Having The Same Argument, Again.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Don't even respond to him. He just wants to get Ty's back in any argument. No one but a goddamned idiot would say the growth needed to pay for that spending is forecast or even possible.*

It's fucking ridiculous to even have the debate.

*Ty didn't say that. Adder thinks it's something supporting Ty's position in yesterday's discussion.

Hank--you can count this one, too.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

As to the drag on the economy you note, yes, in FantasticLand where spending occurs without taxes levied to pay for it, which damage an already on-life-support private sector, cutting back on spending would hurt the economy.

I'd been under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that the most significant drag was from reductions in state and local spending, rather than direct federal spending (other than SS, medical).

[Gattigap]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Don't even respond to him. He just wants to get Ty's back in any argument. No one but a goddamned idiot would say the growth needed to pay for that spending is forecast or even possible.*

It's fucking ridiculous to even have the debate.

*Ty didn't say that. Adder thinks it's something supporting Ty's position in yesterday's discussion.

I do miss Spanky. <*sniff*>


ETA: Mike Konczai and the W shape of Federal Revenues.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

I'd been under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that the most significant drag was from reductions in state and local spending, rather than direct federal spending (other than SS, medical).

I imagine any cutback in spending has a ripple effect, and I'm trying to give such an utterly imbecilic position whatever credit I can.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

No one but a goddamned idiot would say the growth needed to pay for that spending is forecast or even possible.

Sniff. I miss Spanky.


eta: Phuque! STP.

[PresentTense Pirate Penske]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Where's the growth coming from? Show me an economy. Show me anything sustaining growth.

.

Uhm, ask Hank if his wife will share our videos with you-there's plenty of scenes of sustained growth in them.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Where's the growth coming from? Show me an economy. Show me anything sustaining growth.



5. Bubbles on the Horizon? .

I'll be drinking Champagne tonite. Probably Salon.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Don't even respond to him. He just wants to get Ty's back in any argument. No one but a goddamned idiot would say the growth needed to pay for that spending is forecast or even possible.*

It's fucking ridiculous to even have the debate.

*Ty didn't say that. Adder thinks it's something supporting Ty's position in yesterday's discussion.

Read it again, asshat.

Also, yeah, I never disagree with Ty. Just like you never disagree with Hank.

And I one who is rotfl academi while you are the one professing certainty about the economical future? Moreover, we have Bren over potential sour es of growth before, many of which will either aided by demographics and increasing asian demand.

Finally, Cletus, if I recall correctly, has previously laid out the kinds of adjustments on the margins that will be need

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Also, yeah, I never disagree with Ty.

Come now. You always disagree with me, man. Own up to it.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Come now. You always disagree with me, man. Own up to it.

I invented nobody agreeing with me.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

As to the drag on the economy you note, yes, in FantasticLand where spending occurs without taxes levied to pay for it, which damage an already on-life-support private sector, cutting back on spending would hurt the economy.

I just want to note that Sebby's thorough rejection of Reaganomics here allows me to officially proclaim Reagan Republicanism stone cold dead. Whatever Republicans believe now, it really doesn't have anything to do with St. Ronald.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

We either need to cut spending or raise taxes. Unless one adopts an (unreasonably) optimistic economic outlook. The deficit/debt are a real problem, now, and are going to be a bigger problem.

During the 70s and 80s, we had protracted periods of deficit; Clinton cleaned that up in the 90s only to see a return in the Bush administration.

Now, we have essentially a two year spike in the deficit because of TARP and the stimulus, but neither of those programs build in a sustained deficit, and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts may let us address the part of the equation Bush sent out of whack. And HC Reform was done in a manner that is essentially neutral <insert Sebby's unsubstantiated and unsupported screams of disgust>.

So, at the moment, I am not frightened by deficits.

However, public debt as a percentage of GDP is now back to where it was when Clinton took office, partially as a result of the wars, partially as a result of the erosion of GDP in the recession, partially as a result of TARP and the stimulus. It's not a crisis, but it's a problem of a size comparable to that Clinton was given.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Adder

Read it again, asshat.

Also, yeah, I never disagree with Ty. Just like you never disagree with Hank.

And I one who is rotfl academi while you are the one professing certainty about the economical future? Moreover, we have Bren over potential sour es of growth before, many of which will either aided by demographics and increasing asian demand.

Finally, Cletus, if I recall correctly, has previously laid out the kinds of adjustments on the margins that will be need

From I'm wondering is, where is Adder drunk-posting from?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

During the 70s and 80s, we had protracted periods of deficit; Clinton cleaned that up in the 90s only to see a return in the Bush administration.

Now, we have essentially a two year spike in the deficit because of TARP and the stimulus, but neither of those programs build in a sustained deficit, and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts may let us address the part of the equation Bush sent out of whack. And HC Reform was done in a manner that is essentially neutral <insert Sebby's unsubstantiated and unsupported screams of disgust>.

So, at the moment, I am not frightened by deficits.

However, public debt as a percentage of GDP is now back to where it was when Clinton took office, partially as a result of the wars, partially as a result of the erosion of GDP in the recession, partially as a result of TARP and the stimulus. It's not a crisis, but it's a problem of a size comparable to that Clinton was given.

All true, but there are two problems with what you say.

First, it doesn't counter Cletus' point, which was "We either need to cut spending or raise taxes." Clinton balanced the budget by, in large part, raising taxes and "cutting" spending (in the sense of cutting the overall increase, as well as making certain actual cuts).

Second, Clinton benefitted from a huge economic expansion (let's leave aside the argument about whether he helped bring that about). That's not enough to reduce the deficit -- I mean, Reagan had that advantage too, and he basically invented the culture of "we don't have to pay for government, we can grow it and bitch about it." (Having his cake, eating it, and savoring it too.) But, still. Obama may see some expansion, but I'm not holding my breath for another Clinton-era expansion.

[PresentTense Pirate Penske]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

I invented nobody agreeing with me.

dissent. My socks did that.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

So, at the moment, I am not frightened by deficits.

However, public debt as a percentage of GDP is now back to where it was when Clinton took office,

Hence deficit/debt, rather than one or the other. Wasn't one impetus for Clinton reducing the debt the threats of the bond vigilantes? And I don't recall S&P/Moody's issuing downgrade warnings on T-bonds back then.

And, as to the expiration of the 01/03 taxcuts, that would be "higher taxes", which I will believe fully upon 2011 ending without any re-authorization.

Are you not sympathetic to the view that the politicians will spend 12 cents of every additional dime in taxes, thus a need to cut (even if only thru reduction in growth) before adding to the revenue side?