PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yet another reason why I'm conflicted on George W. Bush. Stuff like this doesn't diminish all of the shit he was directly or indirectly responsible for, but man, he did do some good stuff.
Yeah, it makes honest appraisals of his presidency complex, at the very least. I'm trying to think of comparisons, but only Grant is popping in my head oddly. I also think Dick Cheney trolling like a motherfucker at the end and Bush not, helped, especially the way he transitioned to Obama.
 
This is gonna sound incredibly goddamn stupid, but I think I have to ask this question now: What's the relationship between the national deficit and the economy/job growth?
 
If you mean the national debt, there really isn't one.

If you mean the annual deficit, well, you could argue that a larger deficit implies higher spending and lower taxes, both of which improve the economy. Which would mean that the relationship is larger deficit->stronger economy/higher job growth.

Sources on this?
 
This is gonna sound incredibly goddamn stupid, but I think I have to ask this question now: What's the relationship between the national deficit and the economy/job growth?
The only connection ever put forward is the confidence story - that businesses don't hire because they're worried that the us will default, or something else bad happen.
Which is not really backed by facts, or common sense for that matter, at all.
Originally it was the bond vigilantes who were suppose to raise the rates and create a budget Armageddon, the confidence theory was only put forward after that didn't materialize.
 
The only connection ever put forward is the confidence story - that businesses don't hire because they're worried that the us will default, or something else bad happen.
Which is not really backed by facts, or common sense for that matter, at all.
Originally it was the bond vigilantes who were suppose to raise the rates and create a budget Armageddon, the confidence theory was only put forward after that didn't materialize.

Okay. I'm just wondering why I'm seeing commercials asking Obama to improve the economy by reigning in the debt. I know they're attack ads, but of they put that on TV it's gotta have some basis right?

If you mean the national debt, there really isn't one.

If you mean the annual deficit, well, you could argue that a larger deficit implies higher spending and lower taxes, both of which improve the economy. Which would mean that the relationship is larger deficit->stronger economy/higher job growth.

Wait wait. So what's with Europe's austerity plans as a response to the economies over there? Dept causing the EU crisis?
 
Okay. I'm just wondering why I'm seeing commercials asking Obama to improve the economy by reigning in the debt. I know they're attack ads, but of they put that on TV it's gotta have some basis right?

Nope! Attack ads can say nearly anything they want, pretty much.
 
It's actually designed to put democrats in red states in trouble. People in those states hate Obama/Obamacare. What would a democrat do?
I would just vote for it, Obama will veto it regardless...if it somehow passed. I think the Dems can think strategically and not get too pissy over someone voting for repeal when it's meaningless if it helps the claim to be independent/win reelection and keep the seat D.
 
I would just vote for it, Obama will veto it regardless...if it somehow passed. I think the Dems can think strategically and not get too pissy over someone voting for repeal when it's meaningless if it helps the claim to be independent/win reelection and keep the seat D.
That's exactly what those 6 or 7 democrats did. Others didn't feel it was that much of a threat.
 
The part where he gets booed for promising to eliminate "Obamacare".

http://colorlines.com/archives/2012...t_booed_at_naacp_over_obamacare_comments.html

I almost feel sorry for him.
I give him credit for having the balls to do it. I mean this is like Obama speaking at the NRA convention, an audience that's not open minded and is totally hostile to the speaker.

That's exactly what those 6 or 7 democrats did. Others didn't feel it was that much of a threat.
Makes perfect sense to me.
 
Okay. I'm just wondering why I'm seeing commercials asking Obama to improve the economy by reigning in the debt. I know they're attack ads, but of they put that on TV it's gotta have some basis right?
Those usually are designed around what can influence voters the most.
Also, they might actually believe that (I'm sure at least some of them are).

Wait wait. So what's with Europe's austerity plans as a response to the economies over there? Dept causing the EU crisis?
And how is that austerity working for them?
 
Stopping or at least slowing the hemorrhaging. .
Can you back that assertion with any sort of data?

There's plenty of negative correlation -
RdGlU.jpg
 
Well the Euro hasn't completely collapsed yet and riots don't seem to have overtaken Greece anymore, so that's some type of improvement.
That's not a real argument though.
You can't explain a mechanism and you can't show correlation.
If you apply that standard, you can say that anything that happened in Europe stopped the hemorrhaging.
Maybe Eurovision saved them.
 
I don't think Bush was racist, but I'll go to my grave believing the response would have been handled faster and more respectable if Katrina hit some predominantly poor white city in Louisiana or Florida

Had anyone outside of Mississippi ever heard that Katrina destroyed virtually everything on the Mississippi gulf coast? Mississippi is one of the most reliably Republican states in the country. The governor at the time was not only Republican but a former chairman of the Republic National Committee.
 
That's not a real argument though.
Yes, it is

You can't explain a mechanism and you can't show correlation.
This is like saying that the Eurovision saved them.
As opposed to the rock solid evidence an unsourced chart hosted on imgur?

Of course it's going to take awhile for people to adjust to their new economic reality, especially with the end of unsustainable entitlements and tax evasion. No one said it would be pretty.
 
As opposed to the rock solid evidence an unsourced chart hosted on imgur?

Of course it's going to take awhile for people to adjust to their new economic reality, especially with the end of unsustainable entitlements and tax evasion. No one said it would be pretty.
The numbers are from here, knock yourself out.
Now correlation is not proof, but at least I can show a correlation and I can also explain a mechanism.
You still can't do either.
Can you at least explain why you believe that austerity works or that it stopped the hemorrhaging in Europe?
 
The numbers are from here, knock yourself out.
Now correlation is not proof, but at least I can show a correlation and I can also explain a mechanism.
So neither of us have proof, fine, my background isn't on economics, its either law or foreign policy, or countries blowing up other countries/sub nation states stuff, so I concede you have a mechanism, but I also don't expect recovery to occur for a while, but as spending and debt is managed better, it will.

Can you at least explain why you believe that austerity works or that it stopped the hemorrhaging in Europe?
Its a expedient way to end the European Welfare state which in the end with demographic shifts and expectation of new and more benefits will kill Europe's economy.

Not the same. A liberal dem at an NRA con, it's the same as a Repub. appearing at the NAACP. Special interest groups very hostile to the other side vs some US version of Question Time.
 
So neither of us have proof, fine, my background isn't on economics, its either law or foreign policy, or countries blowing up other countries/sub nation states stuff, so I concede you have a mechanism, but I also don't expect recovery to occur for a while, but as spending and debt is managed better, it will.
When you present an argument, the onus is on you.
Especially when you present an argument as counter-intuitive like that less money in people's hands can spur economic growth.

Its a expedient way to end the European Welfare state which in the end with demographic shifts and expectation of new and more benefits will kill Europe's economy.
Oh, so it's not about "stopping or at least slowing the hemorrhaging".
It's about using an opportunity to advance unrelated political agenda.
That's fine (outside the fact the fact that I don't agree with that particular agenda) but let's stop pretending that it did Europe any good so far.

And just to save you time, yes, if you want to put forward the assertion that Europe welfare system is causing those troubles, you'll have to prove it too, or at the very least explain why you think that.

Good luck with that -
GfOmG.jpg
 
Manos you're wrong. And stop cherry picking your states. If entitlements led to problems, then explain Sweden, which is not on the Euro, or just Germany which has a better system than America.
 
When you present an argument, the onus is on you.
Especially when you present an argument as counter-intuitive like that less money in people's hands can spur economic growth.
They're in the withdrawal period or the addiction treatment, bottoming out. It will spur the need for people to create new revenue sources as they can't depend on handouts.

Oh, so it's not about "stopping or at least slowing the hemorrhaging".
No, it is, it's simply dual purpose. It's cut unsustainable spending.
It's about using an opportunity to advance unrelated political agenda.
Not at all.
[quoteThat's fine (outside the fact the fact that I don't agree with that particular agenda) but let's stop pretending that it did Europe any good so far.[/quote]
It's the first part of the process.

And just to save you time, yes, if you want to put forward the assertion that Europe welfare system is causing those troubles, you'll have to prove it too, or at the very least explain why you think that.
I think the past year or so proved it nicely.
 
Jimmy Walker just called Obama a "Tony Robbins" on O'Reilly, LOL.

"He makes you feel good. You leave one of his speeches, you're fired up, then you get home and your house is still being foreclosed on and you're worse off than you have been in years."

Dy-no-mite!
 
Manos, please read Paul Krugman's blog posts flagged as "wonkish". He has, for the last two years, debunked austerity as a means of economic growth. If Krugman's name makes you recoil in horror, check out Ezra Klein.

As for unsustainable spending, please explain why Spain had a lower government spending to GDP ratio than Germany prior to the economic collapse, but, is now on the verge of bankruptcy and are reversing austerity cuts.
 
They're in the withdrawal period or the addiction treatment, bottoming out. It will spur the need for people to create new revenue sources as they can't depend on handouts.


No, it is, it's simply dual purpose. It's cut unsustainable spending.

Not at all.

It's the first part of the process.


I think the past year or so proved it nicely.
You still refuse to put a shred of evidence to your assertion, and still refuse to explain why you believe it.

If you want to discuss austerity, let's do it, but what's the point of stating and re-stating your unsupported position?
Yeah, I get it, you like austerity.
You think that if people knew just how awesome you thought it is they will be persuaded?
LOL - "Sweden can do it, why can't we take care of 311M people!?"
Why do you think that welfare is more difficult in bigger countries?
Common sense suggests the opposite - welfare is effectively an insurance system, and insurance is more effective the bigger your insured base.
 
Jimmy Walker just called Obama a "Tony Robbins" on O'Reilly, LOL.

"He makes you feel good. You leave one of his speeches, you're fired up, then you get home and your house is still being foreclosed on and you're worse off than you have been in years."

Dy-no-mite!

Who knew Kosmo supported debt relief for home owners? We do now!
 
You still refuse to put a shred of evidence to your assertion, and still refuse to explain why you believe it.
I did explain why I believed so.

If you want to discuss austerity, let's do it, but what's the point of stating and re-stating your unsupported position?
Clarification
Yeah, I get it, you like austerity.
You think that if people knew just how awesome you thought it is they will be persuaded?
No not at all, who argues on the Internet thinking they can convince or convert people.

Why do you think that welfare is more difficult in bigger countries?
Common sense suggests the opposite - welfare is effectively an insurance system, and insurance is more effective the bigger your insured base.
Except Sweeden is a unique country with low population and natural resources. Resource rich states can afford it, look at the Gulf States.

As for unsustainable spending, please explain why Spain had a lower government spending to GDP ratio than Germany prior to the economic collapse, but, is now on the verge of bankruptcy and are reversing austerity cuts.
Spain doesn't get to abuse Southern Europe like Germany, and lack of political will to see the job done
 
My shallow op ed understanding is that austerity was demanded by the markets to prevent bond prices spiraling out of control. But now bond prices are edging up into danger territory in some Mediterranean countries despite austerity. Austerity promoters say this is temporary and a necessary step to reform. Keynesians disagree and see it as the beginning of a major contraction that was preventable.
 
It turns out all we needed to make PoliGAF interesting again was getting Manos back
Well you're also getting Speculawyer back as his 3 month ended with mine today. Truthfully I have a crap ton of stuff coming up and will be infrequent, but I decided a little fun and debate would be a nice way to relax. Besides I normally am more topic based than the Poli catch all thread as my interests tend to go towards foreign, law, and stuff blow up analysis. That said I'm not going into any Iran threads.
 
My shallow op ed understanding is that austerity was demanded by the markets to prevent bond prices spiraling out of control. But now bond prices are edging up into danger territory in some Mediterranean countries despite austerity. Austerity promoters say this is temporary and a necessary step to reform. Keynesians disagree and see it as the beginning of a major contraction that was preventable.
About right, ya. They attempt to fix it with more austerity, it pushes back the situation a little, but eventually ends up in the same place. We saw this very recently with Spain (except I don't think the latest announced cuts are going to prolong much of anything anymore). People that believe the EU should continue this are wrong. There are serious problems with the Euro right now that will need to be met with serious solutions. The current trend of austerity is not one of those.
 
I did explain why I believed so.
I must've missed it.
Care to repeat?


Except Sweeden is a unique country with low population and natural resources. Resource rich states can afford it, look at the Gulf States.
So I cover population (in the very post you replied to by the way), unless you have a counterpoint, I'm going to ignore it.
Resources?
You're saying the US is short on natural resources?
What?

Also (2), if rich countries can afford welfare, how come you think it's the cause of Europe woes?
Sweden GDP per capita is about the same as the Europe's average.

Also (3), the US has a higher GDP per capita than Sweden, so between that and our resources we should be good to go on a welfare state, right?
 
Not the same. A liberal dem at an NRA con, it's the same as a Repub. appearing at the NAACP. Special interest groups very hostile to the other side vs some US version of Question Time.

NRA believes Obama administration deliberately allowed the fast and furios operation (even though it was started under Bush) so that he can take away everybody's guns. They actively dabble in conspiracy theories about Obama and are scaring people into buying more guns.

NAACP is nothing like that.

And if Obama said that NRA leaders in private back him and not Romney because of whatever reasons he would be the laughing stock of the Media. Is Romney?
 
Well you're also getting Speculawyer back as his 3 month ended with mine today. Truthfully I have a crap ton of stuff coming up and will be infrequent, but I decided a little fun and debate would be a nice way to relax. Besides I normally am more topic based than the Poli catch all thread as my interests tend to go towards foreign, law, and stuff blow up analysis. That said I'm not going into any Iran threads.

Don't forget all those gun threads to compensate for your tiny...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom