Obama re-elected!!!!

[stratjacket]

In 2012 looks like they stripped the Obama budget down to a skeleton in hopes they could fill it in later with something that actually works. In prior years this was not the case. Never the less. It's disappointing. You guys still have no answers for dems holding everything hostage.

People do not understand basic economics if you think raising taxes will help the debt or anything else. I'm amazed at how dumbed down America has become. We will see, looks like its going to happen. So who will you blame next year when things are worse than now.

 

[Treeunit212]

Republicans ran up 10 trillion in debt? Haha, thats funny. Both parties have ran it up, but Obama and Bush went extreme.

The current debt is just over 16trillion. It was ~10 trillion when Obama took office, so about 38% (6 trillion) of all the national debt that we've accumulated over 200+ years have been over these last 4 years. Awful. Bush was also horrible at 4trillion over 8 years. Whats really scary is in the last 12 years, our last 2 presidents in office have spent just about 63% of all our debt. Where the previous 43 presidents ran up 37% of the 16trillion.

Stated another way, Obama in 4 years, has ran up the same debt(6trillion) as George Washingkton to Bill Clinton did(6trillion). But both parties own it and have done it.

That is bullshit. Debt is not some finite number, it is a circulating pool of government bonds bought and sold like food at a grocery store.

Do you have any idea how much debt we racked up during WWII? We were spending close to 40% of our GDP on the war effort while rationing everything from tires and gasoline to shoes and nylon.

Do you know how much debt Japan is in? 200% of GDP. They've been deficit spending since the 90's, with zero fucks given, and they even own some of our debt. Government debt isn't like what you rack up at best buy when you max out your $800 credit card. Countries don't max out because they're the most trusted entities to ever pay it back, especially the United States. Debt is a commodity, in that if you buy it with a higher interest rate than when you sell it, you get money back.

You know what the best part about Government debt is? We can just refinance it and not pay it as if it was never even there.

As long as people are willing to buy our bonds, we will be fine. When the interest rate picks back up, then start to worry. Luckily Bernanke has the fed by the balls, and that won't happen anytime soon. Also, that Washington to Clinton number is ridiculously skewed by a little thing called inflation.

Our deficit has stayed level and even gone down since Obama has been in office. That's a fact. Republicans have racked up far more debt than Democrats have in the last 30 years, starting with the master deficit spender Reagan. He handed Bush Sr a deficit, and the guy sacrificed his second term in order to increase taxes and reign it in. Hats off.

Clinton handed Bush Jr a surplus, and within a year it was a trillion dollar deficit. Do not tell me Republicans gave two fucks about deficits and debt until a black man got into office and it was as if Method Man just maxed their credit card out buying fur coats and gold chains.

(That was intentionally racist for the sake of point, please don't shoot me)

People do not understand basic economics if you think raising taxes will help the debt or anything else.

Increasing taxes brings in revenues, cutting the deficit. That's... Basic... Economics..?

 

[AxeHappy]

I'll say it again, you can pretty much track the strength of the economy based on how highly the rich are taxed.

The trickle-down effect (IE. Slash taxes) has been shown to not work again and again and again.

 

[GuitaristOfHell]

I hate political parties I am an independent. I thought Obama would do a better job.

 

[lurgar]

People do not understand basic economics if you think raising taxes will help the debt or anything else. I'm amazed at how dumbed down America has become. We will see, looks like its going to happen. So who will you blame next year when things are worse than now.

Economics is not a simple area of study. The right-wing media in America right now has people believing that it's as simple as "Give the rich more money through tax cuts and all will be well." It's not that simple because the less money a government has, the less it can operate. If you have more money coming in, the more it can operate.

Right now, we are borrowing money at negative interest rates which means that when we pay that money out to the bond holders, we are paying less effective money. With inflation holding steady and these negative interest rates, the size of our debt is not as big of a problem as it's being made out to be.

 

[Scar Symmetry]

Clinton handed Bush Jr a surplus, and within a year it was a trillion dollar deficit. Do not tell me Republicans gave two fucks about deficits and debt until a black man got into office and it was as if Method Man just maxed their credit card out buying fur coats and gold chains.

 

[Murmel]

Not really relevant, but if you go to Romney's Facebook page and refresh every few seconds you can actually see the likes drop, do the same thing with Obama's and the likes will increase

 

[GuitaristOfHell]

Not really relevant, but if you go to Romney's Facebook page and refresh every few seconds you can actually see the likes drop, do the same thing with Obama's and the likes will increase

I have to + rep you for that this is amusing to do.

 

[Xaios]

Not really relevant, but if you go to Romney's Facebook page and refresh every few seconds you can actually see the likes drop, do the same thing with Obama's and the likes will increase

Now THAT is funny.

 

[Adam Of Angels]

Republicans ran up 10 trillion in debt? Haha, thats funny. Both parties have ran it up, but Obama and Bush went extreme.

The current debt is just over 16trillion. It was ~10 trillion when Obama took office, so about 38% (6 trillion) of all the national debt that we've accumulated over 200+ years have been over these last 4 years. Awful. Bush was also horrible at 4trillion over 8 years. Whats really scary is in the last 12 years, our last 2 presidents in office have spent just about 63% of all our debt. Where the previous 43 presidents ran up 37% of the 16trillion.

Stated another way, Obama in 4 years, has ran up the same debt(6trillion) as George Washingkton to Bill Clinton did(6trillion). But both parties own it and have done it.

In addition to what Treeunit said, it's definitely worth noting that a lot of the debt increase during Obama's first term was a result of policies and spending that was already in place after Bush's presidency. In the same way, if Obama successfully takes measures that will significantly reduce our national debt over the next 10 years, and a Republican is in office in 10 years, Republicans will praise the then president for such a victory, effectively pretending that Obama was nothing but a failure.

 

[Hollowway]

Hey, I may be dropping right in the middle here, but I heard an interview with someone on the radio who was saying he thinks the Dems may let us go over the fiscal cliff, and it might have a pretty nice silver lining for the Republicans as well. If the democrats let us go over, all sorts of programs will be cut, and taxes will go up. Then, in January the parties can get together and add back in some of the social programs (but not all of them) and cut taxes (although not back to the Bush era levels). Then, the democrats will be seen as voting FOR social programs (rather than against if they negotiate now) and the republicans will be seen as voting for tax CUTS rather than tax hikes (which is what they'd have to do if they negotiated now).
Anyway, that sounded like a logical argument to me, so I wouldn't be surprised if the two sides worked out the basic idea of what they want, but let us go over the cliff, let the automatic things take place, and then enacted everything after the new year starts. That way no republican senator or representative has to go on record voting for a tax increase and similarly no democrat has it on his record that he voted to eliminate a social program.

 

[flint757]

You guys still have no answers for dems holding everything hostage.

Pretending this is 100% valid I did actually give you an answer, I said both sides have extremely different approaches this go around. Compromising for either party means neither approach will work, we have to just to commit 100% to one philosophy this time.

People do not understand basic economics if you think raising taxes will help the debt or anything else. I'm amazed at how dumbed down America has become. We will see, looks like its going to happen. So who will you blame next year when things are worse than now.

Based on your few posts you actually do not understand economics yourself, at the very least no better than the people you are insulting. I personally have taken several economic courses over the past 3 years. Your opinion is not any more likely to work than anyone else's without proper implementation to test it, so tone down the condescension. Economics has some basic truths, but a lot of it is so grand it is all just a 'try it and then see what happens' game. As for the last 2 sentences, fuck you. Very hostile comment IMO from a guy who claims it is nice to have a pleasant debate/conversation with people who differ ideologically. We've offered up more evidence than you actually, as you have pretty much only said 'everything needs to be more simple'. That's deep man. As an example you need only look at other more 'socialized' nations to see that these policies actually work, been said more than once here.

Not sure what perplexes you though. If I want to spend $2 I have to gain $2 and that is the most basic function of money and math. Economics is significantly more complicated than that. In fact if you think government should cut back and lower taxes you are in agreement, in terms of economics, with us. You just want the reverse to occur; instead of more spending more taxes you'd like less spending less taxes. Same in principle. That being said the Democratic party is talking about making cuts, ending a war and increasing taxes. In fact without increasing taxes it'd be impossible to cut down the national debt (even though that isn't actually necessary at all) without making the US a terrible place to live for all of those except the super wealthy. Even then they'd suffer as they have to interact with the rest of the world and I don't see them doing everything the government does.

 

[lurgar]

If anybody wants to learn more about economics and help contribute to ECONOMICS CHAT, here is a post on reddit that gives some pretty decent advice on where to start

Clickey

I wouldn't say this is the end all be all for discussion, but it can help get people started off learning about the subject. Just be warned that while this can be fascinating and all, it is really dry reading all around.

 

[Hollowway]

Yeah, I see a lot of debate on here about the economic policies of the two parties. Apart from the obvious fact that the country's problems are not likely to be solved by a bunch of metal musicians on a guitar forum, there is no actual right answer here, because no one knows which philosophies actually work. There's been a lot of talk in the past few years about John Maynard Keynes, and his policies, as well opposing viewpoints (like Milton Friedman). Unfortunately no one knows which is better. Otherwise we'd at least have economists agreeing.
More interestingly, economists from both parties do agree on a lot of stuff that will still not ever see the light of day because of politics. For instance, conservative and liberal economists both agree that the mortgage deduction doesn't make any sense. But what politician is going to go to the mat over cutting that?
Still, from an empirical standpoint, I'd prefer to let the economists make economic policy, not politicians. They understand it, they understand its effect on behavior of the public, and no doubt they'd do a superior job.

 

[stratjacket]

Wow. Well, we've had 12 years of extreme govt expanding and taking more control. You guys want even more and it's happening. We'll see where it goes. Hopefully you guys wise up with age. I'm out.

 

[YngwieJ]

Still, from an empirical standpoint, I'd prefer to let the economists make economic policy, not politicians. They understand it, they understand its effect on behavior of the public, and no doubt they'd do a superior job.

+1

That can be said about any subject matter that our government handles. For instance, the House Committee on Science & Technology consists of Todd Akin, who thinks god gave the vagina magical powers, and Paul Broun, who thinks the Earth is 9000 years old. Every Congressional member should have some expertise to contribute to their committees.

 

[synrgy]

the House Committee on Science & Technology consists of Todd Akin,

Well, technically speaking, Todd Akin isn't really on any committees, any more.

Anyway, here's some interesting perspective about the States going into defalt, from a variety of those in-the-know from across the political spectrum:

“The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So there is zero probability of default.”
Alan Greenspan

“In the case of United States, default is absolutely impossible. All U.S. government debt is denominated in U.S. dollar assets.”
Peter Zeihan, Vice President of Analysis for STRATFOR

“In the case of governments boasting monetary sovereignty and debt denominated in its own currency, like the United States (but also Japan and the UK), it is technically impossible to fall into debt default.”
Erwan Mahe, European asset allocation and options strategies adviser

“There is never a risk of default for a sovereign nation that issues its own free-floating currency and where its debts are denominated in that currency.”
Mike Norman, Chief Economist for John Thomas Financial

“There is no inherent limit on federal expenses and therefore on federal spending…When the U.S. government decides to spend fiat money, it adds to its banking reserve system and when it taxes or borrows (issues Treasury securities) it drains reserves from its banking system. These reserve operations are done solely to maintain the target Federal Funds rate.”
Monty Agarwal , managing partner and chief investment officer of MA Managed Futures Fund

“As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e., unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational.”
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

“A sovereign government can always make payments as they come due by crediting bank accounts — something recognized by Chairman Ben Bernanke when he said the Fed spends by marking up the size of the reserve accounts of banks.”
“Government needs to be concerned about pressures on inflation and the exchange rate should its spending become excessive. And it should avoid “crowding out” private initiative by moving too many resources to our public sector. However, with high unemployment and idle plant and equipment, no one can reasonably argue that these dangers are imminent.”
L. Randall Wray, Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and a Senior Scholar at the Levy Economics Institute

Mind you, I'm not pretending to understand well enough to know whether or not they're right, but I do presume they know what they're talking about.

 

[tacotiklah]

Economics is not a simple area of study. The right-wing media in America right now has people believing that it's as simple as "Give the rich more money through tax cuts and all will be well." It's not that simple because the less money a government has, the less it can operate. If you have more money coming in, the more it can operate.

Where I have a MAJOR qualm with that line of thinking is that they are assuming that businesses (where the only loyalty they have is to their shareholders, not the american people) are benevolent and ethical enough to actually use that money to create new jobs and not just pocket the extra cash. This is a pipe-dream of epic proportions that will be equaled only by the catastrophic failure that it will cause. The government would be better off dumping the money in a pit and lighting it on fire. At least then the heat generated from that money bonfire would warm a few vagrants and homeless people, as opposed to being a complete and total waste if it went to those greedy assholes.

 

[Jzbass25]

Economics is not a simple area of study. The right-wing media in America right now has people believing that it's as simple as "Give the rich more money through tax cuts and all will be well." It's not that simple because the less money a government has, the less it can operate. If you have more money coming in, the more it can operate.

Right now, we are borrowing money at negative interest rates which means that when we pay that money out to the bond holders, we are paying less effective money. With inflation holding steady and these negative interest rates, the size of our debt is not as big of a problem as it's being made out to be.

+1 Also people talk about spending and adding to the debt as if it's completely terrible in all ways, sometimes the gov spends for war or for investments or (depending on where the recession occurred in the business cycle) they may inject money into the economy to stimulate growth; however it doesn't really work as beautifully as the models show since you have businesses withdrawing still from fear due to the gratuitous amount of fear mongering and hate towards Obama.

I think a major step to helping the economy would be to make news corps responsible for telling the truth otherwise they need a disclaimer saying it's all opinion. I mean cmon we have journalists and bloggers saying PHD, Award winning Economists don't know what they're talking about but somehow a guy with a bachelors in journalism does.

Also as I previously mentioned education really needs to improve, human capital is arguably the most value asset in our economy, why do we want to make education (which counts towards human capital) unaffordable and shit? We can't just keep crying for manufacturing jobs which are low-skilled and very easy to outsource. Plus some companies (like one I worked for) completely automate some factories where low-skilled labor is rendered useless entirely.

Also I'd like to mention a subject someone touched on, the size of the government. Reps always yell about government being too large; however, they seem to only support reducing the private sector regulation but they LOVE to try and tell the population how to live their lives. Ah yes mr ceo of Enron shouldn't have to have a transparent business, that is big government! But everyone must follow my religion, not be gay and not argue against my ideas (actually arguing doesn't do shit since people LOVE confirmation bias).

As a pretty moderate guy with an undergrad economics degree (working towards an engineering degree and hopefully a phd in econ) I find it frustrating that all we seem to do is hate each other, disregard facts and thrive off sensationalism. Also if someone says something we don't agree with we either yell, LIBERAL! or CONSERVATIVE! It's strange Dems seem to be pussy footing around (albeit currently the gov seems to be focused on smearing each other and ruining good plans that any opposing party backs I look at reps mainly in this statement)
and Reps seem to be completely bonkers recently?! I feel the rep party has been so wingnutty due to:
1) A vocal few overpowing the majority
2) Fear Mongering and the abundance of misinformation available at peoples' fingertips (confirmation bias is a small part)
3) group think
4) the dems ran a secret plot to poison all the reps but it failed and now they're all just crazy and still alive. =P

 

[Treeunit212]

Well, technically speaking, Todd Akin isn't really on any committees, any more.

Anyway, here's some interesting perspective about the States going into defalt, from a variety of those in-the-know from across the political spectrum:

“The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So there is zero probability of default.”
Alan Greenspan

“In the case of United States, default is absolutely impossible. All U.S. government debt is denominated in U.S. dollar assets.”
Peter Zeihan, Vice President of Analysis for STRATFOR

“In the case of governments boasting monetary sovereignty and debt denominated in its own currency, like the United States (but also Japan and the UK), it is technically impossible to fall into debt default.”
Erwan Mahe, European asset allocation and options strategies adviser

“There is never a risk of default for a sovereign nation that issues its own free-floating currency and where its debts are denominated in that currency.”
Mike Norman, Chief Economist for John Thomas Financial

“There is no inherent limit on federal expenses and therefore on federal spending…When the U.S. government decides to spend fiat money, it adds to its banking reserve system and when it taxes or borrows (issues Treasury securities) it drains reserves from its banking system. These reserve operations are done solely to maintain the target Federal Funds rate.”
Monty Agarwal , managing partner and chief investment officer of MA Managed Futures Fund

“As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e., unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational.”
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

“A sovereign government can always make payments as they come due by crediting bank accounts — something recognized by Chairman Ben Bernanke when he said the Fed spends by marking up the size of the reserve accounts of banks.”
“Government needs to be concerned about pressures on inflation and the exchange rate should its spending become excessive. And it should avoid “crowding out” private initiative by moving too many resources to our public sector. However, with high unemployment and idle plant and equipment, no one can reasonably argue that these dangers are imminent.”
L. Randall Wray, Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and a Senior Scholar at the Levy Economics Institute

Mind you, I'm not pretending to understand well enough to know whether or not they're right, but I do presume they know what they're talking about.

Thanks to macroeconomics 201, I understand the last one just fine.

He's basically saying that the only factors that make high levels of debt dangerous are inflation and exchange rates (also interest rate), not the actual size of debt. Because of our currently largely deflated economy, these factors are virtually non-existent.

Therefore, follow the Paul Krugman theory and STIMULATE THAT SHIT INTO RECOVERY WHILE WE STILL CAN.



edit why the fuck did I say Andrew Sullivan? I need sleep.