The Tea Party is back in business! (2 Viewers)

[humpback]

The shutdown DID happen. The debt default did not. You guys seem confused about this.

You're just as disingenuous as the biggest hacks on here, because you know darn well we were talking about the debt ceiling.

Them why are you making fun of my 600 posts? Most of them pertain to the shutdown as does the title of the thread.

I don't have the time to drudge through all of your posts, but I'm sure a good number of them were about the debt ceiling. If we add together the other threads, you have to be well into 4 figures on the subject. All for something you didn't think would happen though, right?

You changed the title of the thread several times, which initially had nothing to do with a government shut down at all. Keep pretending we were talking about that if you'd like.

 

[Nugget]

The good news is now we can cut taxes and increase spending. Everyone wins!

 

[RCon]

On a separate topic, have any reporters managed to question Obama regarding his vote and quote not to raise the ceiling last time? Sure, we all know he was doing it for politics and not because he actually wanted to not raise the ceiling, but I'd still like him to have to explain his vote and quote from the time.

 

[humpback]

Over 600 posts about something you thought only had a 10% chance of happening?

83 posts from you for something you apparently think was impossible.

Do you ever have a valid point?

 

[Fennis]

I think we can all agree that my 86 87 posts in this thread were ####### awesome

 

[Don Quixote]

On a separate topic, have any reporters managed to question Obama regarding his vote and quote not to raise the ceiling last time? Sure, we all know he was doing it for politics and not because he actually wanted to not raise the ceiling, but I'd still like him to have to explain his vote and quote from the time.

He was asked about it in 2011.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I think we can all agree that my 86 87 posts in this thread were ####### awesome

I'm pretty sure mine were epic as well. Though I have no idea how many there were.

 

[TheIronSheik]

So we are all in agreement that thanks to the Republicans, we now have this new clause that keeps this from ever happening again, right?

Whats this clause you speak of?

The one that says the debt ceiling will be raised automatically if this happens again. Or something like that. I'm more the humor guy. You'd probably be better off asking one of the other guys the serious questions.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I think we can all agree that my 86 87 posts in this thread were ####### awesome

I can get behind all of them except this one. Just because I like paradoxes.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I think we can all agree that my 86 87 posts in this thread were ####### awesome

I'm pretty sure mine were epic as well. Though I have no idea how many there were.

50

 

[igbomb]

On a separate topic, have any reporters managed to question Obama regarding his bite and quote not to raise the ceiling last time? Sure, we all know he was doing it for politics and not because he actually wanted to not raise the ceiling, but I'd still like him to have to explain his vote and quote from the time.

They did and he said he was wrong to do it. That he was trying to make a point. I hate symbolic votes.

I also hate the 'they do it too' defense.

 

[Scoresman]

where do you see how many posts people have in a thread?

 

[Fennis]

I think we can all agree that my 86 87 posts in this thread were ####### awesome

I'm pretty sure mine were epic as well. Though I have no idea how many there were.

A perfect 50

fyp

 

[TheIronSheik]

where do you see how many posts people have in a thread?

ESPN.com

 

[Fennis]

where do you see how many posts people have in a thread?

click on the number of replies on the topics list page

ETA: or espn.com

 

[matuski]

Countdown to next crisis?

 

[Clifford]

Countdown to next crisis?

Under the agreement, the government would be funded through Jan. 15, and the debt ceiling would be raised until Feb. 7. The Senate will take up a separate motion to instruct House and Senate negotiators to reach accord by Dec. 13 on a long-term blueprint for tax and spending policies over the next decade.

 

[timschochet]

If that language goes through, then nobody can say this wasn't a victory for reasonable people everywhere. In effect, it gets rid of the debt ceiling.

Hooray, unlimited money for everyone! Nothing could possibly go wrong with that plan.

You're not an unreasonable guy Rich. Can you think of a situation in which it would be to our nations advantage not to raise the debt ceiling? If so, then explain it because I can't think of one. If not then why have it?

I believe that if we keep increasing the debt willy-nilly with no attempt to ever bring it under control, there will come a time when it would be worse for us, but better for our children and their children, to let the chips fall where they may, swallow our medicine now, in the hopes that it can fix things down the road. I don't know when that time will come, nor I am certain that we will necessarily recognize the time when it does come, but I'm reasonably certain that it will come if we continue on the road we're on. When the time does come, I'd like there to be a mechanism by which the responsible adults in the room can force the irresponsible ones to swallow their medicine.

Well you really didn't answer my question. Even if I agreed with your analysis about coming doom, I don't think there will ever be any single moment where we decide to shut off spending. Any spending reduction is going to have to be slow, over a long period of time. The type of economic disruption that would come if we ever chose not to raise the debt ceiling would be so catastrophic that it would never make sense to do it. Even flirting with it creates serious economic problems. So my conclusion is we should never do it, and therefore we shouldn't have it.

 

[DrJ]

If that language goes through, then nobody can say this wasn't a victory for reasonable people everywhere. In effect, it gets rid of the debt ceiling.

Hooray, unlimited money for everyone! Nothing could possibly go wrong with that plan.

You're not an unreasonable guy Rich. Can you think of a situation in which it would be to our nations advantage not to raise the debt ceiling? If so, then explain it because I can't think of one. If not then why have it?

I believe that if we keep increasing the debt willy-nilly with no attempt to ever bring it under control, there will come a time when it would be worse for us, but better for our children and their children, to let the chips fall where they may, swallow our medicine now, in the hopes that it can fix things down the road. I don't know when that time will come, nor I am certain that we will necessarily recognize the time when it does come, but I'm reasonably certain that it will come if we continue on the road we're on. When the time does come, I'd like there to be a mechanism by which the responsible adults in the room can force the irresponsible ones to swallow their medicine.

Well you really didn't answer my question. Even if I agreed with your analysis about coming doom, I don't think there will ever be any single moment where we decide to shut off spending. Any spending reduction is going to have to be slow, over a long period of time. The type of economic disruption that would come if we ever chose not to raise the debt ceiling would be so catastrophic that it would never make sense to do it. Even flirting with it creates serious economic problems. So my conclusion is we should never do it, and therefore we shouldn't have it.

Yeah, the economy almost crashed and we almost became a 3rd world country.....again.

 

[Schlzm]

If that language goes through, then nobody can say this wasn't a victory for reasonable people everywhere. In effect, it gets rid of the debt ceiling.

Hooray, unlimited money for everyone! Nothing could possibly go wrong with that plan.

You're not an unreasonable guy Rich. Can you think of a situation in which it would be to our nations advantage not to raise the debt ceiling? If so, then explain it because I can't think of one. If not then why have it?

I believe that if we keep increasing the debt willy-nilly with no attempt to ever bring it under control, there will come a time when it would be worse for us, but better for our children and their children, to let the chips fall where they may, swallow our medicine now, in the hopes that it can fix things down the road. I don't know when that time will come, nor I am certain that we will necessarily recognize the time when it does come, but I'm reasonably certain that it will come if we continue on the road we're on. When the time does come, I'd like there to be a mechanism by which the responsible adults in the room can force the irresponsible ones to swallow their medicine.

Well you really didn't answer my question. Even if I agreed with your analysis about coming doom, I don't think there will ever be any single moment where we decide to shut off spending. Any spending reduction is going to have to be slow, over a long period of time. The type of economic disruption that would come if we ever chose not to raise the debt ceiling would be so catastrophic that it would never make sense to do it. Even flirting with it creates serious economic problems. So my conclusion is we should never do it, and therefore we shouldn't have it.

Do you think spending needs to be reduced or brought in line with GDP etc...?Schlzm

 

[Joe T]

Countdown to next crisis?

Tim> start the clock.

 

[Scoresman]

the only crisis is the one facing the republican party as they try to pick up the pieces of what's left of their party while lying broken and listless before the charred walls of the damned.

 

[dparker713]

If that language goes through, then nobody can say this wasn't a victory for reasonable people everywhere. In effect, it gets rid of the debt ceiling.

Hooray, unlimited money for everyone! Nothing could possibly go wrong with that plan.

You're not an unreasonable guy Rich. Can you think of a situation in which it would be to our nations advantage not to raise the debt ceiling? If so, then explain it because I can't think of one. If not then why have it?

I believe that if we keep increasing the debt willy-nilly with no attempt to ever bring it under control, there will come a time when it would be worse for us, but better for our children and their children, to let the chips fall where they may, swallow our medicine now, in the hopes that it can fix things down the road. I don't know when that time will come, nor I am certain that we will necessarily recognize the time when it does come, but I'm reasonably certain that it will come if we continue on the road we're on. When the time does come, I'd like there to be a mechanism by which the responsible adults in the room can force the irresponsible ones to swallow their medicine.

Well you really didn't answer my question. Even if I agreed with your analysis about coming doom, I don't think there will ever be any single moment where we decide to shut off spending. Any spending reduction is going to have to be slow, over a long period of time. The type of economic disruption that would come if we ever chose not to raise the debt ceiling would be so catastrophic that it would never make sense to do it. Even flirting with it creates serious economic problems. So my conclusion is we should never do it, and therefore we shouldn't have it.

Do you think spending needs to be reduced or brought in line with GDP etc...?Schlzm

Increasing revenue is more important than reducing spending, but both should be done.

 

[timschochet]

If that language goes through, then nobody can say this wasn't a victory for reasonable people everywhere. In effect, it gets rid of the debt ceiling.

Hooray, unlimited money for everyone! Nothing could possibly go wrong with that plan.

You're not an unreasonable guy Rich. Can you think of a situation in which it would be to our nations advantage not to raise the debt ceiling? If so, then explain it because I can't think of one. If not then why have it?

I believe that if we keep increasing the debt willy-nilly with no attempt to ever bring it under control, there will come a time when it would be worse for us, but better for our children and their children, to let the chips fall where they may, swallow our medicine now, in the hopes that it can fix things down the road. I don't know when that time will come, nor I am certain that we will necessarily recognize the time when it does come, but I'm reasonably certain that it will come if we continue on the road we're on. When the time does come, I'd like there to be a mechanism by which the responsible adults in the room can force the irresponsible ones to swallow their medicine.

Well you really didn't answer my question. Even if I agreed with your analysis about coming doom, I don't think there will ever be any single moment where we decide to shut off spending. Any spending reduction is going to have to be slow, over a long period of time. The type of economic disruption that would come if we ever chose not to raise the debt ceiling would be so catastrophic that it would never make sense to do it. Even flirting with it creates serious economic problems. So my conclusion is we should never do it, and therefore we shouldn't have it.

Do you think spending needs to be reduced or brought in line with GDP etc...?Schlzm

I'm not sure. I used to think so. But some progressives like Krugman have made a pretty compelling argument that it's not necessary. So I don't know.

But in a way, it's almost irrelevant anyhow, because the annual deficit is so large that there's no way to eliminate it immediately, or even make significant cuts to it immediately. That's why not raising the debt ceiling is so nonsensical. Even if we took the advice of the most ardent conservatives and attempted to make very real changes to entitlements, we would still be forced to raise the debt ceiling for the next 20 years or so, and that's assuming no new spending items over that time. It's absurd. There will never be a point when we would refuse to raise the debt ceiling.

 

[timschochet]

To clarify my last point- I remain, and always will remain, a fiscal conservative in terms of I believe that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector, I believe that free trade creates a prosperous society (and is the best avenue to bring about world peace and prosperity), and I believe that less government controls and lower taxes, if possible, lead to better societal outcomes in general. These beliefs are part of my core philosophy and I will never abandon them.

BUT- this question of whether or not society benefits from the government spending more than it earns in any single year- to me, that's an open debate. While the standard conservative position that we shouldn't spend more than we earn makes intuitive sense, the progressive (Keynesian?) position that we can and should spend more than we earn has a lot of historical backup. The question I always have for the Keynesians is what is the limit? As Rich sarcastically put earlier, why not simply spend limitless amounts? Currently the debt is 17 trillion. Progressives tell us this is no big deal because they look at it as a percentage of our overall GDP. That's a fair enough argument, except that it presumes that there is a point where it IS a big deal. What would that point be? 35 trillion? 100 trillion? This is not meant to be a rhetorical question on my part; I honestly don't know how progressives would answer that question.

 

[RCon]

To clarify my last point- I remain, and always will remain, a fiscal conservative in terms of I believe that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector, I believe that free trade creates a prosperous society (and is the best avenue to bring about world peace and prosperity), and I believe that less government controls and lower taxes, if possible, lead to better societal outcomes in general. These beliefs are part of my core philosophy and I will never abandon them.

BUT- this question of whether or not society benefits from the government spending more than it earns in any single year- to me, that's an open debate. While the standard conservative position that we shouldn't spend more than we earn makes intuitive sense, the progressive (Keynesian?) position that we can and should spend more than we earn has a lot of historical backup. The question I always have for the Keynesians is what is the limit? As Rich sarcastically put earlier, why not simply spend limitless amounts? Currently the debt is 17 trillion. Progressives tell us this is no big deal because they look at it as a percentage of our overall GDP. That's a fair enough argument, except that it presumes that there is a point where it IS a big deal. What would that point be? 35 trillion? 100 trillion? This is not meant to be a rhetorical question on my part; I honestly don't know how progressives would answer that question.

Progressives like Krugman answer the question differently based on the party membership of the President at the time.

 

[DrJ]

To clarify my last point- I remain, and always will remain, a fiscal conservative in terms of I believe that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector, I believe that free trade creates a prosperous society (and is the best avenue to bring about world peace and prosperity), and I believe that less government controls and lower taxes, if possible, lead to better societal outcomes in general. These beliefs are part of my core philosophy and I will never abandon them.

BUT- this question of whether or not society benefits from the government spending more than it earns in any single year- to me, that's an open debate. While the standard conservative position that we shouldn't spend more than we earn makes intuitive sense, the progressive (Keynesian?) position that we can and should spend more than we earn has a lot of historical backup. The question I always have for the Keynesians is what is the limit? As Rich sarcastically put earlier, why not simply spend limitless amounts? Currently the debt is 17 trillion. Progressives tell us this is no big deal because they look at it as a percentage of our overall GDP. That's a fair enough argument, except that it presumes that there is a point where it IS a big deal. What would that point be? 35 trillion? 100 trillion? This is not meant to be a rhetorical question on my part; I honestly don't know how progressives would answer that question.

As a percentage of GDP is important, but using that metric we're at dangerously high levels. WWII is the only time we eclipsed where we're at currently (122% vs about 100% today). We were able to grow out of that debt due to double digit growth for several decades. Today's situation isn't remotely comparable and there's basically no hope that we'll experience those levels of growth that would allow us to simply grow out of it while having little regard for government spending and expansion. The only real hope to grow out of it is to balance or get close to balancing the budget which will allow us to grow out of it a couple percentage points at a time.

 

[tommyGunZ]

To clarify my last point- I remain, and always will remain, a fiscal conservative in terms of I believe that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector, I believe that free trade creates a prosperous society (and is the best avenue to bring about world peace and prosperity), and I believe that less government controls and lower taxes, if possible, lead to better societal outcomes in general. These beliefs are part of my core philosophy and I will never abandon them.

BUT- this question of whether or not society benefits from the government spending more than it earns in any single year- to me, that's an open debate. While the standard conservative position that we shouldn't spend more than we earn makes intuitive sense, the progressive (Keynesian?) position that we can and should spend more than we earn has a lot of historical backup. The question I always have for the Keynesians is what is the limit? As Rich sarcastically put earlier, why not simply spend limitless amounts? Currently the debt is 17 trillion. Progressives tell us this is no big deal because they look at it as a percentage of our overall GDP. That's a fair enough argument, except that it presumes that there is a point where it IS a big deal. What would that point be? 35 trillion? 100 trillion? This is not meant to be a rhetorical question on my part; I honestly don't know how progressives would answer that question.

Progressives like Krugman answer the question differently based on the party membership of the President at the time.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Countdown to next crisis?

$24 billion from the economy, mortgage loan applications at a 6 year low. I bet you are happy...

 

[snogger]

the only crisis is the one facing the republican party as they try to pick up the pieces of what's left of their party while lying broken and listless before the charred walls of the damned.

Voters have less of an attention span then that of a fly. By this time next year no one will remember any of this.

 

[tommyGunZ]

To clarify my last point- I remain, and always will remain, a fiscal conservative in terms of I believe that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector, I believe that free trade creates a prosperous society (and is the best avenue to bring about world peace and prosperity), and I believe that less government controls and lower taxes, if possible, lead to better societal outcomes in general. These beliefs are part of my core philosophy and I will never abandon them.

BUT- this question of whether or not society benefits from the government spending more than it earns in any single year- to me, that's an open debate. While the standard conservative position that we shouldn't spend more than we earn makes intuitive sense, the progressive (Keynesian?) position that we can and should spend more than we earn has a lot of historical backup. The question I always have for the Keynesians is what is the limit? As Rich sarcastically put earlier, why not simply spend limitless amounts? Currently the debt is 17 trillion. Progressives tell us this is no big deal because they look at it as a percentage of our overall GDP. That's a fair enough argument, except that it presumes that there is a point where it IS a big deal. What would that point be? 35 trillion? 100 trillion? This is not meant to be a rhetorical question on my part; I honestly don't know how progressives would answer that question.

tim, the answer to almost all of these question is "it depends". In times of economic prosperity, reducing deficits and debt may take priority. In times of economic distress, reducing unemployment should take priority.

The term "fiscal conservative" is so bastardized these days it's worthless. Common usage almost implies that the person who isn't a fiscal conservative is irresponsible. The reality is that every liberal I know hates waste and does not believe in throwing money away when there are plenty of worthwhile programs that are systemically underfunded.

 

[DrJ]

Countdown to next crisis?

$24 billion from the economy, mortgage loan applications at a 6 year low. I bet you are happy...

And the government sloths got a well deserved paid vacation. Win for everybody.

 

[DrJ]

the only crisis is the one facing the republican party as they try to pick up the pieces of what's left of their party while lying broken and listless before the charred walls of the damned.

Voters have less of an attention span then that of a fly. By this time next year no one will remember any of this.

Exactly, once Obamacare actually hits it's going to dominate everyone's attention anyways.

 

[timschochet]

To clarify my last point- I remain, and always will remain, a fiscal conservative in terms of I believe that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector, I believe that free trade creates a prosperous society (and is the best avenue to bring about world peace and prosperity), and I believe that less government controls and lower taxes, if possible, lead to better societal outcomes in general. These beliefs are part of my core philosophy and I will never abandon them.

BUT- this question of whether or not society benefits from the government spending more than it earns in any single year- to me, that's an open debate. While the standard conservative position that we shouldn't spend more than we earn makes intuitive sense, the progressive (Keynesian?) position that we can and should spend more than we earn has a lot of historical backup. The question I always have for the Keynesians is what is the limit? As Rich sarcastically put earlier, why not simply spend limitless amounts? Currently the debt is 17 trillion. Progressives tell us this is no big deal because they look at it as a percentage of our overall GDP. That's a fair enough argument, except that it presumes that there is a point where it IS a big deal. What would that point be? 35 trillion? 100 trillion? This is not meant to be a rhetorical question on my part; I honestly don't know how progressives would answer that question.

As a percentage of GDP is important, but using that metric we're at dangerously high levels. WWII is the only time we eclipsed where we're at currently (122% vs about 100% today). We were able to grow out of that debt due to double digit growth for several decades. Today's situation isn't remotely comparable and there's basically no hope that we'll experience those levels of growth that would allow us to simply grow out of it while having little regard for government spending and expansion. The only real hope to grow out of it is to balance or get close to balancing the budget which will allow us to grow out of it a couple percentage points at a time.

Well, the bolded is certainly the conservative POV. The progressive POV is that we can and will grow out of it.

I don't know which is the correct POV, but the progressive opinion is far easier to accept. Your solution of balancing the budget is politically impracticable. As I wrote earlier, I don't believe the American public will ever accept the immediate and drastic changes that would be inevitable if we want to balance the budget.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Countdown to next crisis?

$24 billion from the economy, mortgage loan applications at a 6 year low. I bet you are happy...

And the government sloths got a well deserved paid vacation. Win for everybody.

$24 billion would probably buy every Cutlass Classic still on the road, think about it.

 

[Redwes25]

To clarify my last point- I remain, and always will remain, a fiscal conservative in terms of I believe that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector, I believe that free trade creates a prosperous society (and is the best avenue to bring about world peace and prosperity), and I believe that less government controls and lower taxes, if possible, lead to better societal outcomes in general. These beliefs are part of my core philosophy and I will never abandon them.

BUT- this question of whether or not society benefits from the government spending more than it earns in any single year- to me, that's an open debate. While the standard conservative position that we shouldn't spend more than we earn makes intuitive sense, the progressive (Keynesian?) position that we can and should spend more than we earn has a lot of historical backup. The question I always have for the Keynesians is what is the limit? As Rich sarcastically put earlier, why not simply spend limitless amounts? Currently the debt is 17 trillion. Progressives tell us this is no big deal because they look at it as a percentage of our overall GDP. That's a fair enough argument, except that it presumes that there is a point where it IS a big deal. What would that point be? 35 trillion? 100 trillion? This is not meant to be a rhetorical question on my part; I honestly don't know how progressives would answer that question.

As a percentage of GDP is important, but using that metric we're at dangerously high levels. WWII is the only time we eclipsed where we're at currently (122% vs about 100% today). We were able to grow out of that debt due to double digit growth for several decades. Today's situation isn't remotely comparable and there's basically no hope that we'll experience those levels of growth that would allow us to simply grow out of it while having little regard for government spending and expansion. The only real hope to grow out of it is to balance or get close to balancing the budget which will allow us to grow out of it a couple percentage points at a time.

Think we are at about 70% and not 100% which compared to many other developed nations is not unusual.

 

[MaxThreshold]

To clarify my last point- I remain, and always will remain, a fiscal conservative in terms of I believe that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector, I believe that free trade creates a prosperous society (and is the best avenue to bring about world peace and prosperity), and I believe that less government controls and lower taxes, if possible, lead to better societal outcomes in general. These beliefs are part of my core philosophy and I will never abandon them.

BUT- this question of whether or not society benefits from the government spending more than it earns in any single year- to me, that's an open debate. While the standard conservative position that we shouldn't spend more than we earn makes intuitive sense, the progressive (Keynesian?) position that we can and should spend more than we earn has a lot of historical backup. The question I always have for the Keynesians is what is the limit? As Rich sarcastically put earlier, why not simply spend limitless amounts? Currently the debt is 17 trillion. Progressives tell us this is no big deal because they look at it as a percentage of our overall GDP. That's a fair enough argument, except that it presumes that there is a point where it IS a big deal. What would that point be? 35 trillion? 100 trillion? This is not meant to be a rhetorical question on my part; I honestly don't know how progressives would answer that question.

tim, the answer to almost all of these question is "it depends". It times of economic prosperity, reducing deficits and debt may take priority. In times of economic distress, reducing unemployment should take priority.

The term "fiscal conservative" is so bastardized these days it's worthless. Common usage almost implies that the person who isn't a fiscal conservative is irresponsible. The reality is that every liberal I know hates waste and does not believe in throwing money away when there are plenty of worthwhile programs that are systemically underfunded.

A liberal who doesn't believe in waste and throwing money away? Wow. THIS has got to be the post of the year, right here.

That's as rare as a dodo-bird. Or maybe you meant, "The reality is that every liberal I know hates waste and does not believe in throwing THEIR money away" instead? Then I would agree with you, because liberals love wasting everyone else's money except their own.

 

[timschochet]

To clarify my last point- I remain, and always will remain, a fiscal conservative in terms of I believe that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector, I believe that free trade creates a prosperous society (and is the best avenue to bring about world peace and prosperity), and I believe that less government controls and lower taxes, if possible, lead to better societal outcomes in general. These beliefs are part of my core philosophy and I will never abandon them.

BUT- this question of whether or not society benefits from the government spending more than it earns in any single year- to me, that's an open debate. While the standard conservative position that we shouldn't spend more than we earn makes intuitive sense, the progressive (Keynesian?) position that we can and should spend more than we earn has a lot of historical backup. The question I always have for the Keynesians is what is the limit? As Rich sarcastically put earlier, why not simply spend limitless amounts? Currently the debt is 17 trillion. Progressives tell us this is no big deal because they look at it as a percentage of our overall GDP. That's a fair enough argument, except that it presumes that there is a point where it IS a big deal. What would that point be? 35 trillion? 100 trillion? This is not meant to be a rhetorical question on my part; I honestly don't know how progressives would answer that question.

tim, the answer to almost all of these question is "it depends". It times of economic prosperity, reducing deficits and debt may take priority. In times of economic distress, reducing unemployment should take priority.

The term "fiscal conservative" is so bastardized these days it's worthless. Common usage almost implies that the person who isn't a fiscal conservative is irresponsible. The reality is that every liberal I know hates waste and does not believe in throwing money away when there are plenty of worthwhile programs that are systemically underfunded.

I agree with you about the term "fiscal conservative", which is why I was careful to define what it meant to ME, as opposed to what it might mean to somebody else.

I have heard your argument before- it's made several times by progressives. But my problem with it is that history shows that whenever we have economic prosperity, neither political party seems particularly interested in reducing deficits and/or debt. The Democrats predictably suggest that this is the time for some sort of new spending program since we can now afford it. The Republicans predictably call for a tax cut since the hard working public deserves to get some of their money back. It's actually pretty difficult to come up with ANY examples where either side really attempted to cut spending.

 

[bear]

Grover Norquist on Ted Cruz:

"He pushed House Republicans into traffic and wandered away."

and if anyone knows what it is like to push republicans into traffic it is Grover Norquist.

the entire quote is pretty good:

The Republicans have a strategy which was to move the continuing resolution until after the debt ceiling. So just put a clear CR out for a couple of months and then you negotiate on debt ceiling, you wrap it into the next CR, and it'll all be dealt with together.

Ted Cruz came in and said, no, no, no, no, no, if you're not for defunding Obamacare on the CR, you're an appeaser of Hitler, you're a coward — ugly name-calling. A lot of Republicans are very unhappy that this was going on. Cruz's strategy didn't go anywhere. Cruz pushed all the Republicans out into traffic and then he wandered off. He told them it'd be safe — it wasn't. He told them it would work — it didn't. He needs to apologize to all the Republicans who were misled about this strategy that he didn't implement.

Norquist was dead on, got to give him that

The question here is wtf is stupid enough to listen to Ted Cruz. The guy is a complete mental case.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Grover Norquist on Ted Cruz:

"He pushed House Republicans into traffic and wandered away."

and if anyone knows what it is like to push republicans into traffic it is Grover Norquist.

the entire quote is pretty good:

The Republicans have a strategy which was to move the continuing resolution until after the debt ceiling. So just put a clear CR out for a couple of months and then you negotiate on debt ceiling, you wrap it into the next CR, and it'll all be dealt with together.

Ted Cruz came in and said, no, no, no, no, no, if you're not for defunding Obamacare on the CR, you're an appeaser of Hitler, you're a coward — ugly name-calling. A lot of Republicans are very unhappy that this was going on. Cruz's strategy didn't go anywhere. Cruz pushed all the Republicans out into traffic and then he wandered off. He told them it'd be safe — it wasn't. He told them it would work — it didn't. He needs to apologize to all the Republicans who were misled about this strategy that he didn't implement.

Norquist was dead on, got to give him that

The question here is wtf is stupid enough to listen to Ted Cruz. The guy is a complete mental case.

Texans?

 

[Slapdash]

Countdown to next crisis?

$24 billion from the economy, mortgage loan applications at a 6 year low. I bet you are happy...

The Obama economy!

 

[Slapdash]

To clarify my last point- I remain, and always will remain, a fiscal conservative in terms of I believe that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector, I believe that free trade creates a prosperous society (and is the best avenue to bring about world peace and prosperity), and I believe that less government controls and lower taxes, if possible, lead to better societal outcomes in general. These beliefs are part of my core philosophy and I will never abandon them.

BUT- this question of whether or not society benefits from the government spending more than it earns in any single year- to me, that's an open debate. While the standard conservative position that we shouldn't spend more than we earn makes intuitive sense, the progressive (Keynesian?) position that we can and should spend more than we earn has a lot of historical backup. The question I always have for the Keynesians is what is the limit? As Rich sarcastically put earlier, why not simply spend limitless amounts? Currently the debt is 17 trillion. Progressives tell us this is no big deal because they look at it as a percentage of our overall GDP. That's a fair enough argument, except that it presumes that there is a point where it IS a big deal. What would that point be? 35 trillion? 100 trillion? This is not meant to be a rhetorical question on my part; I honestly don't know how progressives would answer that question.

tim, the answer to almost all of these question is "it depends". It times of economic prosperity, reducing deficits and debt may take priority. In times of economic distress, reducing unemployment should take priority.

The term "fiscal conservative" is so bastardized these days it's worthless. Common usage almost implies that the person who isn't a fiscal conservative is irresponsible. The reality is that every liberal I know hates waste and does not believe in throwing money away when there are plenty of worthwhile programs that are systemically underfunded.

I agree with you about the term "fiscal conservative", which is why I was careful to define what it meant to ME, as opposed to what it might mean to somebody else.

I have heard your argument before- it's made several times by progressives. But my problem with it is that history shows that whenever we have economic prosperity, neither political party seems particularly interested in reducing deficits and/or debt. The Democrats predictably suggest that this is the time for some sort of new spending program since we can now afford it. The Republicans predictably call for a tax cut since the hard working public deserves to get some of their money back. It's actually pretty difficult to come up with ANY examples where either side really attempted to cut spending.

They did a pretty good job of reducing the deficit during the last really strong economy, the late 90s.

 

[DrJ]

To clarify my last point- I remain, and always will remain, a fiscal conservative in terms of I believe that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector, I believe that free trade creates a prosperous society (and is the best avenue to bring about world peace and prosperity), and I believe that less government controls and lower taxes, if possible, lead to better societal outcomes in general. These beliefs are part of my core philosophy and I will never abandon them.

BUT- this question of whether or not society benefits from the government spending more than it earns in any single year- to me, that's an open debate. While the standard conservative position that we shouldn't spend more than we earn makes intuitive sense, the progressive (Keynesian?) position that we can and should spend more than we earn has a lot of historical backup. The question I always have for the Keynesians is what is the limit? As Rich sarcastically put earlier, why not simply spend limitless amounts? Currently the debt is 17 trillion. Progressives tell us this is no big deal because they look at it as a percentage of our overall GDP. That's a fair enough argument, except that it presumes that there is a point where it IS a big deal. What would that point be? 35 trillion? 100 trillion? This is not meant to be a rhetorical question on my part; I honestly don't know how progressives would answer that question.

As a percentage of GDP is important, but using that metric we're at dangerously high levels. WWII is the only time we eclipsed where we're at currently (122% vs about 100% today). We were able to grow out of that debt due to double digit growth for several decades. Today's situation isn't remotely comparable and there's basically no hope that we'll experience those levels of growth that would allow us to simply grow out of it while having little regard for government spending and expansion. The only real hope to grow out of it is to balance or get close to balancing the budget which will allow us to grow out of it a couple percentage points at a time.

Well, the bolded is certainly the conservative POV. The progressive POV is that we can and will grow out of it.

I don't know which is the correct POV, but the progressive opinion is far easier to accept. Your solution of balancing the budget is politically impracticable. As I wrote earlier, I don't believe the American public will ever accept the immediate and drastic changes that would be inevitable if we want to balance the budget.

You just need to look at the historical tables to see how foolish it is to believe we could experience growth like this:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals

2nd table will show you what our GDP has been during all of these periods.

In 1950 we had a GDP of 273 billion.

By 1960 is was 518.9 billion, 90% growth.

By 1970 it was 1,012.7 billion. 95% growth.

By 1980 it was 2724 billion. 169% growth!

By 1990 it was 5734.5. 110% growth.

By 2000 it was 9821. 71% growth.

By 2010 it was 14384 billion. 46% growth.

We got 4% from 2010 - 2011. 4.1% from 2011-2012.

Getting double digit growth on average is NOT going to happen again. It hasn't happened in decades. Growth was slowing even in the 90's and there's no hope that our economy is going to double and double again in the coming decades. Especially when we're investing most of our money in caring for elderly people and don't manufacture much of anything. No chance whatsoever. I really don't understand how anyone could possibly believe this fairy tale.

 

[timschochet]

To clarify my last point- I remain, and always will remain, a fiscal conservative in terms of I believe that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector, I believe that free trade creates a prosperous society (and is the best avenue to bring about world peace and prosperity), and I believe that less government controls and lower taxes, if possible, lead to better societal outcomes in general. These beliefs are part of my core philosophy and I will never abandon them.

BUT- this question of whether or not society benefits from the government spending more than it earns in any single year- to me, that's an open debate. While the standard conservative position that we shouldn't spend more than we earn makes intuitive sense, the progressive (Keynesian?) position that we can and should spend more than we earn has a lot of historical backup. The question I always have for the Keynesians is what is the limit? As Rich sarcastically put earlier, why not simply spend limitless amounts? Currently the debt is 17 trillion. Progressives tell us this is no big deal because they look at it as a percentage of our overall GDP. That's a fair enough argument, except that it presumes that there is a point where it IS a big deal. What would that point be? 35 trillion? 100 trillion? This is not meant to be a rhetorical question on my part; I honestly don't know how progressives would answer that question.

tim, the answer to almost all of these question is "it depends". It times of economic prosperity, reducing deficits and debt may take priority. In times of economic distress, reducing unemployment should take priority.

The term "fiscal conservative" is so bastardized these days it's worthless. Common usage almost implies that the person who isn't a fiscal conservative is irresponsible. The reality is that every liberal I know hates waste and does not believe in throwing money away when there are plenty of worthwhile programs that are systemically underfunded.

I agree with you about the term "fiscal conservative", which is why I was careful to define what it meant to ME, as opposed to what it might mean to somebody else.

I have heard your argument before- it's made several times by progressives. But my problem with it is that history shows that whenever we have economic prosperity, neither political party seems particularly interested in reducing deficits and/or debt. The Democrats predictably suggest that this is the time for some sort of new spending program since we can now afford it. The Republicans predictably call for a tax cut since the hard working public deserves to get some of their money back. It's actually pretty difficult to come up with ANY examples where either side really attempted to cut spending.

They did a pretty good job of reducing the deficit during the less really strong economy, the late 90s.

They did, but it was mostly by growing the economy, not by cutting spending. That would seem to contradict what Dr. J is arguing.

 

[DrJ]

To clarify my last point- I remain, and always will remain, a fiscal conservative in terms of I believe that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector, I believe that free trade creates a prosperous society (and is the best avenue to bring about world peace and prosperity), and I believe that less government controls and lower taxes, if possible, lead to better societal outcomes in general. These beliefs are part of my core philosophy and I will never abandon them.

BUT- this question of whether or not society benefits from the government spending more than it earns in any single year- to me, that's an open debate. While the standard conservative position that we shouldn't spend more than we earn makes intuitive sense, the progressive (Keynesian?) position that we can and should spend more than we earn has a lot of historical backup. The question I always have for the Keynesians is what is the limit? As Rich sarcastically put earlier, why not simply spend limitless amounts? Currently the debt is 17 trillion. Progressives tell us this is no big deal because they look at it as a percentage of our overall GDP. That's a fair enough argument, except that it presumes that there is a point where it IS a big deal. What would that point be? 35 trillion? 100 trillion? This is not meant to be a rhetorical question on my part; I honestly don't know how progressives would answer that question.

tim, the answer to almost all of these question is "it depends". It times of economic prosperity, reducing deficits and debt may take priority. In times of economic distress, reducing unemployment should take priority.

The term "fiscal conservative" is so bastardized these days it's worthless. Common usage almost implies that the person who isn't a fiscal conservative is irresponsible. The reality is that every liberal I know hates waste and does not believe in throwing money away when there are plenty of worthwhile programs that are systemically underfunded.

I agree with you about the term "fiscal conservative", which is why I was careful to define what it meant to ME, as opposed to what it might mean to somebody else.

I have heard your argument before- it's made several times by progressives. But my problem with it is that history shows that whenever we have economic prosperity, neither political party seems particularly interested in reducing deficits and/or debt. The Democrats predictably suggest that this is the time for some sort of new spending program since we can now afford it. The Republicans predictably call for a tax cut since the hard working public deserves to get some of their money back. It's actually pretty difficult to come up with ANY examples where either side really attempted to cut spending.

They did a pretty good job of reducing the deficit during the less really strong economy, the late 90s.

By balancing the budget.

 

[tommyGunZ]

To clarify my last point- I remain, and always will remain, a fiscal conservative in terms of I believe that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector, I believe that free trade creates a prosperous society (and is the best avenue to bring about world peace and prosperity), and I believe that less government controls and lower taxes, if possible, lead to better societal outcomes in general. These beliefs are part of my core philosophy and I will never abandon them.

BUT- this question of whether or not society benefits from the government spending more than it earns in any single year- to me, that's an open debate. While the standard conservative position that we shouldn't spend more than we earn makes intuitive sense, the progressive (Keynesian?) position that we can and should spend more than we earn has a lot of historical backup. The question I always have for the Keynesians is what is the limit? As Rich sarcastically put earlier, why not simply spend limitless amounts? Currently the debt is 17 trillion. Progressives tell us this is no big deal because they look at it as a percentage of our overall GDP. That's a fair enough argument, except that it presumes that there is a point where it IS a big deal. What would that point be? 35 trillion? 100 trillion? This is not meant to be a rhetorical question on my part; I honestly don't know how progressives would answer that question.

tim, the answer to almost all of these question is "it depends". It times of economic prosperity, reducing deficits and debt may take priority. In times of economic distress, reducing unemployment should take priority.

The term "fiscal conservative" is so bastardized these days it's worthless. Common usage almost implies that the person who isn't a fiscal conservative is irresponsible. The reality is that every liberal I know hates waste and does not believe in throwing money away when there are plenty of worthwhile programs that are systemically underfunded.

I agree with you about the term "fiscal conservative", which is why I was careful to define what it meant to ME, as opposed to what it might mean to somebody else.

I have heard your argument before- it's made several times by progressives. But my problem with it is that history shows that whenever we have economic prosperity, neither political party seems particularly interested in reducing deficits and/or debt. The Democrats predictably suggest that this is the time for some sort of new spending program since we can now afford it. The Republicans predictably call for a tax cut since the hard working public deserves to get some of their money back. It's actually pretty difficult to come up with ANY examples where either side really attempted to cut spending.

They did a pretty good job of reducing the deficit during the less really strong economy, the late 90s.

They did, but it was mostly by growing the economy, not by cutting spending. That would seem to contradict what Dr. J is arguing.

Basic facts and logic contradict DrJ's arguments. He's the only poster I've ever had on ignore, and it's so, so much better knowing I'm not dumbing myself down reading his nonsense. Everyone should experience it.

 

[timschochet]

To clarify my last point- I remain, and always will remain, a fiscal conservative in terms of I believe that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector, I believe that free trade creates a prosperous society (and is the best avenue to bring about world peace and prosperity), and I believe that less government controls and lower taxes, if possible, lead to better societal outcomes in general. These beliefs are part of my core philosophy and I will never abandon them.

BUT- this question of whether or not society benefits from the government spending more than it earns in any single year- to me, that's an open debate. While the standard conservative position that we shouldn't spend more than we earn makes intuitive sense, the progressive (Keynesian?) position that we can and should spend more than we earn has a lot of historical backup. The question I always have for the Keynesians is what is the limit? As Rich sarcastically put earlier, why not simply spend limitless amounts? Currently the debt is 17 trillion. Progressives tell us this is no big deal because they look at it as a percentage of our overall GDP. That's a fair enough argument, except that it presumes that there is a point where it IS a big deal. What would that point be? 35 trillion? 100 trillion? This is not meant to be a rhetorical question on my part; I honestly don't know how progressives would answer that question.

As a percentage of GDP is important, but using that metric we're at dangerously high levels. WWII is the only time we eclipsed where we're at currently (122% vs about 100% today). We were able to grow out of that debt due to double digit growth for several decades. Today's situation isn't remotely comparable and there's basically no hope that we'll experience those levels of growth that would allow us to simply grow out of it while having little regard for government spending and expansion. The only real hope to grow out of it is to balance or get close to balancing the budget which will allow us to grow out of it a couple percentage points at a time.

Well, the bolded is certainly the conservative POV. The progressive POV is that we can and will grow out of it.

I don't know which is the correct POV, but the progressive opinion is far easier to accept. Your solution of balancing the budget is politically impracticable. As I wrote earlier, I don't believe the American public will ever accept the immediate and drastic changes that would be inevitable if we want to balance the budget.

You just need to look at the historical tables to see how foolish it is to believe we could experience growth like this:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals

2nd table will show you what our GDP has been during all of these periods.

In 1950 we had a GDP of 273 billion.

By 1960 is was 518.9 billion, 90% growth.

By 1970 it was 1,012.7 billion. 95% growth.

By 1980 it was 2724 billion. 169% growth!

By 1990 it was 5734.5. 110% growth.

By 2000 it was 9821. 71% growth.

By 2010 it was 14384 billion. 46% growth.

We got 4% from 2010 - 2011. 4.1% from 2011-2012.

Getting double digit growth on average is NOT going to happen again. It hasn't happened in decades. Growth was slowing even in the 90's and there's no hope that our economy is going to double and double again in the coming decades. Especially when we're investing most of our money in caring for elderly people and don't manufacture much of anything. No chance whatsoever. I really don't understand how anyone could possibly believe this fairy tale.

Look, 10 years ago there was no such thing as fracking. Now it's created economic booms in several states where there was nothing before. The 90s Silicon Valley boom appeared out of nowhere- it certainly wasn't on anyone's radar.

I'm reading all the time about new technology which is going to completely transform our society over the next few decades- new sources of energy, nuclear fusion, etc. Lighting up a whole city with the energy contained in a single glass of water? Things that are unheard of today. My point is that I don't think you can use the examples of the last few decades, or the concern about elderly people, to make blanket statements regarding how much our economy will grow. So long as we continue to promote capitalism and trade, there really is no limit IMO.

 

[Dr Oadi]

Countdown to next crisis?

Under the agreement, the government would be funded through Jan. 15, and the debt ceiling would be raised until Feb. 7. The Senate will take up a separate motion to instruct House and Senate negotiators to reach accord by Dec. 13 on a long-term blueprint for tax and spending policies over the next decade.

Another 10 year plan to reduce the deficit. Mission accomplished!

 

[DrJ]

To clarify my last point- I remain, and always will remain, a fiscal conservative in terms of I believe that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector, I believe that free trade creates a prosperous society (and is the best avenue to bring about world peace and prosperity), and I believe that less government controls and lower taxes, if possible, lead to better societal outcomes in general. These beliefs are part of my core philosophy and I will never abandon them.

BUT- this question of whether or not society benefits from the government spending more than it earns in any single year- to me, that's an open debate. While the standard conservative position that we shouldn't spend more than we earn makes intuitive sense, the progressive (Keynesian?) position that we can and should spend more than we earn has a lot of historical backup. The question I always have for the Keynesians is what is the limit? As Rich sarcastically put earlier, why not simply spend limitless amounts? Currently the debt is 17 trillion. Progressives tell us this is no big deal because they look at it as a percentage of our overall GDP. That's a fair enough argument, except that it presumes that there is a point where it IS a big deal. What would that point be? 35 trillion? 100 trillion? This is not meant to be a rhetorical question on my part; I honestly don't know how progressives would answer that question.

tim, the answer to almost all of these question is "it depends". It times of economic prosperity, reducing deficits and debt may take priority. In times of economic distress, reducing unemployment should take priority.

The term "fiscal conservative" is so bastardized these days it's worthless. Common usage almost implies that the person who isn't a fiscal conservative is irresponsible. The reality is that every liberal I know hates waste and does not believe in throwing money away when there are plenty of worthwhile programs that are systemically underfunded.

I agree with you about the term "fiscal conservative", which is why I was careful to define what it meant to ME, as opposed to what it might mean to somebody else.

I have heard your argument before- it's made several times by progressives. But my problem with it is that history shows that whenever we have economic prosperity, neither political party seems particularly interested in reducing deficits and/or debt. The Democrats predictably suggest that this is the time for some sort of new spending program since we can now afford it. The Republicans predictably call for a tax cut since the hard working public deserves to get some of their money back. It's actually pretty difficult to come up with ANY examples where either side really attempted to cut spending.

They did a pretty good job of reducing the deficit during the less really strong economy, the late 90s.

They did, but it was mostly by growing the economy, not by cutting spending. That would seem to contradict what Dr. J is arguing.

You've got to be kidding. Government growth slowed to a crawl.

In 1995 spending was 1.5 trillion.

In 1996 it was 1.56. 4% increase.

In 1997 it was 1.60. A 2.5% increase.

In 1998 it was 1.65. A 3.1% increase.

In 1999 it was 1.70. A 3.0% increase.

Contrast that to government spending increases in any era.

 

[timschochet]

It seems interesting to me that my entire life, the argument that we have limited resources was always a progressive argument, made in order to justify egalitarian redistribution of wealth. The conservative, pro-business argument was that we actually had unlimited resources, because capitalism as an economic system constantly creates new opportunities that we couldn't have conceived before.

Today's conservatism, as represented by Dr. J here and the Tea Party in Congress, have moved away from this pro-business stance. They seem to believe, like the old-time progressives, that we have limited resources, and therefore we need to cut spending (which ultimately is no different from the old progressive redistribution of wealth argument- they're simply trying to redistribute it in the opposite direction.) Progressives are the ones who have become more pro-business, as witness how th4 Chamber of Commerce was solidly on the side of the Democrats during the shutdown crisis.