Grover Norquist and the Republicans have betrayed the US military!

[Cattaclysmic]

i heard they had put in a failsafe to make sure that the supercomitee found a solution... now they want to remove that failsafe because they are unlikely to find a solution together...

[absynthe7]

This is in short why the democratic party has no hope of solving the US fiscal problems ever. (I'm not saying the Republicans are any better).

The whole reason why the US economy is in the trouble it is today is because it spends too much. There simply is not enough money.

Except that we didn't have that problem before the Bush tax cuts. I understand that conservatives keep telling you this. But to quote Wikipedia, "Citation Needed". When adjusted for population growth, inflation, and economic growth, we are spending the same amount on non-discretionary non-defense as we did twenty years ago. Get rid of those tax cuts and wind down defense spending to pre-war levels, and we do have enough money.

Second, that "cut" is from future spending increases - not from current spending. That means it's not a cut, it's just increasing spending by less.

Yes. You see, over time, both the population and economy of a country grows. In order to continue to provide basic government services at the same rate, the amount of spending must go up. If you reduce the amount on each Social Security check going out, this is a cut. The total outgoing amount for Social Security will continue to go up, almost no matter how severe the cuts are, because more people retire every day. Similarly, tax revenues continue to increase over time for the exact same reasons. Increase taxes, tax revenues go up. Cut taxes, tax revenues go up. Leave taxes alone, tax revenues go up. Same thing but from the other side.

We add two million people to the workforce every year. In short, an actual net decrease in spending is practically impossible unless both population and economic growth is near zero.

[Niteynite]

Today's Republican Party is very different from the Republican Party of the Reagan era and Clinton era. Back in the mid 90's, both sides fought like hell, even shutting down the government, but in the end, both wanted what was best for the American People. Yes, in the 90's, the Republicans compromised and we got tax increases.

Democrats are not the same either. If you think today's Democratic Party is socialist, you should have seen them back in the 60's. This is nothing compared to the liberal outcry of those days. Now, the Democratic Party is what used to be the Republican Party, and the new Republicans are so far to the right they are practically in a mental hospital.

I personally believe it's patriotic to pay taxes. While I don't particularly enjoy paying them, I do understand the necessity of it. Taxes are not punishment. Now we have the Tea Party, which is the new Republican Party (don't be stupid and try to deny it). This fringe group or radical righties would rather let the U.S. default on its debt rather than pay an extra dollar in taxes. Yes, to them that's how bad taxes are.

Also, remember there is a reluctance among the Republicans to pass any deal that would benefit the economy. Doing so could benefit President Obama's re-election chances. We all remember Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's exact words: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is to make President Obama a one term President".

How do they do that? By sabotaging the economic recovery.

[Northy]

Dems run on intellectual reason.

Repubs run on Christian emotion...and making sure their rich buddies make good.

[absynthe7]

I don't think you have any idea what Friedman stands for, or the current level of inflation.

First of all, Friedman did not believe in stimulus like Keynesian's do.

Second, you're right that alot of Republicans think taxes should be cut right now even without cutting spending. Friedman understood that this was counterproductive and that cutting taxes while there is a budget deficit does not work, as the revenue lost from taxation will just be "taxed" through means of printing money or borrowing.

I was unclear in my original post - Friedman would certainly be against any sort of fiscal stimulus, but would have, for most of this recession, been in favor of the Fed using monetary tools to increase the money supply. I understand that utilizing the Fed in this way was his second-best solution, but it's worked out pretty well for us in the past.

Headline inflation is definitely over our targets, but core inflation (2%) is what should be used. The 2011 data does put a crimp in what I've been arguing over the last three years, though.

[Diurdi]

I was unclear in my original post - Friedman would certainly be against any sort of fiscal stimulus, but would have, for most of this recession, been in favor of the Fed using monetary tools to increase the money supply. I understand that utilizing the Fed in this way was his second-best solution, but it's worked out pretty well for us in the past.

Fed is powerless in this situation. And I don't believe he would approve of any QE.

Headline inflation is definitely over our targets, but core inflation (2%) is what should be used. The 2011 data does put a crimp in what I've been arguing over the last three years, though.

The Inflation that I linked is the inflation rate that the Federal Reserve is concerned about. It is above target, so they have no room to print more money (which isn't any proper solution anyway).

Yes. You see, over time, both the population and economy of a country grows.

That's a strawman. Adjusting the increases to inflation has almost no effect on the ridiculous uses. Furthermore, the budget is totally bloated as it is anyway and needs to be reduced.

[NineSpine]

Today's Republican Party is very different from the Republican Party of the Reagan era and Clinton era. Back in the mid 90's, both sides fought like hell, even shutting down the government, but in the end, both wanted what was best for the American People. Yes, in the 90's, the Republicans compromised and we got tax increases.

Democrats are not the same either. If you think today's Democratic Party is socialist, you should have seen them back in the 60's. This is nothing compared to the liberal outcry of those days. Now, the Democratic Party is what used to be the Republican Party, and the new Republicans are so far to the right they are practically in a mental hospital.

I personally believe it's patriotic to pay taxes. While I don't particularly enjoy paying them, I do understand the necessity of it. Taxes are not punishment. Now we have the Tea Party, which is the new Republican Party (don't be stupid and try to deny it). This fringe group or radical righties would rather let the U.S. default on its debt rather than pay an extra dollar in taxes. Yes, to them that's how bad taxes are.

Also, remember there is a reluctance among the Republicans to pass any deal that would benefit the economy. Doing so could benefit President Obama's re-election chances. We all remember Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's exact words: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is to make President Obama a one term President".

How do they do that? By sabotaging the economic recovery.

I generally avoid these topics these days, but this completely nailed it.

---------- Post added 2011-11-23 at 08:12 PM ----------

Fed is powerless in this situation. And I don't believe he would approve of any QE.

The Inflation that I linked is the inflation rate that the Federal Reserve is concerned about. It is above target, so they have no room to print more money (which isn't any proper solution anyway).

That's a strawman. Adjusting the increases to inflation has almost no effect on the ridiculous uses. Furthermore, the budget is totally bloated as it is anyway and needs to be reduced.

Every single major economic downturn, in every first world country, over the last 70 years, has only been cured by government stimulation. Period. Your ideas do not work, they were disproven a century ago, they are the embarrassing laughing stock of the field of economics, and they are fundamentally based on assuming science is wrong because it disagrees with your presumptions. You are wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong, always have been, always will be, and every shred of history or science that exists backs this fact up. The end.

Mod Warning: Both of you (Diurdi & NineSpine) - stop the personal attacks.

[dan828]

True, it doesn't matter what Obama proposes, the Republicans will still say no. They can't compromise at all.

They are elected for the good of the people and their constituents, not to further a personal or party agenda. The Republican behaviour is reminiscent of small children in kindergarten who were unable to compromise or share. Even if they don't agree fully with Democrat suggestions, they should compromise and accept what would be the "lesser evil" rather than leave things in total disarray.


Still scratching my head at that one.
Also, in a country of 300 million people I don't understand how a father and son can BOTH become president.

Of course, right out of the gate with this administration "compromise" meant "do what we say." Also, there is a general lack of leadership from the guy in charge.

[Wells]

Please explain Obama's Campaign contributions vs. McCain's Campaign contributions in the 2008 General Election.

People bet on the winning horse. It was clear months from the election Obama was going to win. Therefor he got all the money.

[Diurdi]

Every single major economic downturn, in every first world country, over the last 70 years, has only been cured by government stimulation. Period. Your ideas do not work, they were disproven a century ago, they are the embarrassing laughing stock of the field of economics, and they are fundamentally based on assuming science is wrong because it disagrees with your presumptions. You are wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong, always have been, always will be, and every shred of history or science that exists backs this fact up. The end.

Wow did I hit a sore nerve? I mean, I understand that Keynesianism right now isn't doing so well - but jeez...

Lots of bold claims without any logical arguments or backing up. I guess you had to vent frustration or something?

P.S. Milton Friedman wasn't even Born a century ago. Neither had Keynes released his famous book.

Mod Warning: Both of you (Diurdi & NineSpine) - stop the personal attacks.

[Wells]

Wow did I hit a sore nerve? I mean, I understand that Keynesianism right now isn't doing so well - but jeez...

Lots of bold claims without any logical arguments or backing up. I guess you had to vent frustration or something?

P.S. Milton Friedman wasn't even Born a century ago.

The fact is your ideology relies on rewriting history to actually hold up in the real world. Suddenly all those times that were so prosperous were terrible.

And the 19th century was sunshine and rainbows.

[Dacien]

I like Grover Norquist, unpopular though that might make me. Usually people don't like him because they think we should be taxing more. But doesn't our defense budget swallow more dollars than anything else? Cut it then. Withdraw troops from abroad to save money.

[Diurdi]

The fact is your ideology relies on rewriting history to actually hold up in the real world. Suddenly all those times that were so prosperous were terrible.

And the 19th century was sunshine and rainbows.

Again, vague claims that make no sense. I've never said 19th century was sunshine and rainbows compared to today. It certainly was sunshine and rainbows compared to 18th century.

[Wells]

Again, vague claims that make no sense. I've never said 19th century was sunshine and rainbows compared to today.

Yet when asked for a time period where your views were actually used to any degree you point to events in and around the 19th century, a colossally shitty time to live if you weren't rich.

Or you claim regulation and welfare are bad for economies when one of the most equally prosperous times in the US was accompanied by high taxes, welfare, and regulation.

Austrian economics don't reflect reality, they reflect models.

[Diurdi]

Yet when asked for a time period where your views were actually used to any degree you point to events in and around the 19th century, a colossally shitty time to live if you weren't rich.

Because society had not developed yet. The current world is living on the heritage and wealth created by the policies of the 19th century.

Or you claim regulation and welfare are bad for economies when one of the most equally prosperous times in the US was accompanied by high taxes, welfare, and regulation.

"equally prosperous" ?
And taxes weren't high back then. No one paid the 95% income taxes, as almost no one qualified for those brackets.

Austrian economics don't reflect reality, they reflect models.

Keynesianism reflects nothing but the secret wishes of politicians to have an excuse to spend our money.

[Dacien]

Dems run on intellectual reason.

Repubs run on Christian emotion...and making sure their rich buddies make good.

What if I said Dems run on humanitarian emotion and Repubs run on fiscal reason? Then we'd both be guilty of making broad generalizations.

[Wells]

Because society had not developed yet. The current world is living on the heritage and wealth created by the policies of the 19th century.

Thats a pretty spurious claim.

[TobyKenobi]

What if I said Dems run on humanitarian emotion and Repubs run on fiscal reason? Then we'd both be guilty of making broad generalizations.

Well said.

[Diurdi]

Thats a pretty spurious claim.

I thought that was what we were doing here? Broad claims with nothing to back it up for whatever reason.

[smrund]

What if I said Dems run on humanitarian emotion and Repubs run on fiscal reason? Then we'd both be guilty of making broad generalizations.

Because even if we can argue that that is true for the Democrats, it is currently untrue for the Republicans. There is ZERO fiscal responsibility in the Republican party currently. They are more interested in taking Obama to the chopping block and prioritizing their petty squabbles than actually helping fix the country. Spending cuts and revenue increases TOGETHER is the single best way to reduce debt. You CANNOT simply cut government spending and expect anything other than massive economic fallout.