Where is Obama’s deficit reduction budget?

User avatar
Omar Bongo
Posts: 7740
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:59 pm

Re: Where is Obama’s deficit reduction budget?

Postby Omar Bongo » Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:52 pm

AsIfYouKnew wrote:I actually try to be civil, and you turn it into an ad hominem.

This from the guy who dismissed Wabash's opinions because he hasn't bought a diploma from UCI.

I suppose we can dismiss your opinion on the meaning of stochastic because you don't have a degree in English. How's that for an ad hominen?


"Trump is what he is, a floundering, inarticulate jumble of gnawing insecurities and not-at-all compensating vanities, which is pathetic."
George Will

"How stupid is our country?"
Donald Trump

User avatar
AsIfYouKnew
Posts: 7264
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:01 am

Re: Where is Obama’s deficit reduction budget?

Postby AsIfYouKnew » Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:52 am

Wabash wrote:I bet there are also studies that show Keynes was right on the mark. Harry Truman once stated that he would like to meet a one-handed economist. Keynesian economics was used effectively by both FDR and Reagan. We have empirical evidence proving positive outcomes to their actions.


stochastic

sto·chas·tic adjective \stə-ˈkas-tik, stō-\

Definition of STOCHASTIC

1
: random; specifically : involving a random variable <a stochastic process>
2
: involving chance or probability : probabilistic <a stochastic model of radiation-induced mutation>




Funny. Just following your lead. You claim the events and conclusions I cited should not be viewed together given that you believe there is no evidence of causation. Then you make claims doing exactly the same thing. Thanks for making my argument for me.


You don't seem to have a good grasp of what Keynesian economics is. Expansion of government spending does not make it keynesian. Further, many studies have been done in the past decade that show that FDRs programs actuallys slowwed recovery from the depression, and some modern economists don't believe we really exited the depression until the late 1940s. Reagan, on the other hand, employed more of a neo-classical approach, not a keynesian approach. the stagflation of the 70s was a huge example of the shortcomings of the Keynesian model.

As for the definition of "stochastic", please explain how your use of the word fits with either definition.
When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
Jonathan Swift

http://www.civilityinamerica.org/en/index.html

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 23925
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am

Re: Where is Obama’s deficit reduction budget?

Postby Wabash » Fri Dec 07, 2012 8:20 am

AsIfYouKnew wrote:You don't seem to have a good grasp of what Keynesian economics is. Expansion of government spending does not make it keynesian.

I would agree. However, Keynes believed the federal budget could be used to inject capital into the marketplace to stimulate the economy when the macro decisions made by the private sector had led to inefficiencies. Prime examples being the Great Depression and the New Deal that followed to pull the economy out of that downward spiral.

AsIfYouKnew wrote: Further, many studies have been done in the past decade that show that FDRs programs actuallys slowwed recovery from the depression, and some modern economists don't believe we really exited the depression until the late 1940s.

We've already been through this. Until those folks who wrote those term papers have a similar circumstance that enables them to apply their policy beliefs, their conclusions are hypotheticals. We do know that all economic indicators had improved at the end FDR's first term. They continued to improve until he took the advice of his Treasury Secretary and pulled back on spending only to have a backslide into a mini-recession.

If the New Deal worsened or prolonged the Depression, what finally cured it? Did government wise up to its evil excesses? Did the blessed free market unyoke itself from government tyranny to reassert its place in society? Were the New Deal programs repealed, revoked, smashed by a political reassertion of untrammelled (and predatory) capitalism?

Well, no. What ended the Depression was World War II. An infusion of governmental spending on good, services, infrastructure, research and development, and employment on a scale that made the entire New Deal look like a casual weekend outing. The Depression ended because government hadn’t previously done enough; it was not extended because government had done too much.

This sort of wing-nut revisionism has been around for a long time.

I do believe history should be a mandatory for MBA students. Your lack of historical events and the associated timeframes of economic policy only shows the shortcomings in your conclusions.

AsIfYouKnew wrote:Reagan, on the other hand, employed more of a neo-classical approach, not a keynesian approach. the stagflation of the 70s was a huge example of the shortcomings of the Keynesian model.

Reagan employed classic Keynesian economics utilizing investment in the DoD as the primary vehicle to inject capital into the economy. There was no free market demand for the Navy to have 600 ships and the production of two strategic bombers. Aside from all the other weapons programs on the Pentagon shopping list. And let's not forget. Reagan signed off on budgets that effectively tripled the national debt during his administration. Which is a significant tenet of Keynes.
Last edited by Wabash on Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
Troglodyte
Posts: 16607
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 4:33 pm

Re: Where is Obama’s deficit reduction budget?

Postby Troglodyte » Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:34 am

Wabash wrote:
If only economics and history were mutually exclusive you would realize the fallacy of your argument. Yes, JFK lowered taxes to spur economic growth. He lowered them from over 90% to about 70%.

They were later raised to offset the deficits that occurred as a result of that act. Reagan did the same thing during his administration. Lowered taxes and then raised them to offset the massive borrowing caused by the deficits of the budgets he negotiated with congress.

The only pony hobbling that has occurred is the belief that tax cuts create jobs. There is no historical or empirical evidence that shows that to be the case. In fact just the opposite. History has shown the US economy has had higher levels of productivity when the marginal tax rate was above 50%.

History and current events prove that raising tax rates are counter productive.
Sure the inteded target of this item is California, but the examples are national.


Gary Jason: Atlas may not shrug, just move away
Published: OC Register: Dec. 5, 2012 Updated: 4:40 p.m.

For glimpse of the aftermath of California’s Prop. 30, look to what happened in Britain, France.

Gov. Jerry Brown and the public employee unions that back him are celebrating the passage of Proposition 30. Californians retroactively raised income taxes on the rich, who now have to pay confiscatory (indeed, predatory) rates of up to 13.3 percent on their incomes, on top of what might soon be a 40 percent federal rate being pushed by the re-elected President Barack Obama.

But Brown and his Myrmidons best go light on that champagne. They anticipate a great gusher of revenue. In fact, they might want to look at the recent experience of other countries in this regard – it might temper their enthusiasm over their big score.

Consider Britain. In the 2009-10 tax year, more than 16,000 Brits reported an annual income greater than 1 million pounds (about $1.6 million). The Labor prime minister, Gordon Brown, jacked up the tax rate on these misanthropic millionaires to 50 percent, with few deductions allowed.

Well, the following year the numbers of those millionaires had dropped to a mere 6,000 – a decline of nearly two-thirds. Apparently most of the wealthy either found ways to mitigate their income, or simply moved abroad.

Who could have imagined that people with brains enough to earn a million pounds a year in Britain's stubbornly statist economy would devise ways to escape Gordon Brown's onerous taxes?

The Conservative Party Chancellor of Revenue and Customs subsequently announced that the rate will be dropped to 45 percent, and since then the number of British self-reported millionaires bounced back to 10,000. That is progress, though it is still well below what it was before the steep taxes were imposed.

Moreover, the Gordon Brown tax hike actually cost the British government about 7 billion pounds ($11.2 billion) in tax revenue.

Now, perhaps the correlation between Britain's tax increases and the flight of her wealthy is pure coincidence. To help rule this out, let's look at Britain's neighbor.

France, even more prone than Britain to statist over-reaching, this year elected a socialist prime minister, who promptly got a 75 percent income tax (and a 60 percent capital-gains tax) passed on incomes over 1 million euros (about $1.3 million). The results have been equally prompt.

In the eight months since the tax increases were announced, there has been a 10 percent increase in the inventory of Parisian properties for sale, especially at the high end. About 400 Paris homes worth more than 1 million euros have come on the market.

Many of the wealthy French are moving to Brussels, Belgium, which has traditionally been a haven for French fleeing high taxes, as is Switzerland.

All of this is creating a great buying opportunity for wealthy foreigners, especially Chinese, Russian, Swiss and Middle Eastern ones.

In sum, what Gov. Brown and the voters who gave him his tax victory are likely to discover is that, after a large number of wealthy flee to other states – to join the hundreds of thousands of middle-class California refugees who fled earlier because of the high unemployment rate, the lousy business climate and challenged public schools – revenue will fall far short of projections.

It appears that Atlas may not shrug, but will simply move.
I don't suffer from any mental illnesses.. I enjoy them..

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 23925
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am

Re: Where is Obama’s deficit reduction budget?

Postby Wabash » Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:47 am

Troglodyte wrote:History and current events prove that raising tax rates are counter productive.
Sure the inteded target of this item is California, but the examples are national.


History shows no such thing. As early as 1992, tax rates were increased. What were the so called apocalyptic effects that were predicted to occur? The DJIA tripled, the deficit was cut in half, and 23M jobs were created. The countries cited as examples have tax rates significantly higher than anything being proposed by the president. So those comparisons are not valid.

Earlier in this thread you cited Germany as an example of sound fiscal policy. Their tax rates and social programs are significantly more pronounced than those in America. Single payer health care and free education through the university level being two of the more significant. Programs that cause the typical conservative to become unhinged and scream socialism.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

Donray
Posts: 1440
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:48 pm

Re: Where is Obama’s deficit reduction budget?

Postby Donray » Sat Dec 08, 2012 9:56 am

Wabash wrote:
Obama’s proposals include a $1.6 trillion in increased taxes on the rich over the next decade, $400 billion in savings in Medicare and other social programs, $50 billion in stimulus spending to begin next year, and an end to current debt ceiling rules. This is not new or radical, it reflects the very same same policies Obama advanced for years and promoted extensively on the campaign trail.



Sort of like what Greece, Spain, etc enacted and did so much good for the countries. Tell me how unlimited debt and barrowing will help?

You are right about Obama campaigning to make this country just like Spain or Greece or France.

Do you agree with Obama in cutting Social Security revenue so it goes brook faster?

You do know that only 33% of people of voting age voted for Obama? That does not make a majority of the people think Obama 's policies are good.

Obama won because the Christian right made the election about gay rights, abortion and birth control. Obama also ran the most negative campaign in history.

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 23925
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am

Re: Where is Obama’s deficit reduction budget?

Postby Wabash » Sat Dec 08, 2012 10:18 am

Donray wrote:Sort of like what Greece, Spain, etc enacted and did so much good for the countries. Tell me how unlimited debt and barrowing will help?

Comparing the US to either of those countries only shows you are not educated on what makes the US different and therefore that comparison invalid.

Donray wrote:You are right about Obama campaigning to make this country just like Spain or Greece or France.

Please show us where he stated he wanted any such thing.

Donray wrote:Do you agree with Obama in cutting Social Security revenue so it goes brook faster?

Yawn! He said no such thing.

Donray wrote:You do know that only 33% of people of voting age voted for Obama? That does not make a majority of the people think Obama 's policies are good.

He received a majority of those who voted. Decisions are made by those who show up. Those that did not vote accept the consequences of that action.

Donray wrote:Obama won because the Christian right made the election about gay rights, abortion and birth control.

The GOP has no one to blame for that occurring. Especially Obama.

Donray wrote: Obama also ran the most negative campaign in history.

Only showing that you know little about American political history. BTW, he still won.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
Troglodyte
Posts: 16607
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 4:33 pm

Re: Where is Obama’s deficit reduction budget?

Postby Troglodyte » Sat Dec 08, 2012 8:04 pm

Wabash wrote:History shows no such thing. As early as 1992, tax rates were increased. What were the so called apocalyptic effects that were predicted to occur? The DJIA tripled, the deficit was cut in half, and 23M jobs were created. The countries cited as examples have tax rates significantly higher than anything being proposed by the president. So those comparisons are not valid.

Earlier in this thread you cited Germany as an example of sound fiscal policy. Their tax rates and social programs are significantly more pronounced than those in America. Single payer health care and free education through the university level being two of the more significant. Programs that cause the typical conservative to become unhinged and scream socialism.

As early as 1992 the dot com bubble grew which drove the economy way up. had nothing to do with tax rates.

Germany has a very fiscally efficient accounting system,. and the people trust their government.

The US uses a "cash" accounting system, which only considers what the government spends during the fiscal year. There is no thought of the continuing costs of what it enacts down the road. There is no thought of a "rainy day" fund, or a sensible budget. There is no accounting of what the programs really cost or how effective they might be. "Wow.. We've got $50 at the end of the week. Let's spend the night on the town and worry about the rent and car payment next week.. The folks will lend us money if we run short." Yeah, like that..
I don't suffer from any mental illnesses.. I enjoy them..

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 23925
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am

Re: Where is Obama’s deficit reduction budget?

Postby Wabash » Sat Dec 08, 2012 10:06 pm

Troglodyte wrote:As early as 1992 the dot com bubble grew which drove the economy way up. had nothing to do with tax rates.

According to conservatives of the time, there were predictions of doom and gloom regardless of other circumstances. You must have forgotten.

Troglodyte wrote:Germany has a very fiscally efficient accounting system,. and the people trust their government.

Not relevant. They tax enough to pay for the programs conservatives in the US would scream as socialistic.

Troglodyte wrote:The US uses a "cash" accounting system, which only considers what the government spends during the fiscal year. There is no thought of the continuing costs of what it enacts down the road. There is no thought of a "rainy day" fund, or a sensible budget. There is no accounting of what the programs really cost or how effective they might be. "Wow.. We've got $50 at the end of the week. Let's spend the night on the town and worry about the rent and car payment next week.. The folks will lend us money if we run short." Yeah, like that..

What's your point? When a "rainy day" fund is put in place, conservatives start screaming that taxpayers should be given rebates because it is "their" money. Or did you forget the whopping $300 rebates Bush handed out after inheriting a budget surplus? Who am I kidding? Of course you did.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
Troglodyte
Posts: 16607
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 4:33 pm

Re: Where is Obama’s deficit reduction budget?

Postby Troglodyte » Sun Dec 09, 2012 10:29 am

Another vehemant denial and gross distortion of facts brought to you by the Wabash comedy company.
Non profit, of course... :lol:
I don't suffer from any mental illnesses.. I enjoy them..

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 23925
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am

Re: Where is Obama’s deficit reduction budget?

Postby Wabash » Sun Dec 09, 2012 5:46 pm

Troglodyte wrote:Another vehemant denial and gross distortion of facts brought to you by the Wabash comedy company.
Non profit, of course... :lol:

Let me guess. You never got the $300 bucks Bush sent to everyone. Sorry to hear about that. But hey, maybe you have an alternate universe rationale that explains why Bush sent out all those $300 checks before he effectively doubled the national debt. Those tax cuts being part of the current fiscal mess being cleaned up by Obama while being obstructed by conservatives at every opportunity.

Here's the best part of that link:

In Congress yesterday, a few Republicans talked about making the current bill permanent. One of its odd features is that it expires on Dec. 31, 2010, a sunset provision put in because of congressional rules governing spending more than a decade into the future.


Another mess Bush left behind for someone else to clean up.

It's obvious you weren't paying attention to his rationale for sending them out. Either way, the only joke is on you in letting everyone know that you're memory is long gone as it relates to recent events.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

Return to “The Economy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest