.
The bottom line is that monetarism and Keynesian economics is a warn out mantra because it doesn't take into account the skills or abilities of the people who compose any given society. We've previously been able to quickly dig ourselves out of recessions due to entrepreneurship, creativity, science, and risk taking: essentially through creative destruction. We don't have that sort of society now. Now we have a society that hedges against that accrual of risk, and leans largely on those that have already accrued risk. The non-productive rely on the productive for everything, and they expect everything to be served to them on a silver platter when the solution for their relative misery lies in their own hands. With modern regulatory mechanisms and vast education resources at our disposal, the non-productive class still continues to rely on the productive class to buttress their way of life.
And this is why these deficits are so irresponsible, and will never go away. That, and the political demagoguery towards anybody who advocates for the most modest government spending cut. We will just keep playing the Cutlass game, and kick the damn can down the road until you're all gone or retired and my generation actually has to face the negligent behavior or today's troubled actions. We'll kick the can, show pretty graphs that put an exclamation point on the success of policies that are failing underneath us, all the while creeping towards a very real and terrible economic depression.
