A Disastrous Presidency

You started right off the bat by attacking me and one other member with gratuitous cheap shots. It quickly became apparent that you had difficulty engaging in a debate without tossing snide little barbs. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Dude, it was over a year ago. Get over it already.

You seem a bit obsessed with me. If you don't mind me sayin'.

Dude, it was over a year ago. Get over it already.

You seem a bit obsessed with me. If you don't mind me sayin'. Originally Posted by Doove

Get over yourself!

The reverse is clearly the case. Almost every time I posted something on tax and economic issues in D&T, you had to chime in with some snide comment or cheap little insult.

I would love it if from now on you'd be kind enough to simply STFU whenever I post anything, or at least discuss the topic in an intelligent manner without adding any childish little jabs.

But I don't think you're capable of either.

And if it somehow bothers you that I seem to be returning your insulting comments, get over that, too. I don't suffer fools gladly and have little tolerance for annoying jerks.

You're obviously not one of the brighter porch lights on the block. Why don't you go do some reading tonight and try to learn something?

OK, now I see!

It looks like you are not quite satisfied with something like a European-style social democracy. You'd like to go for the Full Monty!

Maybe a leader such as a modern-day Huey Long would be more to your liking? Or maybe Father Coughlin? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

And by the way, i noticed that instead of addressing, or rebutting what i said, you responded with an ad hominem.

At least Lexuslover admits he's a hypocrite. You should be so honorable.

And if it somehow bothers you that I seem to be returning your insulting comments, get over that, too. I don't suffer fools gladly and have little tolerance for annoying jerks. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

It doesn't bother me that you respond by acting like a jerk. But it does bother me that you act like a jerk, while making a huge issue of someone else supposedly acting like a jerk. As i pointed out, oh, a year and a half ago when you were going on and on about me. Do either one or the other. Doing both makes you the bigger jerk of the two of us. You're stealing my thunder.

You're obviously not one of the brighter porch lights on the block. Why don't you go do some reading tonight and try to learn something?

I've taken 2 economics courses in my life. So go ahead, talk over my head all ya want. Just keep in mind, no matter how smart you may think you sound, you're spouting nothing but theories. And like i said, i can find people just as smart as you who will spout the opposite theory. That's how theories tend to work. So i don't care to waste my time learning about them.

I'll stick to basing things on facts, thank you very much.

And by the way, i noticed that instead of addressing, or rebutting what i said, you responded with an ad hominem.

At least Lexuslover admits he's a hypocrite. You should be so honorable. Originally Posted by Doove

Sorry, but I got my fill of your obnoxiousness some time ago. All I did was hand you back a dose of your own medicine. If you don't like it, tough shit.

Now please just buzz off.

Sorry, but I got my fill of your obnoxiousness some time ago. All I did was hand you back a dose of your own medicine. If you don't like it, tough shit.

Now please just buzz off. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

You failed to rebut my point in the middle of a 600 word post directed, seemingly, at me. So i doubt that you having your fill of my obnoxiousness had anything to do with it.

You failed to rebut my point in the middle of a 600 word post directed, seemingly, at me. So i doubt that you having your fill of my obnoxiousness had anything to do with it. Originally Posted by Doove

I have no idea what your "point" was, and I'm not inclined to go back and look for it. But if you'll tell me what it is, and if it's something worth discussing, I'll try to answer.

Sorry, Doove, but I really didn't write that for your benefit. I get quite a few PMs from people (some of whom never post) with questions about some of these issues. I wrote that because several are following this discussion with interest.

Do you really think that a number of senate Democrats want to block this deficit-busting lemon only because they're not sure how to pay for it? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

A better point: They are trying to figure if Obama is toxic yet. The avg Dem Senator 2012 isn't a stupid as the avg Dem House Rep of 2008. If the economy doesn't turn around and Fast n Furious and Solyndra reaps high level indictments you aren't going to see a Dem Senator within 100 ft of Hopey McChangey.

Yes, deficits have increased under every modern President. They are going up at an even more rapid pace under President Obama. This HAS to stop! The consequences are a complete economic disaster if SPENDING isn't controlled soon.

Doove, if you had taken those 2 economics courses from me when I was teaching them at the University, you would understand the failure of Keynesian policies to stabilize the economy.

And sure, under capitalism, the rich get that way on the backs of the poor. As they do under socialism, communism and facism. Duh. Capitalism, however, is the ONLY system that allows people to move from the lower classes to the upper classes. Now don't confuse what we have now with capitalism, we have crony capitalism, which is much closer to fascism than to capitalism. We have a government that is picking the winners and losers, instead of the market. This has to be reversed as well, or we will become a police state, which I think we are very close to anyway.

Doove, if you had taken those 2 economics courses from me when I was teaching them at the University, you would understand the failure of Keynesian policies to stabilize the economy. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Millions of students would have been far better off if they had taken economics courses from you rather than from one of those people who are still stuck in the 1970s and never learn anything from history!


Even more to the point, maybe we as a nation would then avoid being deluded by pushers of economic malpractice.

I have sometimes challenged my liberal friends to name one instance where the spending associated with a fiscal initiative propelled a nation to greater prosperity. They cannot. (Note: I mean a case where spending itself increased the prosperity of a nation, not one where a truly valuable project of some sort continues to pay dividends over time.)

It should also be noted that what's being peddled today is not really Keynesianism, at least not in the sense that Keynes himself would be likely to approve if he were alive today. He actually had many conservative instincts regarding debt and trade balances. Remember, in the 1930s, when Keynes did much of the work for which he is best known, industrial nations generally ran fiscal surpluses during good times -- or at least balanced or near-balanced budgets. Also, expensive welfare states were almost nonexistent. Under such circumstances, it's certainly reasonable to kick in a little public spending in order to mitigate the severity of economic downturns.

It should also be noted that near the end of World War II, Keynes cautioned against continuing to run fiscal deficits after the war was over. A common belief among economists at the time was that the economy would go back into a depression after wartime deficit spending ended. (Amazing as it sounds, a lot of people at the time did actually believe that.)

But Keynes was alarmed by the possibilty of continual deficit spending in the absence of a credible path to the return of fiscal balance. I can only imagine what he might think if he could see what's happening today! Judging from everything I've seen written by those who've made deep studies of Keynes and his works, my guess is that he would say that we're in a helluva mess and endorse a credible plan to gradually seek balance, or near-balance, over a 7-10 year period.

That is why I think the snake oil being peddled today is a bastardization of Keynesian. It's nothing less than an affront to the man and his legacy. I have referred to the ARRA and similar measures as "pseudo-Keynesianism."

Another problem Keynes would find incredibly alarming if he were alive today is our huge trade deficit. He believed such imbalances were toxic and destructive. I recently came across this article by Tom Geoghegan, a labor lawyer and frequent contributor to The Nation:

http://news.yahoo.com/keynes-221201285.html

Geoghegan is very liberal and generally supports big government, but in my opinion he does a very good job of explaining why fiscal stimulus has not been working very well. I think the article is a very good read and provides food for thought. For anyone interested, the author also does a good job of concisely explaining the difference between trade deficits and balance-of-payments deficits.

The trade deficit issue is just one of the structural problems to which I alluded when I said earlier that we are never going to have a robust recovery until we start addressing them.

During most of the '00s, the extent to which this was a problem was covered over by an unsustainable debt-fueled consumption boom. Note that there were rapid run-ups in both household and public debt year after year. The finnancial crisis exposed the poverty of a "recovery" built on a foundation of sand.

The thing I find most disappointing today is that we seem to being trying to rescuscitate another debt-fueled consumption-based recovery without paying sufficient attention to the structural problems afflicting the economy. This is just another variation of "extend and pretend." Kicking the can down the road indefinitely will not work.

Big, entrenched increases in government spending act as economic retardants over time, not stimuli.

It is certainly true that you can somewhat mitigate the severity of a recession in the short run by throwing in some borrowed money, but if you do not use it to produce anything of lasting value, you just get left with a debt hangover. That's where we are now.

Over the next decade, we will have to reduce deficits through some mix of spending restraint and tax increases. That will be an economic de-stimulus, and it will last for a number of years.

Thanks, Cap'n! You would have gotten an "A" in my class.

You're missing the point..... Harry Reid stopped it because he didn't have the votes. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Harry didn't have the votes and a procedural vote on the Bill failed with two Democratic Senators voting against it and a third Democratic Senator publicly announcing he would vote against it on a final vote. That night on MSNBC several commentators doubled down saying some Democratic Senators weren't "Progressive enough", calling for ousters of Democrats In Name Only.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44860221.../#.TpYUIkfcys0

[quote=Doove;1732726] At least Lexuslover admits he's a hypocrite./quote]

When you post false statements as that it demonstrates you inability to engage in beneficial conversations with any validity.

I have sometimes challenged my liberal friends to name one instance where the spending associated with a fiscal initiative propelled a nation to greater prosperity. They cannot. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

The "philosophy" is that they desire to get out of debt by creating more debt. Kinda like buying a more expensive vehicle with a larger, longer note to get out of debt on the vehicle already owned with a smaller, shorter note.

Spend more borrowed money to get out of debt.

[quote=LexusLover;1742460]

At least Lexuslover admits he's a hypocrite./quote]

When you post false statements as that it demonstrates you inability to engage in beneficial conversations with any validity. Originally Posted by Doove

Then by all means, tell us what it means to admit voting twice for a trillion dollar war, no-bid contracts, a medicare drug program that costs more than Obamacare, and losing, literally losing $9 billion in Iraq, only to turn around and complain about supposed squandered funds when a Democrat is in office.

I call it hypocrisy. I'll concede the point if i'm wrong. Convince me.

Edit: David Frum nails your hypocrisy here:

"They (Republicans) are expressing opinions they have never acted on in office and won’t act on if returned to office."