|
Post by Marshall on Aug 12, 2019 21:35:19 GMT -5
No. I can't tell you what and what not to care about.
My point is conservatives had railed on for decades about the looming problem of an increasing deficit. Yet under this Republican administration the deficit has gotten larger than ever before. You may not care about that. But Conservatives for decades have said they did.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Aug 12, 2019 21:45:12 GMT -5
And liberals have argued for decades about spending like drunken sailors on shore leave.
What the hell are they suddenly worried about?
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Aug 12, 2019 21:56:08 GMT -5
Yeah, the freedumb cockass has been pretty quiet... Apart from the deficit and all that, this sounds a little too familiar: "An Act To provide revenue, to regulate commerce with foreign countries, to encourage the industries of the United States, to protect American labor, and for other purposes." It's not at the tipping point yet, but add some currency actions to the tariffs and "safe" things will be looking really good.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Aug 12, 2019 23:08:09 GMT -5
I don't ever remember advocating spending like a drunken sailor. Maybe once or twice drinking like a drunken sailor. But those days are pretty much behind me.
There were times when the deficit decreased under "liberal" leadership. Though it was fueled by beneficial economic conditions that are beyond the ability of a Prez to control. I don't pretend to say that liberal polices caused it. I'm just saying that the drunken sailor analogy is an emotional overstatement on your part. You're probably listening to Rush Limburger too much.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Aug 13, 2019 0:49:32 GMT -5
Marshall, based on the preponderance of your posts during the Norse Year of the Herring, upon this, the eve of the close of the Year of the Herring, I do hereby award you the coveted "Ribbon of Sensible and Reasonable Non-Partisan and Relatively Unbiased Political Posts" to honor you for your reasonably consistent production of sensible, non-partisan and unbiased political posts in a public forum.
I get my ribbons from China, and there seems to be a bit of an issue with something or other between my Chinese supplier and Customs. But, once they are released, yours will be in the mail and on its way. Congratulations!
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Aug 13, 2019 5:24:14 GMT -5
Yeah, the free, dumb, cockass has been pretty quiet... That's not a nice thing to say about Democrats.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Aug 13, 2019 7:24:21 GMT -5
N My point is conservatives had railed on for decades about the looming problem of an increasing deficit. Yet under this Republican administration the deficit has gotten larger than ever before. You may not care about that. But Conservatives for decades have said they did. There are many explanations for this phenomenon. 1. It could simply be the hypocrisy you believe it to be. It probably is to some extent. You won't find me often praising politicians for character. In fact, that makes me -- as a conservative -- consistent, not hypocritical. This is because as a conservative I have consistently pointed out the danger in centralizing America's future in the hands of politicians. While progressives have moved us ever more and more into dependence on the decision making of a central government -- believing somehow that we are capable of electing the experts in the world to lead us .... even though all evidence points to the fact that all we have ever done is created a central government of lawyers and bureaucrats who believe they know how to run everything better than the folks who built it all. So, yeah, politicians are hypocritical. I believe that. That's at least part of why I don't want them in charge of everything. Progressives do. 2. Progressives have made a great deal of their progress by use of one particularly insidious but incredibly effective bit of deception: That doing anything is better than doing nothing. The progressives, the Democrats, the national press all give credit for doing anything. It's a curious bit of turnabout that progressives word-of-the-day is "gaslighting". Conservatives have been talking about it for decades, describing the progressive tack of creating the latest crisis that demands a centralized government solution. Everything has been a crisis that needs to have the government address it. So you have the more or less "Limbaugh" branch of conservatism that, while not nearly as flat as Sykes would make it, comes down to this: The see themselves as counter to the progressive "do anything" policy that has driven us for the past 50 years. The press, the progressives, and the Democrats have all done a very good job of de-legitimizing saying "No". But "no" is a good answer. It should be legitimate. And two things: 1. One does not have to know the right answer in order to know the wrong answer. One doesn't have to know how to cure cancer to suspect that a steady diet of bacon and ice cream isn't it. 2. It is a perfectly legitimate function of a politician to do nothing but try to stop unnecessary "progress". I get it. The do-anything lie is so pervasive, there's no way from this point forward that a majority of Americans will ever again see the sense in "no". 3. There are and always have been at least two ways to deal with the deficit. Growth and restraint. There are just as many -- perhaps more -- conservatives who have always believed that economic growth is the most effective means of dealing with the deficit. In fact, at our current time we are actually seeing an increase in revenue to the federal government due to our economic growth. Yes, it is being spent even faster, but don't let that crowd out the principle here: the growth IS creating more revenue.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Aug 13, 2019 8:21:02 GMT -5
OK. I get that you believe that. Well said. It's a valid argument. And I don't disagree with much of it. I just don't swallow it to the same degree you do. Your view flattens liberal thinking at least as much as Sykes does of Limbaugh Conservatism. And I agree a better economy raises more money for the government; ie taxes. (That floated Bill Clinton's boat. Remember when there was talk about eliminating the deficit all together?). So there. We're buddies again.
|
|
|
Post by majorminor on Aug 13, 2019 8:36:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by millring on Aug 13, 2019 8:38:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by millring on Aug 13, 2019 8:47:06 GMT -5
That's not the right chart-- or, at least it's less than half the story. Congress controls spending. If you want a more complete story you would have to show who was in charge of each house of Congress. Furthermore, you would have to factor in the black swan of technological breakthrough, advancement,and its effect on economic growth (to chart only the government control is to accept the very thing being argued--- that government is the driving force of economic growth. It is not, and that is the very central tenet to conservatism)
|
|
|
Post by lar on Aug 13, 2019 8:48:18 GMT -5
The only way that economic growth helps to cure the deficit is if it provides increased tax revenue and if the rate of increase outpaces increased government spending.
If the deficit is growing it means that anticipated increased tax revenue is not keeping pace with increased spending. Given the size of the deficit and the chunk that debt service takes out of the federal budget, increasing deficits/debt isn't a good thing. That's true regardless of what party is in control.
In my estimation the current argument about deficits is political and has little to do with economics. In 2016 the Republicans were trying to win the White House and Congress. The deficits produced during Obama's years in office were a handy argument for the Republicans. This time around the Democrats can use the deficit to make the case for why their party should be in power. If one looks at both the Obama and Trump presidencies the fact is that both produced deficits. That would seem to mean that complaints by either side are disingenuous and a good reason to mistrust much of what politicians say, especially during an election year.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Aug 13, 2019 8:55:54 GMT -5
The Obama years were the years of the Great Recession. Not a normal economy by ANY stretch of the imagination. There's been a good case presented that the bailout saved the country's (the world's?) ass from frying like the Great Depression. That Geithner and Bernanke danced with the devil and won. (One can say that lax policy in the first place set the stage for the crisis. And that fixing your own mess is not the good as doing it right in the first place. But in hind sight, a BIGGER crisis was averted). And the Great Recession exacerbated the spike in deficits in the Obama years. Not normal times.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Aug 13, 2019 8:59:08 GMT -5
The only way that economic growth helps to cure the deficit is if it provides increased tax revenue and if the rate of increase outpaces increased government spending. If the deficit is growing it means that anticipated increased tax revenue is not keeping pace with increased spending. Given the size of the deficit and the chunk that debt service takes out of the federal budget, increasing deficits/debt isn't a good thing. That's true regardless of what party is in control. In my estimation the current argument about deficits is political and has little to do with economics. In 2016 the Republicans were trying to win the White House and Congress. The deficits produced during Obama's years in office were a handy argument for the Republicans. This time around the Democrats can use the deficit to make the case for why their party should be in power. If one looks at both the Obama and Trump presidencies the fact is that both produced deficits. That would seem to mean that complaints by either side are disingenuous and a good reason to mistrust much of what politicians say, especially during an election year. The Trump deficits come during times of great economic boom. Revenue should be up.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Aug 13, 2019 9:06:00 GMT -5
The only way that economic growth helps to cure the deficit is if it provides increased tax revenue and if the rate of increase outpaces increased government spending. If the deficit is growing it means that anticipated increased tax revenue is not keeping pace with increased spending. Given the size of the deficit and the chunk that debt service takes out of the federal budget, increasing deficits/debt isn't a good thing. That's true regardless of what party is in control. Hi The most important word in your comment is "and". The progressives and the press are telling us that the problem is simply this:. We are not taxing enough. But our revenues are up. Our revenues are up. Our revenues are up even after tax cuts. It is the spending side of the equation that is exacerbating the deficit. Revenues are up.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Aug 13, 2019 9:32:37 GMT -5
Boy, things went to hell beginning around 2000. Say, when did those two wars get started? Whatever happened to them? Did we win?
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Aug 13, 2019 9:51:35 GMT -5
The Obama years were the years of the Great Recession. Not a normal economy by ANY stretch of the imagination. There's been a good case presented that the bailout saved the country's (the world's?) ass from frying like the Great Depression. That Geithner and Bernanke danced with the devil and won. (One can say that lax policy in the first place set the stage for the crisis. And that fixing your own mess is not the good as doing it right in the first place. But in hind sight, a BIGGER crisis was averted). And the Great Recession exacerbated the spike in deficits in the Obama years. Not normal times. What charts like this show is generally useless. The cumulative effect of deficit spending is still and always has been, massive debt. Even the brief balancing act during Clinton's term did nothing to reduce the onslaught of debt (it theoretically might have if sustained until sometime in 2050 or so). The only way to stop that is to acknowledge you've got a problem and stop spending. Something Congress in general is very bad at. The other option is to accelerate the problem to collapse and then, with attendant panic as a motivator, actually fix the budgeting process. Which involves hard choices. Which sucks if you're used to the general job security of not being legislators but rather administrators of the Administrative State. So letting me keep more of my money doesn't actually play into the situation. So why not?
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Aug 13, 2019 10:22:42 GMT -5
When you've dug a hole so deep you can't get out, there's only thing left to do: Dig faster!
We've gone over the edge and we ain't coming back.
How long until the final collapse?
|
|
|
Post by millring on Aug 13, 2019 11:00:29 GMT -5
How long until the final collapse? Wile E Coyote always stayed suspended in midair until he looked down.
|
|
|
Post by lar on Aug 13, 2019 11:20:27 GMT -5
The cumulative effect of deficit spending is still and always has been, massive debt. Even the brief balancing act during Clinton's term did nothing to reduce the onslaught of debt (it theoretically might have if sustained until sometime in 2050 or so). The only way to stop that is to acknowledge you've got a problem and stop spending. Something Congress in general is very bad at. The other option is to accelerate the problem to collapse and then, with attendant panic as a motivator, actually fix the budgeting process. Which involves hard choices. Which sucks if you're used to the general job security of not being legislators but rather administrators of the Administrative State. So letting me keep more of my money doesn't actually play into the situation. So why not? Cutting government spending sounds great on paper. But it's not popular when someone actually tries to do it. Some expenditures are mandated. The first one that comes to mind is debt service on the national debt. That's huge and it's a matter of contractual obligation. It can actually only be controlled by reducing the debt. That means taking money from some other expenditure and using it to pay back principal on the debt. There is almost no appetite in Congress to do that because it means less dollars for other things, like entitlements. Congress doesn't like to reduce entitlements because to do so often means losing votes at home. This administration has targeted Planned Parenthood and PBS for budget cuts. Cuts to both have been hugely unpopular with Democrats who see considerable value in them. If/when Democrats control the purse strings funding could be restored for both and whatever savings might have been realized in the meantime will be lost. It works the same with both parties. One common argument that is heard anytime someone suggests eliminating or reducing a government expenditure is that it's such a small part of the total budget that it won't make any difference. It's a good argument at the lowest level. That kind of thinking, though, ignores that even incremental reductions help. And if one finds enough of them it could make a real difference. Accepting the "too small" argument promotes the idea that it's not worthwhile to look for anything but huge cuts. And those are the most difficult to sell.
|
|