OT: Incontrovertible evidence of decades of runaway federal spending and taxation
BillB
http://www.flickr.com/photos/37636522@N05/4951515123/
Meanwhile, 59% of Tea Party supporters either don't know or don't believe
(in roughly equal proportions) that Obama was born in the US. Do you think
that astonishing statistic is in any way related to his appearance?
nobody
> Who would have guessed the Tea Partiers knew so much about economics?
More than you, obviously.
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/37636522@N05/4951515123/
Trolling again I see (I'm being kind, as the alternative is that you
actually believe the crap you spout). Hmmm, your graph conveniently
ends before Obama takes office. Rather important, as a major concern of
the Tea Partiers is that he increased the deficit to such heights that
he increased the total debt more in two years than any previous
administration in eight years, and about a third as much as in the
preceding 200 years combined.
You do understand that the more dangerous figure is the TOTAL debt as a
percent of GDP, rather than the deficit in any one year (bad as that
is)? Or is that too much to hope for?
> Meanwhile, 59% of Tea Party supporters either don't know or don't believe
> (in roughly equal proportions) that Obama was born in the US. Do you think
> that astonishing statistic is in any way related to his appearance?
No. There are many factors behind the "birthers," but race (if it is a
factor at all) is well down the list.
Did you know that Obama is half-white? He had a white mommy. Not that
that means anything, but it might to you, as fanatic as you are about race.
BillB
"nobody" <spamb...@spambegone.com> wrote in message
news:_u-dnbU7cs5cauLR...@giganews.com...
> More than you, obviously.
>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/37636522@N05/4951515123/
>
> Trolling again I see (I'm being kind, as the alternative is that you
> actually believe the crap you spout). Hmmm, your graph conveniently ends
> before Obama takes office. Rather important, as a major concern of the
> Tea Partiers is that he increased the deficit to such heights that he
> increased the total debt more in two years than any previous
> administration in eight years, and about a third as much as in the
> preceding 200 years combined.
lol...another economic illiterate heard from. I guess reading isn't your
strong suit. Look at the title. My post is about the myth of decades of
runaway federal *spending and taxation* (not deficits), a myth that has been
advanced by the loony right-wing for as long as I can remember (and long
before I had ever heard of Obama). According to CBO numbers, Obama's
baseline spending will be approximately 22% of GDP in 2015, about 2% higher
than the 1970-2009 average, and about the same as it was between 1981 and
1988. Who was president during that period?
Your ignorance is actually quite astonishing for someone with such a big
mouth.
> You do understand that the more dangerous figure is the TOTAL debt as a
> percent of GDP, rather than the deficit in any one year (bad as that is)?
> Or is that too much to hope for?
I have written about the danger of the US's growing dept/gdp ratio at length
on this newsgroup. Try to keep up.
>> Meanwhile, 59% of Tea Party supporters either don't know or don't believe
>> (in roughly equal proportions) that Obama was born in the US. Do you
>> think
>> that astonishing statistic is in any way related to his appearance?
>
> No. There are many factors behind the "birthers," but race (if it is a
> factor at all) is well down the list.
LOL!!! Oh my God, you people are either incredibly stupid or just bald
faced liars. Or both?
O-PGManager
> You do understand that the more dangerous figure is the TOTAL debt as a
> percent of GDP, rather than the deficit in any one year (bad as that
> is)?
Very debateable. At most, it's only important to the extent of the
interest bills it generates, which is dependent on the rate money is
borrowed on as much as the gross figure.
The debt NEVER needs to be paid back in the way you or I have to pay back
a debt - that would requires decades of wasteful surpluses. At a maximum,
getting a hold of the yearly deficit is all that matters.
Opie-GManager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator reporting to Mr. Popinjay
----
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
igotskillz
G1.9 is why
"they" dont want to rock the boat.
You clowns just dont get it.
They don't care because it doesn't matter
-------
risky biz
> (really ignorant nonsense expunged)
I see that BillB already responded to your stupid comments but, Jesus-
WTF? You can't even understand a simple graph.
To top it off you're implying that we would be in better fiscal shape if
we had just let the whole economy slide into a depression which is exactly
what the asshole Republicans were insisting we should do. How f'n stupid
can a two-legged mammal get? You Republicans are dumber than monkeys.
________________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Clave
"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
news:upSfo.34164$1v3....@newsfe20.iad...
You mean his ears?
Jim
Clave
<...>
> Did you know that Obama is half-white?
Does he look half-white to you?
Jim
Bob T.
>
> Your ignorance is actually quite astonishing for someone with such a big mouth.
I disagree - this is Usenet. Some of the dumbest people are the
loudest.
- Bob T
da pickle
> Your ignorance is actually quite astonishing for someone with such a big
> mouth.
I disagree - this is Usenet. Some of the dumbest people are the
loudest.
===================
According to BillB, being born in Tennessee makes you a racist.
You seem to be on the same wavelength to BillB in the last few days.
BillB has become one of the loudest voices here.
You seem to imply that "nobody" is dumb because he is the loudest.
Very strange conclusion ... share your scientific method of making it.
(If you are really calling the loud mouth of BillB the dumbest, I missed the
sarchasm and apologize.)
nobody
> According to CBO numbers, Obama's
> baseline spending will be approximately 22% of GDP in 2015, a
2015! Another "rosy scenario." Obama probably won't even be President
in 2015.
nobody
> "Bob T."
>
>> Your ignorance is actually quite astonishing for someone with such a big
>> mouth.
>
> I disagree - this is Usenet. Some of the dumbest people are the
> loudest.
> ===================
>
> According to BillB, being born in Tennessee makes you a racist.
>
> You seem to be on the same wavelength to BillB in the last few days.
>
> BillB has become one of the loudest voices here.
>
> You seem to imply that "nobody" is dumb because he is the loudest.
>
> Very strange conclusion ... share your scientific method of making it.
According to Bob T. I must be one of the smartest posters here, because
I've made so many fewer posts than BillB.
(Yes, yes, I know it doesn't actually follow logically. It's a joke,
son. But that, combined with BillB saying I have a "big mouth" was too
funny to pass up.)
Bob T.
> "Bob T."
>
> > Your ignorance is actually quite astonishing for someone with such a big
> > mouth.
>
> I disagree - this is Usenet. Some of the dumbest people are the
> loudest.
> ===================
>
> According to BillB, being born in Tennessee makes you a racist.
>
> You seem to be on the same wavelength to BillB in the last few days.
Sure, and you seem to be on the same wavelength as Travel. (Tea-hea)
>
> BillB has become one of the loudest voices here.
>
> You seem to imply that "nobody" is dumb because he is the loudest.
I did not imply that about nobody, nohow.
>
> Very strange conclusion ... share your scientific method of making it.
The conclusion I actually made or the conclusion you imagine I made?
I am not responsible for the latter.
>
> (If you are really calling the loud mouth of BillB the dumbest, I missed the sarchasm and apologize.)
There was a reason why I snipped everything except that one sentence
of Bill's. I wasn't talking about nobody, I was talking about Usenet
posters in general. Go back and re-read my single sentence, don't try
to guess who I'm talking about, and tell me if you agree with my
point: some of the dumbest posters are the loudest. I believe this to
be true no matter which side of the political spectrum you are on.
Think about the posters you know - in your opinion, do the stupid ones
keep their mouths shut?
- Bob T
Bob T.
> On 9/3/10 6:52 AM, da pickle wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Bob T."
>
> >> Your ignorance is actually quite astonishing for someone with such a big
> >> mouth.
>
> > I disagree - this is Usenet. Some of the dumbest people are the
> > loudest.
> > ===================
>
> > According to BillB, being born in Tennessee makes you a racist.
>
> > You seem to be on the same wavelength to BillB in the last few days.
>
> > BillB has become one of the loudest voices here.
>
> > You seem to imply that "nobody" is dumb because he is the loudest.
>
> > Very strange conclusion ... share your scientific method of making it.
>
> According to Bob T. I must be one of the smartest posters here, because
> I've made so many fewer posts than BillB.
According to Buffalo Sprinfield, "Nobody's right if everybody's
wrong".
>
> (Yes, yes, I know it doesn't actually follow logically. It's a joke,
> son. But that, combined with BillB saying I have a "big mouth" was too
> funny to pass up.)
I think nobody took my post in the spirit intended.
- Bob T
da pickle
"Bob T."
> (If you are really calling the loud mouth of BillB the dumbest, I missed
> the sarchasm and apologize.)
There was a reason why I snipped everything except that one sentence
of Bill's. I wasn't talking about nobody, I was talking about Usenet
posters in general. Go back and re-read my single sentence, don't try
to guess who I'm talking about, and tell me if you agree with my
point: some of the dumbest posters are the loudest. I believe this to
be true no matter which side of the political spectrum you are on.
Think about the posters you know - in your opinion, do the stupid ones
keep their mouths shut?
=======================
You really got me going there, Bob. All that agreeing with BillB and Clave
fooled me good.
Sorry I misunderstood.
Bob T.
That's right, John, there are good guys and there are bad guys, and if
I agree with a bad guy about anything I have turned to the dark side.
>
> Sorry I misunderstood.
Damn straight, you misunderstood. Instead of just reading what I
wrote, you tried to figure out what side I was on, and who I was
insulting. I think that nobody understood what I was saying, and
nobody took advantage of my offered straightline to jab at Bill.
- Bob T
da pickle
"Bob T."
Damn straight, you misunderstood. Instead of just reading what I
wrote, you tried to figure out what side I was on, and who I was
insulting. I think that nobody understood what I was saying, and
nobody took advantage of my offered straightline to jab at Bill.
=======================
Now, that is not so clever ... or even funny.
(Nobody did NOT take advantage of your straighline, I did!)
Finding merit in a Clave post takes a certain talent that I did not know you
possessed.
I know which side you are on, Bob, you make it abundantly clear. Sometimes,
you let your side get in front of your back.
Bob T.
Nobody is wiser than you, John.
- Bob T
da pickle
Nobody is wiser than you, John.
=======================
Now you're talking.
BillB
> On 9/2/10 1:44 PM, BillB wrote:
>
>> According to CBO numbers, Obama's
>> baseline spending will be approximately 22% of GDP in 2015, a
>
> 2015! Another "rosy scenario."
So you reject the CBO's numbers. Whose do you go by? The spike in spending
in the next couple of years (which peaks at under 25% of GDP, by the way --
about the same as Reagan's peak) is directly and almost exclusively
explained by the extraordinary measures taken by Obama to try to rescue the
economy from the Bush Depression. He was handed an economy with a failing
banking system, impending bankruptcy of one the country's largest and most
iconic corporations (and possibly the collapse of the entire industry in the
US), rapidly rising unemployment, and a dollar that had fallen 40% against
other majors. The consensus among almost all heavyweight economists was that
the US was heading into either the severest recession in generations or an
all-out depression. The measures Obama took were actually quite
conservative, probably too conservative, under the circumstances. Most of
the economists I heard talking on Bloomberg every day were saying that,
given the overall size of the US economy, it would really take a stimulus of
about $1.2 trillion to make the desired impact. Looks to me like they were
right.
After you account for the short term extraordinary measures spending (none
of which was outside what mainstream economists were urging him to do...it's
not like he was making this stuff up himself as he went along), Obama's
budget goes back to below what Reagan's was as a percentage of GDP. The myth
of Obama's out of control spending is just that, perpetuated by those who
from the beginning loudly proclaimed their wish for him to fail, and glommed
on to by a bunch of ignorant Teabaggers who know about as much about
economics as I do about astrophysics.
The other thing to notice about the graph I linked to is how very little
revenue would have had to have been increased to avoid the $13 trillion debt
that exists today. Increase revenues by just a few % of GDP over all those
years and you're looking at $13 trillion worth of gold in Fort Knox instead
of $13 trillion in debt.
>Obama probably won't even be President in 2015.
What the hell does that have to do with where his baseline budget goes?
Alim Nassor
> "nobody" <spambeg...@spambegone.com> wrote in message
There is also the CBO estimate that under Obama debt will meet or
exceed 90% of GDP. 90% is considered a tipping point by many
economists. Some estimates say we have already exceeded that mark.
Some excerpts:
"First, the relationship between government debt and real GDP growth
is weak for debt/GDP ratios below 90% of GDP. Above the threshold of
90%, median growth rates fall by 1%, and average growth falls
considerably more. The threshold for public debt is similar in
advanced and emerging economies and applies for both the post World
War II period and as far back as the data permit (often well into the
1800s). "
"Only about 2% of the observations are at debt-GDP levels at or above
120%—and that includes the aforementioned cases. If debt levels above
90% are indeed as benign as some suggest, one might have expected to
see a higher incidence of these over the long course of history.
Certainly our read of the evidence, as underscored by the central
theme of our 2009 book, hardly suggests that politicians are
universally too cautious in accumulating high debt levels. Quite the
contrary, far too often they take undue risks with debt build-ups,
relying implicitly perhaps on the fact these risks often take a very
long time to materialise. If debt-to-GDP levels over 90% are so
benign, then generations of politicians must have been overlooking
proverbial money on the street."
""the relationship between government debt and real GDP growth is weak
for debt/GDP ratios below a threshold of 90% of GDP. Above 90%, median
growth rates fall by 1%, and average growth falls considerably more.”
Reinhart and Rogoff (2010a)"
"At a very basic level, a high public debt burden implies higher
future taxes (inflation is also a tax) or lower future government
spending, if the government is expected to repay its debts."
"There is scant evidence to suggest that high debt has little impact
on growth. Kumar and Woo (2010) highlight in their cross-country
findings that debt levels have negative consequences for subsequent
growth, even after controlling for other standard determinants in
growth equations."
"One can argue that the US can tolerate higher levels of debt than
other countries without having its solvency called into question. That
is probably so. (see Reinhart and Reinhart 2007). We have shown in our
earlier work that a country’s credit history plays a prominent role in
determining what levels of debt it can sustain without landing on a
sovereign debt crisis. More to the point of this paper, however, we
have no comparable evidence yet to suggest that the consequences of
higher debt levels for growth will be different for the US than for
other advanced economies. It is an issue yet to be explored."
"Total public sector debt during the first quarter of 2010 is 117% of
GDP. It has only been higher during a one-year stint at 119% in 1945.
Perhaps soaring US debt levels will not prove to be a drag on growth
in the decades to come. However, if history is any guide, that is a
risky proposition and over-reliance on US exceptionalism may only
prove to be one more example of the “This Time is Different” syndrome.
For many if not most advanced countries, dismissing debt concerns at
this time is tantamount to ignoring the proverbial elephant in the
room."
risky biz
John C. Pickels: Louisiana lawyer and big mouth expert.
risky biz
I think it has to do with "I'm a Republican and someone is bringing up
facts so now it's time to change the subject". As in this entire
l-o-o-o-n-n-g cut and paste post of Alim's below.
------
Alim Nassor
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gee risky was that too long for you? Most people who don't have to
move their lips and follow along with a finger could have read that in
2-3 minutes tops. As it is, you decided to spout off again without
even reading it didn't you? Were there words in there that were too
big? If you want, I can take the 5 letter and longer words and dumb
it down for you.
The after you work your way through it, you can have some juice and a
nap.
risky biz
> Gee risky was that too long for you? Most people who don't have to
> move their lips and follow along with a finger could have read that in
> 2-3 minutes tops. As it is, you decided to spout off again without
> even reading it didn't you? Were there words in there that were too
> big? If you want, I can take the 5 letter and longer words and dumb
> it down for you.
Now you're trying to change the subject from the fact that you're trying
to change the subject from the fact that the Republicans are lying about
"runaway federal spending under Obama".
You're a big time subject changer.
All the Republicans have is lies and more lies.
_______________________________________________________________________
BillB
"Alim Nassor" <alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:edd0c971-4b76-430b...@h40g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>Gee risky was that too long for you? Most people who don't have to
>move their lips and follow along with a finger could have read that in
>2-3 minutes tops
Well, I skimmed it. Don't see anything I disagree with, really. Risky was
pointing out that I already said that I knew the debt/gdp was getting into
uncharted waters, that I have written about it on RGP many times, but that's
not what this thread is about. It's about the myth of the federal
government's supposed exploding growth and ever-expanding tax schemes,
eating up more and more of the hardworking Teabaggers paycheck. The fact is
that federal government expenditures as a percentage of the economy have
remained remarkably stable for decades, as has revenue. As I've said before,
given that society has become orders of magnitude more complex over the last
six decades, a good argument could be made that government has actually
become much more efficient over time, doing more with, if not less, about
the same as they had before.
To the extent that my post was tangentially related to national debt, I'd
really like people to notice how close together those revenue and
expenditure lines track over time. It makes it obvious that there's really
no good reason for $13 trillion in cumulative debt except political
expediency. That's just as much on the American people as it is the
politicians.
risky biz
> Gee risky was that too long for you? Most people who don't have to
> move their lips and follow along with a finger could have read that in
> 2-3 minutes tops. As it is, you decided to spout off again without
> even reading it didn't you? Were there words in there that were too
> big? If you want, I can take the 5 letter and longer words and dumb
> it down for you.
You're understandably defensive about the subject of runaway federal
spending, Alim, because you're one of the blind dupes who support the
$trillion unnecessary invasion of Iraq and the unending war against Islam.
You're the dopes who are bankrupting America and hoping to blame it on
someone else. Republicans are incapable of accepting responsibility but
are always the first to claim others don't.
------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
Alim Nassor
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nope numbnuts, I'm addressing the topic of the original post.
Runaway spending has pushed the debt into territory that puts our
entire economy at risk. You might understand that if you read the
cite.
risky biz
> - Show quoted text -
>
> Nope numbnuts, I'm addressing the topic of the original post.
> Runaway spending has pushed the debt into territory that puts our
> entire economy at risk. You might understand that if you read the
> cite.
What you're trying to change the subject from is this:
"The spike in spending in the next couple of years (which peaks at under
25% of GDP, by the way -- about the same as Reagan's peak) is directly
and almost exclusively explained by the extraordinary measures taken by
Obama to try to rescue the economy from the Bush Depression. He was
handed an economy with a failing banking system, impending bankruptcy of
one the country's largest and most iconic corporations (and possibly the
collapse of the entire industry in the US), rapidly rising unemployment,
and a dollar that had fallen 40% against other majors."
- BillB
Were you ever promulgating complaints about Reagan "putting our entire
economy at risk"?
BillB
"risky biz" <risk...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:fle9l7x...@recgroups.com...
> What you're trying to change the subject from is this:
>
> "The spike in spending in the next couple of years (which peaks at under
> 25% of GDP, by the way -- about the same as Reagan's peak) is directly
> and almost exclusively explained by the extraordinary measures taken by
> Obama to try to rescue the economy from the Bush Depression. He was
> handed an economy with a failing banking system, impending bankruptcy of
> one the country's largest and most iconic corporations (and possibly the
> collapse of the entire industry in the US), rapidly rising unemployment,
> and a dollar that had fallen 40% against other majors."
> - BillB
I forgot to also mention the deflation of the largest housing bubble in
modern history. That's an important one to leave out because it severely
limited his options.
da pickle
>> (If you are really calling the loud mouth of BillB the dumbest, I missed
>> the
>> sarchasm and apologize.)
>
> John C. Pickels: Louisiana lawyer and big mouth expert.
Please, risky, stop telling everyone my real name. You know how scary it is
for anyone to know who you really are!
risky biz
Yes, that's right, J.C.Pickels. I'm a "pussy" and a "coward", according to
you, because I use risky biz as a screen name. And a creepy troll like you
is proud of his name. So, you won't mind me using it. And, you're sure
risky biz isn't my real name, aren't you?
Is everyone else here who uses a screen name a "pussy" and a "coward",
according to you?
You must be one hell of a Louisiana lawyer. Who wouldn't want a lawyer who
has the social and emotional maturity of a 12 year old? You're a troll who
hides under bridges.
BillB
>Nope numbnuts, I'm addressing the topic of the original post.
>Runaway spending has pushed the debt into territory that puts our
>entire economy at risk. You might understand that if you read the
>cite.
Did you even glance at the graph I posted? There has been no runaway
spending. That's the point. You don't need runaway spending to incur huge
debt.
Alim Nassor
Do you know the difference bewteen defict and debt?
As a percent of GDP the debt never approached the levels Obama is
taking us to. Reagan barely had a 50% ratio, Obama is on track to
exceed 100% And yes Bush started us on the road, but Obama has chosen
to drive that road right over the fucking cliff.
Alim Nassor
> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Can you show any evidence the chart is accurate? Doesn't look like
anything but some bloggers fantasy. And it ends at 2008. On January 1
2009 the US debt was 10.6 trillion bucks. Now it is 13.4 trillion.
And forecast to go much higher. Are you going to try to tell me that
revenue has kept up with a nearly 3 trillion dollar increase in
spending? During a recession? You can't US government revenue is
2008 was 17.5 trillion. In 2009 it was 14.6 trillion and forecast to
be the same in 2010. Spending in 2008 was 20.7 trillion, in 2009, it
was 24.7 and in 2010 was forecast to be 25.4 trillion, but that is
probably out of date and will be higher.
So yeah I will say that will revenues have decreased by several
trillion dollars and spending has increased by even more trillions of
dollars, I would call that runaway spending.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway
BillB
>Can you show any evidence the chart is accurate? Doesn't look like
>anything but some bloggers fantasy.
Is that the sound of your head exploding?
How about the Office of Management and Budget? Does this look familiar?
http://lobbyingcongress.org/images/charts/Government%20Outlays%20as%20a%20Percent%20of%20GDP.png
How long has the right-wing noise machine been brainwashing you that the
government is growing ever-larger and completely out of control! 30 years,
maybe more?
Obama's budget has average outlays from 2010-19 at 22.6% of GDP. What was
Reagan's average?
There is no "runaway" spending. There never was, unless you want to go back
to WWII. What there is is a populace with an zombie-like irrational
obsession with hyper-low taxes, to the point where they are willing to
jeopardize their country's future (and their own) to pay a few percent less
than they ought to. The sick thing is they try to hide their selfishness by
wrapping themselves in a flag and calling themselves patriots.
Alim Nassor
> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f7773e6a-8aaf-4b4c...@k17g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >Can you show any evidence the chart is accurate? Doesn't look like
> >anything but some bloggers fantasy.
>
> Is that the sound of your head exploding?
>
> How about the Office of Management and Budget? Does this look familiar?
What you originally posted sowed no ties to anything official.
>
> http://lobbyingcongress.org/images/charts/Government%20Outlays%20as%2...
>
> How long has the right-wing noise machine been brainwashing you that the
> government is growing ever-larger and completely out of control! 30 years,
> maybe more?
>
> Obama's budget has average outlays from 2010-19 at 22.6% of GDP. What was
> Reagan's average?
>
> There is no "runaway" spending. There never was, unless you want to go back
> to WWII. What there is is a populace with an zombie-like irrational
> obsession with hyper-low taxes, to the point where they are willing to
> jeopardize their country's future (and their own) to pay a few percent less
> than they ought to. The sick thing is they try to hide their selfishness by
> wrapping themselves in a flag and calling themselves patriots.
Bullshit. If you increase spending by several trillion dollars while
revenues go down several trillion dollars, that is runaway spending.
Why are you ignoring the debt? Reagans debt never exceeded 50% of
GDP. Obamas is probably going to exceed 100%.
Clave
<...>
> Why are you ignoring the debt? Reagans debt never exceeded 50% of
> GDP. Obamas is probably going to exceed 100%.
I'd like to see examples of your outrage over the debt before Obama took
office.
Jim
Alim Nassor
> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Since I didn't start posting here till late in '08 there may not be
any posts from before Obama, but in a post not far above this one I
acknowledged that Bush started us on this road. But it is only
recently that we have come to the point that the debt will exceed the
GDP. That is a dangerous place to be.
Clave
Then why aren't you advocating against electing Republicans?
You know, the people whose unconscionable greed and irresponsibility all but
forced the current administration into its current actions?
Jim
Alim Nassor
> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:af62bdd1-4053-4a5d...@p22g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 5, 4:15 am, "Clave" <claviusdes...@cablespeed.com> wrote:
> >> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:d15258fb-aae8-498e...@g21g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> <...>
>
> >> > Why are you ignoring the debt? Reagans debt never exceeded 50% of
> >> > GDP. Obamas is probably going to exceed 100%.
>
> >> I'd like to see examples of your outrage over the debt before Obama took
> >> office.
>
> >> Jim
>
> > Since I didn't start posting here till late in '08 there may not be
> > any posts from before Obama, but in a post not far above this one I
> > acknowledged that Bush started us on this road. But it is only
> > recently that we have come to the point that the debt will exceed the
> > GDP. That is a dangerous place to be.
>
> Then why aren't you advocating against electing Republicans?
>
> You know, the people whose unconscionable greed and irresponsibility all but
> forced the current administration into its current actions?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Because I think your premise is false.
Clave
You claim to see a problem, but refuse to acknowledge the historical causes,
except where they further your political prejudices.
Jim
BillB
> There is no "runaway" spending. There never was, unless you want to go
> back
> to WWII. What there is is a populace with an zombie-like irrational
> obsession with hyper-low taxes, to the point where they are willing to
> jeopardize their country's future (and their own) to pay a few percent
> less
> than they ought to. The sick thing is they try to hide their selfishness
> by
> wrapping themselves in a flag and calling themselves patriots.
>Bullshit. If you increase spending by several trillion dollars while
>revenues go down several trillion dollars, that is runaway spending.
>Why are you ignoring the debt? Reagans debt never exceeded 50% of
>GDP. Obamas is probably going to exceed 100%.
Debt is cumulative. Saying Reagan's debt never exceeded 50% of GDP doesn't
tell me much unless you tell me what he started with. Same for Obama.
You are again trying to change the subject from spending to debt. They are
not the same thing. Nobody is arguing that the debt/gdp ratio is not getting
too high. The question is, is it really caused by decades of exploding
government and runaway spending, as the Teabaggers would have you believe?
As I've already said, the spike in spending (and sharp decrease in revenues)
in 2009/10 is almost exclusively explained by the extraordinary measures
taken by Obama to avert the Bush Depression. Nobody can say Obama's response
was outside the scope of what was being recommended by mainstream
economists. My point is the US should be able to *easily* afford these
trillion dollar interventions every decade or so if that's what it takes to
keep the country out of a deep recession. It wasn't extraordinary
interventions like these that caused 90% of the debt. Look at the graph I
posted. It was decades of paying slightly less tax than you should have. The
reason wasn't economic crisis or necessity...on the contrary, much of the
debt accumulated during periods of unprecedented prosperity. It's simply
human selfishness, greed, and short-sightedness. Isn't that how most empires
fall?
The fact is his budget 2010-2019 has outlays averaging 22.6 of GDP, which is
very similar to Reagan's average. True, it's on the high side (the 50 year
average is just over 20%), but it can hardly be described as runaway
spending with a straight face or a clear conscience.
Alim Nassor
Do your political prejudices allow you to acknowledge any fault by the
Dems?
Alim Nassor
> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
You say it accumulated because taxes were not high enough. I say it
accumulated because spending was too high. Either can be correct
depending on your point of view. I don't believe that the spending
that Obama has done was necessary to prevent a depression, I think,
and many mainstream economists who don't buy into Keynesian economic
theories, think the spending has either exacerbated the problem, or
just kicked the even bigger problem down the road a bit, or both.
Clave
Heavens no. Democrats make me ashamed to be an American.
Republicans, however, make me ashamed to be a human being.
Any more distractions you'd care to toss against the wall before
acknowledging that more of the same Modern Cheap-Labor Conservative economic
policies that got us into this mess aren't going to get us out of it?
Jim
BillB
>You say it accumulated because taxes were not high enough. I say it
>accumulated because spending was too high. Either can be correct
>depending on your point of view.
Well, technically, yes. But not really in this case. You said you are
building or just built a house, right? Let's say you show Acme General
Contractors your plans and specifications, and they give you a price. What's
the best way to figure out if they're giving you a good price?
> I don't believe that the spending
>that Obama has done was necessary to prevent a depression, I think,
>and many mainstream economists who don't buy into Keynesian economic
>theories, think the spending has either exacerbated the problem, or
>just kicked the even bigger problem down the road a bit, or both.
So he should have just rolled the dice and went against the large majority
of professional advice and let the banks fail, let GM go bankrupt, do
absolutely nothing to stimulate the economy, and risk unemployment going up
to 25%, just because a few lightweight Austrian economists (who are pretty
much a joke in academia, by the way) say so? Is that what you think McCain
would have done? Is that what you would have done?
risky biz
> Do you know the difference bewteen defict and debt?
>
> As a percent of GDP the debt never approached the levels Obama is
> taking us to. Reagan barely had a 50% ratio, Obama is on track to
> exceed 100% And yes Bush started us on the road, but Obama has chosen
> to drive that road right over the fucking cliff.
>
>
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?title=Federal%20Debt%20as%20Pct%20GDP&year=1950_2010&chart=H0-fed&units=p
Bullshit, Alim. Nice try at camouflage with that tiny chart but it proves
how much Republicans love debt if you look at it closely enough. To be
more specific on a scale that's more accessible:
Gross US Federal debt as percent of GDP by administration-
When Ronald Reagan took office it was 32.5%. It was at 53.1% when he left
office.
George H. W. Bush increased it to 66.1% by the time he left office.
Bill Clinton reduced it from 66.1% to 65.4% during his first term and was
able to reduce it to 56.4% by the end of his second term.
George W. Bush increased it from 56.4% to 63.5% by the end of his first
term and further increased it to a level of 83.4%, the highest it has been
since the late 1940s, by the end of his second term dumping it in Barack
Obama's lap along with an economy teetering on meltdown.
Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/
Alim has a big problem with debt being used to avoid a depression but he
didn't have any problem with debt being used to immensely enrich America's
upper classes which then proceeded to go hog wild and create the
near-depression which is itself the reason for current debt levels not
being reduced in Obama's first term. Historical experience is that
Democratic administrations reduce gross debt as a percent of GDP and
Republican administrations do everything they can to increase it.
What we have here is the Republicans excitedly screaming: "Look how long
it's taking them to clean up our mess!" All the Republicans want is
another chance to shit all over America.
-----
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
risky biz
Bullshit. It was well over 50% when Reagan left office. The next
Republican immediately after him took it too 66.1%. Clinton then proceeded
to reduce it.
> Obamas is probably going to exceed 100%.
Where is your supporting evidence to validate this claim? Why do you
demand supporting evidence but fail to provide any for your claims?
In any case, whatever it is it's to avoid the economic meltdown given to
America by the last Republican administration.
----
risky biz
Your thinking is false. You've ben duped.
------
risky biz
> "Alim Nassor" <alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:d15258fb-aae8-498e...@g21g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > There is no "runaway" spending. There never was, unless you want to go
> > back
> > to WWII. What there is is a populace with an zombie-like irrational
> > obsession with hyper-low taxes, to the point where they are willing to
> > jeopardize their country's future (and their own) to pay a few percent
> > less
> > than they ought to. The sick thing is they try to hide their selfishness
> > by
> > wrapping themselves in a flag and calling themselves patriots.
>
>
> >Bullshit. If you increase spending by several trillion dollars while
> >revenues go down several trillion dollars, that is runaway spending.
> >Why are you ignoring the debt? Reagans debt never exceeded 50% of
> >GDP. Obamas is probably going to exceed 100%.
>
> Debt is cumulative. Saying Reagan's debt never exceeded 50% of GDP doesn't
> tell me much unless you tell me what he started with. Same for Obama.
>
> You are again trying to change the subject from spending to debt. They are
> not the same thing.
Changing the subject is exactly what Alim is trying to do. But he doesn't
know what he's doing because he's wrong on debt, too. See my other posts.
> Nobody is arguing that the debt/gdp ratio is not getting
> too high. The question is, is it really caused by decades of exploding
> government and runaway spending, as the Teabaggers would have you believe?
>
> As I've already said, the spike in spending (and sharp decrease in revenues)
> in 2009/10 is almost exclusively explained by the extraordinary measures
> taken by Obama to avert the Bush Depression. Nobody can say Obama's response
> was outside the scope of what was being recommended by mainstream
> economists. My point is the US should be able to *easily* afford these
> trillion dollar interventions every decade or so if that's what it takes to
> keep the country out of a deep recession. It wasn't extraordinary
> interventions like these that caused 90% of the debt. Look at the graph I
> posted. It was decades of paying slightly less tax than you should have. The
> reason wasn't economic crisis or necessity...on the contrary, much of the
> debt accumulated during periods of unprecedented prosperity. It's simply
> human selfishness, greed, and short-sightedness. Isn't that how most empires
> fall?
>
>
> The fact is his budget 2010-2019 has outlays averaging 22.6 of GDP, which is
> very similar to Reagan's average. True, it's on the high side (the 50 year
> average is just over 20%), but it can hardly be described as runaway
> spending with a straight face or a clear conscience.
________________________________________________________________________
risky biz
It accumulated because Democrats balanced budgets but Republicans didn't.
Stop ignoring the facts.
> I don't believe that the spending
> that Obama has done was necessary to prevent a depression, I think,
> and many mainstream economists who don't buy into Keynesian economic
> theories, think the spending has either exacerbated the problem, or
> just kicked the even bigger problem down the road a bit, or both.
America doesn't need any more advice from the economic morons who got us
into this mess.
--------
Pepe Papon
<alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If you increase spending by several trillion dollars while
>revenues go down several trillion dollars, that is runaway spending.
>Why are you ignoring the debt? Reagans debt never exceeded 50% of
>GDP. Obamas is probably going to exceed 100%.
Yet you see cutting spending as the entire solution. How about
increasing revenues?
Pepe Papon
>The fact is his budget 2010-2019 has outlays averaging 22.6 of GDP, which is
>very similar to Reagan's average. True, it's on the high side (the 50 year
>average is just over 20%), but it can hardly be described as runaway
>spending with a straight face or a clear conscience.
Question: Does that 22.8% include the cost of the wars, which was
off-budget under Bush?
BillB
"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bh4b86hbgu8arh3t8...@4ax.com...
Good question...I was wondering that myself. I think it does count under
Obama's new accounting policies (iirc), but I didn't want to say that
because I wasn't sure.
Beldin the Sorcerer
In a recession?
How, exactly?
Alim Nassor
> On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 01:09:11 -0700 (PDT), Alim Nassor
>
> > If you increase spending by several trillion dollars while
> >revenues go down several trillion dollars, that is runaway spending.
> >Why are you ignoring the debt? Reagans debt never exceeded 50% of
> >GDP. Obamas is probably going to exceed 100%.
>
> Yet you see cutting spending as the entire solution. How about
> increasing revenues?
I've never said cutting spending must be the only solution. Revenues
can be increased with tax cuts.
Clave
My god -- there really are people who still believe that.
Jim
Alim Nassor
> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/01/ten-myths-about-the-bush-tax-cuts
Critics tirelessly contend that America's swing from budget surpluses
in 1998-2001 to a $247 billion budget deficit in 2006 resulted chiefly
from the "irresponsible" Bush tax cuts. This argument ignores the
historic spending increases that pushed federal spending up from 18.5
percent of GDP in 2001 to 20.2 percent in 2006.[4]
The best way to measure the swing from surplus to deficit is by
comparing the pre-tax cut budget baseline of the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) with what actually happened. While the January 2000
baseline projected a 2006 budget surplus of $325 billion, the final
2006 numbers showed a $247 billion deficit-a net drop of $572 billion.
This drop occurred because spending was $514 billion above projected
levels, and revenues were $58 billion below (even after $188 billion
in tax cuts). In other words, 90 percent of the swing from surplus to
deficit resulted from higher-than-projected spending, and only 10
percent resulted from lower-than-projected revenues.[5] (See Chart 1.)
Furthermore, tax revenues in 2006 were actually above the levels
projected before the 2003 tax cuts. Immediately before the 2003 tax
cuts, the CBO projected a 2006 budget deficit of $57 billion, yet the
final 2006 budget deficit was $247 billion. The $190 billion deficit
increase resulted from federal spending that was $237 billion more
than projected. Revenues were actually $47 billion above the
projection, even after $75 billion in tax cuts enacted after the
baseline was calculated.[6] By that standard, new spending was
responsible for 125 percent of the higher 2006 budget deficit, and
expanding revenues actually offset 25 percent of the new spending.
The 2006 tax revenues were not substantially far from levels projected
before the Bush tax cuts. Despite estimates that the tax cuts would
reduce 2006 revenues by $188 billion, they came in just $58 billion
below the pre-tax cut revenue level projected in January 2000.[7]
The difference is even more dramatic with the pro-growth 2003 tax
cuts. The CBO calculated that the post-March 2003 tax cuts would lower
2006 revenues by $75 billion, yet 2006 revenues came in $47 billion
above the pre-tax cut baseline released in March 2003. This is not a
coincidence. Tax cuts clearly played a significant role in the
economy's performing better than expected and recovering much of the
lost revenue.
Clave
> On Sep 7, 11:15 am, "Clave" <claviusdes...@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:3b2d96ce-13ac-4879...@f20g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Sep 7, 9:09 am, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 01:09:11 -0700 (PDT), Alim Nassor
>>
>> >> <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> > If you increase spending by several trillion dollars while
>> >> >revenues go down several trillion dollars, that is runaway spending.
>> >> >Why are you ignoring the debt? Reagans debt never exceeded 50% of
>> >> >GDP. Obamas is probably going to exceed 100%.
>>
>> >> Yet you see cutting spending as the entire solution. How about
>> >> increasing revenues?
>>
>> > I've never said cutting spending must be the only solution. Revenues
>> > can be increased with tax cuts.
>>
>> My god -- there really are people who still believe that.
>>
>> Jim
>
> http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/01/ten-myths-about-the-bush-tax-cuts
They tried to revise the Reagan years with similarly creative analyses.
Jim
Alim Nassor
> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2ea0724b-e496-4e0e...@m35g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 7, 11:15 am, "Clave" <claviusdes...@cablespeed.com> wrote:
> >> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:3b2d96ce-13ac-4879...@f20g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Sep 7, 9:09 am, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 01:09:11 -0700 (PDT), Alim Nassor
>
> >> >> <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> > If you increase spending by several trillion dollars while
> >> >> >revenues go down several trillion dollars, that is runaway spending.
> >> >> >Why are you ignoring the debt? Reagans debt never exceeded 50% of
> >> >> >GDP. Obamas is probably going to exceed 100%.
>
> >> >> Yet you see cutting spending as the entire solution. How about
> >> >> increasing revenues?
>
> >> > I've never said cutting spending must be the only solution. Revenues
> >> > can be increased with tax cuts.
>
> >> My god -- there really are people who still believe that.
>
> >> Jim
>
>
> They tried to revise the Reagan years with similarly creative analyses.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
So disprove it.
Clave
<...>
>> >> > Revenues can be increased with tax cuts.
>>
>> >> My god -- there really are people who still believe that.
>>
>> >http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/01/ten-myths-about-the-...
>>
>> They tried to revise the Reagan years with similarly creative analyses.
>
> So disprove it.
Well, out of the dozens of sources two seconds on Google brings up, let's
start with this one.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=165
Claim That Tax Cuts "Pay For Themselves" Is Too Good To Be True
Data Show No "Free Lunch" Here (7/26/06)
Excerpts:
In fact, however, the evidence tells a very different story: the tax
cuts have
not paid for themselves, and economic growth and revenue growth over the
course
of the recovery have not been particularly strong.
¦Even taking into account the stronger revenue growth now projected for
fiscal
year 2006, real per-capita revenues have simply returned to the level
they reached
more than five years ago, when the current business cycle began in March
2001.
(March 2001 was the peak and thus the end of the previous business
cycle, and hence
also the start of the current business cycle.) In contrast, in previous
post-World
War II business cycles, real per-capita revenues have grown an average
of about 10
percent over the five and a half years following the previous
business-cycle peak.[5]
By this stage in the 1990s business cycle, real per-capita revenues had
increased by
11 percent.
¦Overall, this economic recovery has been slightly weaker than the
average post-World
War II recovery. In particular, GDP growth and investment growth have
been below
the historical average, despite recent tax cuts specifically targeted at
increasing
investment.
Those who claim that tax cuts pay for themselves might argue that
stronger revenue
growth in 2005 and 2006 represents the beginning of a new trend, and
that the tax
cuts could pay for themselves over the longer term. Neither the
historical record
nor current revenue projections support this argument.
¦In 1981, Congress approved very large supply-side tax cuts,
dramatically lowering
marginal income-tax rates. In 1990 and 1993, by contrast, Congress
raised marginal
income-tax rates on the well off. Despite the very different tax
policies followed
during these two decades, there was virtually no difference in real
per-person
economic growth in the 1980s and 1990s. Real per-person revenues,
however, grew
about twice as quickly in the 1990s, when taxes were increased, as in
the 1980s,
when taxes were cut. (See Figure 1.)
¦Even the Administration does not project that revenues will continue to
grow at
their recent rates or that the tax cuts will pay for themselves. Under
the revenue
assumptions in the Office of Management and Budget’s Mid-Session Review,
real per-
person revenues will grow at an annual average rate of just 0.8 percent
between 2000
and 2011, only about half the growth rate during the 1980s and less than
one-fourth
the growth rate during the 1990s.
¦Studies by the Congressional Budget Office, the Joint Committee on
Taxation, and
the Administration itself show that tax cuts do not come anywhere close
to paying
for themselves over the long term. CBO and Joint Tax Committee studies
find that,
if financed by government borrowing, tax cuts are more likely to harm
than to help
the economy over the long run, and consequently would cost more than
conventional
estimates indicate, rather than less. Moreover, in its recent “dynamic
analysis” of
the impact of making the President’s tax cuts permanent, the Treasury
Department
reported that even under favorable assumptions, extending the tax cuts
would have
only a small effect on economic output. That small positive economic
impact would
offset no more than 10 percent of the tax cuts’ cost. (See box below.)
There's lots more.
Jim
Clave
"Clave" <claviu...@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
news:i64dfi$mhk$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
per-person revenues will grow at an annual average rate of
Alim Nassor
> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
And plenty more backing my side. Whose cites are correct?
Alim Nassor
> [...once more with less-obnoxious formatting...]
>
>
> news:i64dfi$mhk$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
So, whose cites are correct?
Clave
<...>
>> >>> >> > Revenues can be increased with tax cuts.
>>
>> >>> >> My god -- there really are people who still believe that.
>>
>> >>> >http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/01/ten-myths-about-the-...
>>
>> >>> They tried to revise the Reagan years with similarly creative
>> >>> analyses.
>>
>> >> So disprove it.
>>
>> > Well, out of the dozens of sources two seconds on Google brings up,
>> > let's
>> > start with this one.
>>
>> >http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=165
>>
>> > Claim That Tax Cuts "Pay For Themselves" Is Too Good To Be True
>> > Data Show No "Free Lunch" Here (7/26/06)
>>
>> > Excerpts:
>>
>> In fact, however, the evidence tells a very different story: the tax cuts
>> have not paid for themselves, and economic growth and revenue growth over
>> the course of the recovery have not been particularly strong.
<...>
> So, whose cites are correct?
The ones backed up by the historical record, of course. Yours seem to be
correct as far as they go, but on further examination seem kinda
cherry-picked and incomplete.
Jim
Clave
"Clave" <claviu...@cablespeed.com> wrote in message news:...
Also meant to mention that coming from Heritage, that's not exactly
surprising.
Jim
BillB
> Also meant to mention that coming from Heritage, that's not exactly
> surprising.
Of course. Look at the second sentence from his paste: it's a flat out lie,
as you can plainly see by looking at either of the graphs I posted. A rise
from in spending 18.5% to 20.2% of GDP over five years is nowhere near
"historic" in scope. And the very last "so, it's clear" part made me laugh
out loud. How do you go against every mainstream economic opinion out there
with a couple of paragraphs of piffle, and then say "it's clear" with a
straight face. Are they saying mainstream economists are complete retards or
something, for not seeing their "clear" conclusion?
If Alim was interested in the truth, he wouldn't be going to the Heritage
Foundation for economics info. You tell me what question they are studying,
and I'll tell you what they concluded before I read their "research."
risky biz
JC, Alim. In the last week you've spouted propaganda myths on budgets,
debt, and tax cuts. You've been proven wrong on each and every one. When
are you going to draw some conclusions? You're a dupe. Being a willing
dupe doesn't make you less of a dupe.
_____________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com