In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On April 17 2013 19:12 DeepElemBlues wrote: The Keynes defenders don't seem interested in the second half of Keynes - bringing deficits down and creating surpluses when the economy is good again. Deficits seem to matter very little either now or in the future to anyone but the Republicans. And even most Republicans just envision getting the deficit under control some time ten or fifteen years from now, and the deficits being smaller during that period under their plan as opposed to Obama's and future Democratic plans. I don't think that's very radical when it comes to cutting spending.
I just want to get, at least, deficits under $100 billion by 2025, and getting surpluses so we can actually pay down - not huge amounts, but just doing it - some of the principle on our debt. That would send a very powerful message to the rest of the world, economically and geopolitically, that the US is building a foundation of financial strength in its government as well as its economy. A US government in that fiscal position is just as important to the well-being of America as an economy that is operating without debt stockpiling up.
I am all for budget surpluses in boom years. There's definitely something to be said for living within your fiscal means and paying down debt. If individuals shouldn't take on debt they can't handle, governments shouldn't either.
Don't most "keynesians" argue that one of the main problems with this boom/bust cycle is that in the last boom, America was running massive deficits when surpluses were easily achievable?
I would also just like to point out that the party you percieve as "caring" about deficits had control of the government during that boom cycle, and eroded the surpluses in place created by the party that "doesn't care"...
In hindsight I think that would be a fair complaint. Same goes for monetary policy being too loose for too long.
'In the moment' striking the right balance is quite a bit harder. Back then the economic recovery wasn't seen as very robust ('jobless recovery' and low wage growth) and a lot of spending (the war bits) was seen as temporary. When you take that into account the deficits weren't anything out of the ordinary.
I'm sure a few years from now we'll wish we did some things differently. Such is life.
On April 17 2013 19:12 DeepElemBlues wrote: The Keynes defenders don't seem interested in the second half of Keynes - bringing deficits down and creating surpluses when the economy is good again. Deficits seem to matter very little either now or in the future to anyone but the Republicans. And even most Republicans just envision getting the deficit under control some time ten or fifteen years from now, and the deficits being smaller during that period under their plan as opposed to Obama's and future Democratic plans. I don't think that's very radical when it comes to cutting spending.
I just want to get, at least, deficits under $100 billion by 2025, and getting surpluses so we can actually pay down - not huge amounts, but just doing it - some of the principle on our debt. That would send a very powerful message to the rest of the world, economically and geopolitically, that the US is building a foundation of financial strength in its government as well as its economy. A US government in that fiscal position is just as important to the well-being of America as an economy that is operating without debt stockpiling up.
I guess we just need another Republican president like Bill Clinton then
Congress controls the purse strings, even for snark this is stupid. Bill Clinton's surplus: GOP Congress. George Bush deficits: GOP Congress first, Democrat Congress last two years. Obama deficits: Democratic Congress, then split Congress.
On April 17 2013 19:12 DeepElemBlues wrote: The Keynes defenders don't seem interested in the second half of Keynes - bringing deficits down and creating surpluses when the economy is good again. Deficits seem to matter very little either now or in the future to anyone but the Republicans. And even most Republicans just envision getting the deficit under control some time ten or fifteen years from now, and the deficits being smaller during that period under their plan as opposed to Obama's and future Democratic plans. I don't think that's very radical when it comes to cutting spending.
I just want to get, at least, deficits under $100 billion by 2025, and getting surpluses so we can actually pay down - not huge amounts, but just doing it - some of the principle on our debt. That would send a very powerful message to the rest of the world, economically and geopolitically, that the US is building a foundation of financial strength in its government as well as its economy. A US government in that fiscal position is just as important to the well-being of America as an economy that is operating without debt stockpiling up.
I guess we just need another Republican president like Bill Clinton then
Congress controls the purse strings, even for snark this is stupid. Bill Clinton's surplus: GOP Congress. George Bush deficits: GOP Congress first, Democrat Congress last two years. Obama deficits: Democratic Congress, then split Congress.
I'm reading up on some of the tax increases (1993), and supposedly every GOP voted against this particular bill I'm looking at:
Ultimately every Republican in Congress voted against the bill, as did a number of Democrats. Vice President Al Gore broke a tie in the Senate on both the Senate bill and the conference report. The House bill passed 219-213 on Thursday, May 27, 1993.[1] The House passed the conference report on Thursday, August 5, 1993, by a vote of 218 to 216 (217 Democrats and 1 independent (Sanders (I-VT)) voting in favor; 41 Democrats and 175 Republicans voting against).[2] The Senate passed the conference report on the last day before their month's vacation, on Friday, August 6, 1993, by a vote of 51 to 50 (50 Democrats plus Vice President Gore voting in favor, 6 Democrats (Lautenberg (D-NJ), Bryan (D-NV), Nunn (D-GA), Johnston (D-LA), Boren (D-OK), and Shelby (D-AL) now (R-AL)) and 44 Republicans voting against). President Clinton signed the bill on August 10, 1993.
On April 17 2013 19:12 DeepElemBlues wrote: The Keynes defenders don't seem interested in the second half of Keynes - bringing deficits down and creating surpluses when the economy is good again. Deficits seem to matter very little either now or in the future to anyone but the Republicans. And even most Republicans just envision getting the deficit under control some time ten or fifteen years from now, and the deficits being smaller during that period under their plan as opposed to Obama's and future Democratic plans. I don't think that's very radical when it comes to cutting spending.
I just want to get, at least, deficits under $100 billion by 2025, and getting surpluses so we can actually pay down - not huge amounts, but just doing it - some of the principle on our debt. That would send a very powerful message to the rest of the world, economically and geopolitically, that the US is building a foundation of financial strength in its government as well as its economy. A US government in that fiscal position is just as important to the well-being of America as an economy that is operating without debt stockpiling up.
I guess we just need another Republican president like Bill Clinton then
Congress controls the purse strings, even for snark this is stupid. Bill Clinton's surplus: GOP Congress. George Bush deficits: GOP Congress first, Democrat Congress last two years. Obama deficits: Democratic Congress, then split Congress.
I'm reading up on some of the tax increases (1993), and supposedly every GOP voted against this particular bill I'm looking at:
Ultimately every Republican in Congress voted against the bill, as did a number of Democrats. Vice President Al Gore broke a tie in the Senate on both the Senate bill and the conference report. The House bill passed 219-213 on Thursday, May 27, 1993.[1] The House passed the conference report on Thursday, August 5, 1993, by a vote of 218 to 216 (217 Democrats and 1 independent (Sanders (I-VT)) voting in favor; 41 Democrats and 175 Republicans voting against).[2] The Senate passed the conference report on the last day before their month's vacation, on Friday, August 6, 1993, by a vote of 51 to 50 (50 Democrats plus Vice President Gore voting in favor, 6 Democrats (Lautenberg (D-NJ), Bryan (D-NV), Nunn (D-GA), Johnston (D-LA), Boren (D-OK), and Shelby (D-AL) now (R-AL)) and 44 Republicans voting against). President Clinton signed the bill on August 10, 1993.
Not sure what you make of that
You'll find arguments from every angle that the 1993 tax increases slowed down the economy, or did nothing, or were responsible for the surpluses. But how many years passed in between 1993 and the time we got a surplus? 5 or 6 years? Who was in charge of Congress during that time period?
See for example here's a right-wing perspective that the Clinton tax increase slowed the economy down and the 1997 GOP tax cuts (that Clinton did sign into law, give him credit for that) got the economy really revving.
On April 17 2013 19:12 DeepElemBlues wrote: The Keynes defenders don't seem interested in the second half of Keynes - bringing deficits down and creating surpluses when the economy is good again. Deficits seem to matter very little either now or in the future to anyone but the Republicans. And even most Republicans just envision getting the deficit under control some time ten or fifteen years from now, and the deficits being smaller during that period under their plan as opposed to Obama's and future Democratic plans. I don't think that's very radical when it comes to cutting spending.
I just want to get, at least, deficits under $100 billion by 2025, and getting surpluses so we can actually pay down - not huge amounts, but just doing it - some of the principle on our debt. That would send a very powerful message to the rest of the world, economically and geopolitically, that the US is building a foundation of financial strength in its government as well as its economy. A US government in that fiscal position is just as important to the well-being of America as an economy that is operating without debt stockpiling up.
I guess we just need another Republican president like Bill Clinton then
Congress controls the purse strings, even for snark this is stupid. Bill Clinton's surplus: GOP Congress. George Bush deficits: GOP Congress first, Democrat Congress last two years. Obama deficits: Democratic Congress, then split Congress.
I'm reading up on some of the tax increases (1993), and supposedly every GOP voted against this particular bill I'm looking at:
Ultimately every Republican in Congress voted against the bill, as did a number of Democrats. Vice President Al Gore broke a tie in the Senate on both the Senate bill and the conference report. The House bill passed 219-213 on Thursday, May 27, 1993.[1] The House passed the conference report on Thursday, August 5, 1993, by a vote of 218 to 216 (217 Democrats and 1 independent (Sanders (I-VT)) voting in favor; 41 Democrats and 175 Republicans voting against).[2] The Senate passed the conference report on the last day before their month's vacation, on Friday, August 6, 1993, by a vote of 51 to 50 (50 Democrats plus Vice President Gore voting in favor, 6 Democrats (Lautenberg (D-NJ), Bryan (D-NV), Nunn (D-GA), Johnston (D-LA), Boren (D-OK), and Shelby (D-AL) now (R-AL)) and 44 Republicans voting against). President Clinton signed the bill on August 10, 1993.
Not sure what you make of that
You'll find arguments from every angle that the 1993 tax increases slowed down the economy, or did nothing, or were responsible for the surpluses. But how many years passed in between 1993 and the time we got a surplus? 5 or 6 years? Who was in charge of Congress during that time period?
See for example here's a right-wing perspective that the Clinton tax increase slowed the economy down and the 1997 GOP tax cuts (that Clinton did sign into law, give him credit for that) got the economy really revving.
On April 18 2013 01:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: You know the government is broken when it's elected leaders are to afraid to pass something the 10% decry whereas the 90% support. In this case background checks.
You keep saying this like its going to change but its not. "backgound checks" being supported doesn't mean anything and you know it. Stop acting like everyone agrees on what "background checks" are.
We already have background checks for buying guns retail. The idea is not to let people buy guns without those background checks at all.
idk which statement is more silly, tax cuts made the 90's, or tax raises made the 90's.
tax cuts by nature are politicized, but the personal income tax's relationship with economic decisions is indirect for most people, except small proprietors and the like.
On April 17 2013 19:12 DeepElemBlues wrote: The Keynes defenders don't seem interested in the second half of Keynes - bringing deficits down and creating surpluses when the economy is good again. Deficits seem to matter very little either now or in the future to anyone but the Republicans. And even most Republicans just envision getting the deficit under control some time ten or fifteen years from now, and the deficits being smaller during that period under their plan as opposed to Obama's and future Democratic plans. I don't think that's very radical when it comes to cutting spending.
I just want to get, at least, deficits under $100 billion by 2025, and getting surpluses so we can actually pay down - not huge amounts, but just doing it - some of the principle on our debt. That would send a very powerful message to the rest of the world, economically and geopolitically, that the US is building a foundation of financial strength in its government as well as its economy. A US government in that fiscal position is just as important to the well-being of America as an economy that is operating without debt stockpiling up.
I guess we just need another Republican president like Bill Clinton then
Congress controls the purse strings, even for snark this is stupid. Bill Clinton's surplus: GOP Congress. George Bush deficits: GOP Congress first, Democrat Congress last two years. Obama deficits: Democratic Congress, then split Congress.
I'm reading up on some of the tax increases (1993), and supposedly every GOP voted against this particular bill I'm looking at:
Ultimately every Republican in Congress voted against the bill, as did a number of Democrats. Vice President Al Gore broke a tie in the Senate on both the Senate bill and the conference report. The House bill passed 219-213 on Thursday, May 27, 1993.[1] The House passed the conference report on Thursday, August 5, 1993, by a vote of 218 to 216 (217 Democrats and 1 independent (Sanders (I-VT)) voting in favor; 41 Democrats and 175 Republicans voting against).[2] The Senate passed the conference report on the last day before their month's vacation, on Friday, August 6, 1993, by a vote of 51 to 50 (50 Democrats plus Vice President Gore voting in favor, 6 Democrats (Lautenberg (D-NJ), Bryan (D-NV), Nunn (D-GA), Johnston (D-LA), Boren (D-OK), and Shelby (D-AL) now (R-AL)) and 44 Republicans voting against). President Clinton signed the bill on August 10, 1993.
Not sure what you make of that
You'll find arguments from every angle that the 1993 tax increases slowed down the economy, or did nothing, or were responsible for the surpluses. But how many years passed in between 1993 and the time we got a surplus? 5 or 6 years? Who was in charge of Congress during that time period?
See for example here's a right-wing perspective that the Clinton tax increase slowed the economy down and the 1997 GOP tax cuts (that Clinton did sign into law, give him credit for that) got the economy really revving.
And I'm sure there are plenty of people who will tell you that is just dead wrong and give out statistics and logic of their own to prove why.
What I make of it is that you very blatantly cherry-picked something and you should be embarrassed.
Embarrassed about what? I ran with your assumption.
Which was? I really don't know what you think it is, please tell me.
As for the rest of this post, it is not about arguments for and against gun control, it is about the politics of the issue and the political events involved, of course I'm talking about the failure today in the Senate of all gun-control bills and amendments offered by Senators of both parties.
The response from people like Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama has been nothing short of a declaration of war on the gun issue. They are announcing, more than a year ahead, that this will be a main front on the midterm battlefield.
I think this is a bad mistake by the Democratic Party. They just tried to use guns as a wedge issue against Republicans, in order to get 60 votes today, and they failed. Why do they think that escalating this is going to give a different result next time? Obama acknowledged it. The pro-gun side is better organized, more passionate, and has greater stamina. That's not going to change. The rest was just Obama being a bully, as usual. Calling people liars and using strawmen to suggest that Republicans don't want the Sandy Hook families to have a voice. Republicans are saying that 50 people, no matter how horrifying what happened to their poor little children, should not have the dominant voice on something that will effect 300 million people. And those families are being used as props. Willing props, but props nonetheless.
We saw the real Obama today. The bully who, when he loses, shows his cowardly nature and goes and runs to the teacher. The teacher being the media in this analogy. He tells the teacher how bad the victims of his bullying are, and the teacher willingly lets all the kids, the public, know. He's also an incredible narcissist, and that also caused his ragedump today.
The hubris of the Left blinded them, and today they got bit in the butt for it. Too often, liberals here at TL and everywhere seem to possess the preconception, sometimes willfully and sometimes unconsciously, that Obama won, the conservative side of this country is toast or at least so weakened that we can just ignore half the country and shove down its throat whatever we want. Obama won 51-48 over Romney. Bush won 51-48 over Kerry, and guess who was one of the people that said Bush had no mandate? Barack Obama. The Left in this country has overextended itself. 60 million people voted for Romney. Did the Democrats really think they could just run roughshod over them and their representatives in Congress because they won? Advancing your agenda is one thing, advancing an agenda you know the other party can't accept in order to whine to the media about obstructionism is another. Those 60 million still matter, they didn't just disappear. Republicans aren't just going to roll over for Obama and abandon all the people who voted for them.
Guns are an issue Democrats are not going to win on at the ballot box. Not in red or purple states. And Obamacare is coming next year. If it turns out to suck, Democratic hopes about keeping the Senate and regaining the House - which they've publicly said is basically the only way they can get anything done, an appeal to the base if there ever was one - will turn out to have been just fantasies.
Barack hasn't lost his groove just yet, but he's had a catch in the rhythm. It is just a bad mistake to escalate on guns, and if public disapproval of Obamacare doesn't drop, his second term will be The Return of Dubya: Second Term Suckfest for the Party Running 1600 Penn.
On one hand, shit happens and I feel sorry for them that that a simple coding error has led to this. But on the other hand, this "study" has been widely cited by people like Paul Ryan and European officials to pursue austerity, and RR haven't helped by reaffirming their work in public statements, suggesting that 90% debt to GDP is a tipping point for slow growth.
Watching this massive screw up unraveling sure is fun.
On one hand, shit happens and I feel sorry for them that that a simple coding error has led to this. But on the other hand, this "study" has been widely cited by people like Paul Ryan and European officials to pursue austerity, and RR haven't helped by reaffirming their work in public statements, suggesting that 90% debt to GDP is a tipping point for slow growth.
Watching this massive screw up unraveling sure is fun.
On the europe-part: One of the primary reasons for austerity measures getting implemented is to streamline the economies and kick some of the unsustainable/unwanted, yet popular, grants out. It has come to a point where some politicians want to draw heartblood now and even Merkel seems to have accepted that there is a limit when it comes to starving economies...
On April 18 2013 01:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: You know the government is broken when it's elected leaders are to afraid to pass something the 10% decry whereas the 90% support. In this case background checks.
Are you seriously swallowing that 90% rubbish they keep spewing out? They can't even seem to agree on the number. It was 92% a few weeks ago. I could create a poll that says 90% of people are against background checks. A lot of people honestly believe (through the media) that there are no background checks at all. You will find that the more people know about gun laws and how guns work, the less likely they are to support more controls.
On April 18 2013 01:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: You know the government is broken when it's elected leaders are to afraid to pass something the 10% decry whereas the 90% support. In this case background checks.
Are you seriously swallowing that 90% rubbish they keep spewing out? They can't even seem to agree on the number. It was 92% a few weeks ago. I could create a poll that says 90% of people are against background checks. A lot of people honestly believe (through the media) that there are no background checks at all. You will find that the more people know about gun laws and how guns work, the less likely they are to support more controls.
These are not loaded questions. They are not misleading questions. The question was NOT "do you support background checks on everyone to reduce gun violence?". These questions are about as straight, plain and unbiased as you can get,
On April 18 2013 21:28 ahswtini wrote: Yes they are. Ask those same people if they know that there are already background checks on people buying at gun shows or online.
On April 18 2013 21:28 ahswtini wrote: Yes they are. Ask those same people if they know that there are already background checks on people buying at gun shows or online.
No there aren't. The amendment voted down today was for background checks at guns shows and online.
Get with the news.
Wednesday's key vote came as the Senate rejected a plan by Manchin and Sen. Patrick Toomey, R-Pa., to extend background checks — now required for transactions involving gun dealers — to sales at gun shows and online.
According to the same source as where they pull the "40% of gun sales do not go through a background check", only about 16% in reality actually bought or traded a gun without a background check. Department of Justice survey of convicts found that only 1.7% of crime guns were sourced from gun shows/flea markets.
On April 18 2013 21:34 ahswtini wrote: According to the same source as where they pull the "40% of gun sales do not go through a background check", only about 16% in reality actually bought or traded a gun without a background check. Department of Justice survey of convicts found that only 1.7% of crime guns were sourced from gun shows/flea markets.
EPT
