President Obama Re-Elected - Page 698

On October 07 2012 18:15 paralleluniverse wrote:

But Romney is running ads on the fact that cuts in defense spending will cut jobs. So this implies that increases in spending will increase jobs. Why doesn't Romney run ads saying that government should increase spending to create jobs?

I understand, from Keynesian economics, why the fiscal cliff is a terrible thing. But what I don't understand is how someone who rejects Keynesian economics (sometimes, when it suits him to do so), comes to the same conclusion. Most Republicans believe cutting the deficit will lead to economic growth and a path out of the great recession. I don't understand how someone with these beliefs can conclude that the fiscal cliff is bad.

On October 07 2012 18:27 BluePanther wrote:


Government spending/manipulation (whichever it chooses to engage in). But this all assumes that there isn't a more fundamental reason for unemployment. Throwing money at it only works if you're throwing money in the right places.

Say we have full employment plus 50 construction workers who are unemployed. There is a demand for bakers. To fix this, we say "ok, we'll build a road. we need roads right now. this will fix the problem." Great. Problem fixed-- until the road is finished. We have 50 unemployed construction workers again. Companies are hiring bakers right now though -- they just can find someone to do the job. Do you just build another road that you don't need?

Simply spending doesn't work if there is another problem that goes beyond the business cycle.

On October 07 2012 18:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Romney is telling people that work in the defense industry that they will lose their jobs if defense spending goes down. There is no Keynesian argument there.

If you don't understand why the fiscal cliff is considered a bad thing, beyond Keynesian rationale, then I'm not sure you understand what the fiscal cliff is.

I think you need to take a step back. You are viewing everything through a Keynesian lens and I think its turning you myopic.

On October 07 2012 18:45 paralleluniverse wrote:

If you have full employment, government spending only leads to inflation.

On October 07 2012 18:52 BluePanther wrote:


you know exactly what i mean, stop trying to make arguments where there aren't any.

On October 07 2012 18:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Romney is telling people that work in the defense industry that they will lose their jobs if defense spending goes down. There is no Keynesian argument there.

If you don't understand why the fiscal cliff is considered a bad thing, beyond Keynesian rationale, then I'm not sure you understand what the fiscal cliff is.

I think you need to take a step back. You are viewing everything through a Keynesian lens and I think its turning you myopic.

On October 07 2012 18:56 paralleluniverse wrote:

It doesn't work either way. If you employ those 50 workers, they have a job, spend money to buy stuff, create demand for goods, businesses would hire to fill that demand, which causes more people to spend money and creates more demand, employment would rise, and the economy will recover sooner,

On October 07 2012 19:10 BluePanther wrote:


hire who? they've wanted bakers the entire time, to make the bread that all these new workers want. the price of bread has gone up, because of increased demand, and the construction workers are spending their wage on it... but their aren't any new bakers.

On October 07 2012 18:49 paralleluniverse wrote:

There is a Keynesian argument there.

If you didn't believe in Keynesian economics, say you're an Austrian economist or a classical economist, then the argument would be: government spending in general (including in defense) distorts the markets, without this spending, these workers can find jobs in more productive parts of the economy where their skills and the products they make are demanded without government distortion.

Or if you're an austerity advocate or a tea bagger, the argument should be: Government deficits are choking the economy, so reducing spending will bring "confidence," which improves the economy and will create jobs on net.

On October 07 2012 19:02 paralleluniverse wrote:

There are only 3 coherent reasons I can think of that would lead to the conclusion that the fiscal cliff is bad:
1. Keynesian economics - a drastic reduction in government spending will lead to a large collapse in aggregate demand, causing the fragile economy to fall back into recession.
2. Defense cuts is bad, it weakens America, everything else cut in the fiscal cliff is OK.
3. Supply side economics - tax cuts will cause prosperity to trickle down on all, so they mustn't be allowed to go up.

As far as I know, these are all the consistent viewpoints. I cannot think of any other reason that one could use to conclude that the fiscal cliff is bad, without being hypocritical or contradictory.

On October 07 2012 19:14 paralleluniverse wrote:

If we are not at full employment, an assumption that you've thrown out, then there will be people to hire
If the government hires everyone that's unemployed, then we are at full employment and fiscal stimulus is bad because (as I've said), it will only lead to inflation.

Say we have full employment plus 50 construction workers who are unemployed.

On October 07 2012 19:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Regardless of what line of economic though you subscribe to - you can still tell workers that they will be out of a job if the government stops giving their industry money!

Not every argument regarding the government spending is an economic argument.

On October 07 2012 19:25 BluePanther wrote:


....

On October 07 2012 22:14 paralleluniverse wrote:
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/opinion/sunday/friedman-can-i-phone-a-friend.html?ref=opinion
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/opinion/sunday/douthat-it-could-be-his-party.html?ref=opinion

Today, there's 2 NYTimes columns essentially lavishing praise on Romney for winning the debate, while basically admitting that he did it by lying.

On October 07 2012 20:59 paralleluniverse wrote:

He's not merely pointing it out. If Romney had a consistent economic ideology, that deficits are bad and that we should balance the budget, then attacking Obama for those jobs cuts is hypocritical. Under his ideology, those spending cuts, and resulting job cuts are good for the economic recovery.

Of course, one should not expect much consistency from the man who flip-flop from being center-right to "severe conservative." And then within the span of a 90 minute television appearance, pivoted to the left.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Can Romney keep gaining ground, or will President Obama maintain his advantage in those battleground states that matter most? We'll look at the race from all angles this morning, and we'll begin with the campaigns. Ed Gillespie for Mitt Romney, Robert Gibbs for Barack Obama, and Robert, let me begin with you. How much difference did Governor Romney make Wednesday night?

GIBBS: Well, look, George, Governor Romney had a masterful theatrical performance just this past week, but the underpinnings and foundations of that performance were fundamentally dishonest. Look, he walked away from the central tenet of his economic theory by saying he had no idea what the president was talking about. Ten minutes after the debate, even his own staff is walking back his answers on health care and preexisting conditions.

So, look, I don't want to take anything away from what I think, again, was a masterful, masterful performance by Governor Romney, but I don't think Governor Romney's positions have changed, and fundamentally, I don't think the campaign has changed.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Robert, what happened to the president on Wednesday night? You've seen all the reviews. I'm sure the president has seen the reviews by now as well. Let's look at that "New Yorker" cover right there. It shows the empty podium next to Mitt Romney. The basic line is, the president didn't show up on Wednesday night. And I just want to know, when did he know he was beat?

GIBBS: Well, look, George, I think the president understood that he hadn't performed up to his own expectations pretty quickly into – after he got off the stage that night. But look, George, I think what's interesting is not – I think it's who showed up on the Republican side. You know, a clone that looked a lot like Mitt Romney that had walked away from fundamentally every position that he'd taken.

You cannot cut taxes by $5 trillion, as he's doing, and simply say, oh, I don't have that tax cut. I'm not going to cut taxes for the wealthy, when the average high-income earner is going to get a $250,000 tax cut.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me stop you right there, because the Romney campaign has a new ad out just on that point. They say the president and his team are lying when they call it a $5 trillion tax cut.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UM: President Obama continues to distort Mitt Romney's economic plan. The latest – not telling the truth about Mitt Romney's tax plan. The AP says doesn't add up. ABC News, mostly fiction. Even the Obama campaign admitted it wasn't true.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, OK, stipulated, it won't be near $5 trillion.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: So does the campaign now accept that the cuts will be less than $5 trillion?

GIBBS: No, absolutely not. If you're going to reduce the Bush tax rates by 20 percent, and the estate tax, and the AMT, change the corporate rate, and a whole host of other changes, that adds up to a reduction in revenue, $4.8 trillion. The question for Governor Romney is, what loopholes are you going to close? Supposedly, to make up for that revenue? And if you don't close $4.8 trillion in those loopholes, two things happen. Either the deficit goes up, or more likely, is the middle class is going to see their taxes go up and end up paying for his promises (ph).

STEPHANOPOULOS: But as you know, Robert, he's stating unequivocally that he will not push the tax cuts if they increase the deficit, and he will not push them if they force tax increases on the middle class.

GIBBS: Then he's got no economic theory. Then he's walked away from 18 months of what this whole campaign has been about. But George, we've seen this movie before, where people say, oh, don't worry, it's all going to get paid for, it's fine. When you ask them, what loopholes will you close specifically for wealthy earners to help pay for the $4.8 trillion in reduced revenue, there's no answer. I mean, let's be clear, Paul Ryan a week ago was asked about the math for this, and Paul Ryan said, look, the math takes too long. Well, Mitt Romney's solution is he just decided there wasn't math involved in this problem, and that's absolutely crazy. Look, the only thing he outlined that he would cut in the budget is Big Bird. He's taken the battle straight to Sesame Street, and let Wall Street run hogwild.

On October 08 2012 01:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:

not every plan to cut the deficit is good. not every plan to balance the budget is good. i think you would agree that we could balance the budget by putting all spending down to zero. of course, that's practically impossible and ridiculously undesirable, but it is a plan for balancing the budget.

consequently, it is not hypocrisy to criticize defense cuts as the "wrong way" to balance the budget, whether they would have a net benefit on the economy or not. which actually can be argued from a capitalistic/supply-side point of view: less defense spending could (theoretically) lead to increased chaos/war around the world, driving markets down and resulting in a net decrease of economic prosperity.

can you name one position that Romney flip-flopped on during the debate?

On October 08 2012 01:23 paralleluniverse wrote:

This position makes no sense. Under your theory, why isn't it a good idea to decrease deficits by cutting everything, when your economic theory says that decreasing the deficit is good for making the economy grow and recover?

Why not cut spending on everything except defense? If your ideology is deficit = bad, then this is surely a good idea. The US spends more on defense than the next 11 countries combined. No one is going to invade the US, if the US decides to cut defense spending.

As for flip-flops, Romney flip-flopped on his $5T tax plan by denying that it exists. He said his healthcare plan covers preexisting conditions, but he was fact checked by his aide after the debate who said it didn't. He also flip-flopped on not wanting to cut teachers, when in a previous video he said we doesn't want more teachers. These things have already been covered in previous pages of this thread.