Eric Cantor loses primary

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

How do you distinguish coincidence from reaction?

Google "porkbusters". Fiscal "conservatives" (e.g., Cato) were screaming at Hastert, McConnell, and their bloated Transportation and Ag appropriations.

 

[stevea]

Didn't say you did but it is the elephant in the room of shrinking the state.

I sincerely love your posts Francesca, but can't agree. If reducing taxation has a substantially higher multiplier than government spending - as nearly every study seems to show - then decreasing spending & tax by the same amount (shrinking the state) is a LT net positive and expansionary.

I don't know plus I don't think there is a consensus.

I don't know either - it is sincerely a question. OTOH reasonable people like you, cognizant of the larger issues, should have a reasoned opinion. I expect we can find studies on the issue. OTOH I think consensus is not a reasonable way to assess the issue. 90% of jerkaholics are certainly persuaded by pure demagoguery.

Regressive tax cuts IE tax cuts for the rich tend to stimulate investment relative to consumption by more than progressive ones which tend to stimulate consumption (relative to investment). The former by definition stimulates more in the future and the latter more today.

I think so too. So which is most expansionary in the LT view ? Romer's paper implies the permanent tax cuts are LT expansionary.

In a recession, some would say we need more growth today--implying that higher consumption trumps higher investment at such times.

Right, agreed - but what point would you think we should switch from short to long term stimulation [regressive to progressive/de-reg] ? Here in the US we've typically regained real GDP within 24-28 months of the start of a recession, and exited conventional recession status in about half of that. "This time is different" (more negative) is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I expect that ST stimulation might be a supportable economic proposition for perhaps 12-16 months then a switch to LT. I'm open to alternative POVs, but somehow the current 7 years of ST stimulation seems contrary to the best interests of society - self-defeating and inefficient.

I have no answers, but obviously the current plan has failed to re-attain pre-recession growth rates and job creation. There seems to be a massive lack of new enterprise in the US. We've become more European-like as Obama promised.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Could we take the discussion of economics to another thread, please? The OP reads "Eric Cantor Loses Primary". The discussion should be on the primary or the coming general election. You guys aren't even making an effort to relate your posts to the topic, just responding to each other.

 

[stevea]

Can you describe specifically the point at which the US went 'dangerously' into debt? You are aware, aren't you, that in the last 67 years only 12 times has the US posted a budget surplus?

Well obviously it's not the frequency of deficit, as you suggest, but the depth of debt. Everyone understands that WW2 caused massive debt, but that was addressable (obvious ex post facto).

I think anyone rational has real concerns abt US debt rising from 60% to 120% of GDP in ~8 years (and it won't stop there) while basket-cases like Portugal hangs around 90% and Germany at 45%. It's IMO no consolation that Japan has ~150-200% debt since it's 95% internal and they have extremely stable policy. We're not Portugal, but we are also not Japan.

Indeed, for 28 consecutive years the US posted a budget deficit, until the latter part of President Clinton's second term where the US finally recorded a surplus.

NO ! NOT in terms of GDP or real dollars - your metric is flawed. The US was IIRC ~230% of GDP in debt at the end of WW2; that is perfectly sustainable IF you posit that the rest of the advanced nations have their manufacturing capability destroyed to our economic advantage. OTOH if you imagine that a 120%GDP debt USA can be competitive w/ a 45%GDP debt Germany - you don't understand the problem. A 2% increase in rates (a return toward the mean) would drop 2.4% off US GDP and ~1.2% of the GDP would be sent to foreign bond holders. When considering just a 1-3% GDP growth - that's a massive loss and very realistic.

Deficit spending is the American way.

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

It has seemed to have survived it so far.

And it seems this case is quite different than past based on the %GDP debt and lack of relative advantages - right ?

And the costs of servicing that debt are but a small portion of overall US government expenditures.

Not if you assume the debt service costs even approach historic norms. US Debt has an average term of just 4.5 years last I read (10yr bond is quite long) and TIPS and pension/SS payments are inflation adjusted [the debt can't by monetized by inflation. If interest rates rise even 2% (toward historic norms and certainly not high) then the US at 1205 of GDP debt loses ~1.2-1.4% of GDP growth off an anemic 1-3%. It would drive US social programs into trouble almost immediately.

Of course if you believe that Jacob Lew and Janet Yellen can continue to swap paper for credit indefinitely and that the bond bubble will never burst - then maybe I'm wrong.

 

[AlBell]

That leaves regulatory reform.

And tax cuts, especially corporate.

 

[jj]

I think anyone rational has real concerns abt US debt rising from 60% to 120% of GDP in ~8 years (and it won't stop there) while basket-cases like Portugal hangs around 90% and Germany at 45%.

You do understand that national debt is not like household debt, don't you?

 

[AlBell]

Good analysis. I think the accusations of racism against the TP are mostly strategic posturing, but there are some who honestly believe that the TP only arose in response to the election of our first black President. Of course, I view the timing of the TP's rise as coincidental.

In the spring of 2009, there was a sense of despair among smaller government types as it looked like liberalism was on a roll. Not only did we have a new, very liberal President, but he had charisma, the support of the media, and huge majorities in the House and Senate to work with. In fact, the Senate majority looked like it would be (and indeed became) filibuster-proof with the resolution of Al Franken's Senate race. The stimulus bill, which passed with almost no Republican support showed that the nation's conservatives were powerless in the face of the liberal onslaught. Bailouts for underwater mortgagors were being bruited about, as well as even the rewriting of contracts. And then came the next big item on the liberals' to-do list: a remaking of our health care insurance system.

Scary times, but it had nothing to do with the color of Obama's skin. There is no question in my mind that the Tea Party would go ga-ga over a charismatic small government conservative, regardless of their skin color. In fact, they did, and do.

I'll disagree with Regnad Kcin and SezMe and agree completely; Obama skin color has naught to do with TeaParty opposition. His (and Pelosi-Reid) ultra liberal policies are the problem.

 

[jj]

I'll disagree with Regnad Kcin and SezMe and agree completely; Obama skin color has naught to do with TeaParty opposition. His (and Pelosi-Reid) ultra liberal policies are the problem.

So, if you believe that, you think that Eisenhower and Nixon were both outright communists, right, and Reagan was seriously liberal?

That's what goes along with your claims about Obama. Obama is a moderately right-wing president.

 

[Brainster]

I'll disagree with Regnad Kcin and SezMe and agree completely; Obama skin color has naught to do with TeaParty opposition. His (and Pelosi-Reid) ultra liberal policies are the problem.

Labeling opposition to Obama's policies as racist allows them to discount it entirely. Plus it allows them to feel good about opposing the opposition. Never underestimate the value of moral preening to liberals.

 

[Trakar]

Could we take the discussion of economics to another thread, please? The OP reads "Eric Cantor Loses Primary". The discussion should be on the primary or the coming general election. You guys aren't even making an effort to relate your posts to the topic, just responding to each other.

"...if you can't be, with the one you love,
love the one you with..."

or perhaps it is more:

"...Fly me high through the starry skies
Maybe to an astral plane
Cross the highways of fantasy
Help me to forget today's pain

Ooh dream weaver
I believe you can get me through the night
Ooh dream weaver
I believe we can reach the morning light..."

which one seems closer to you?

((hey, I'm still closer to being on topic!))

 

[stevea]

Good analysis. I think the accusations of racism against the TP are mostly strategic posturing, but there are some who honestly believe that the TP only arose [...]

It's strategic "posturing" in the sense that kristallnacht was a strategic position statement. It's thuggery, political intolerance and an attempt to destroy with a clear insinuation of disenfranchisement and an invitation to violence. Just look at the posts on this thread. How can anyone accept that the "crazy" and "racist" have a position worthy of consideration ? deserve an equal voice in government ? or even a right to exist ? It's obviously a claim to a right to treat these ppl as inferiors and to disenfranchise them at best.

It's not just against TPers. Anyone who opposes Obama policy is ipso facto a racist. Any Rep is automatically assumed to be a knuckle-dragging toothless religious-fundamentalist nutter. Any conservative is a Dickensian monster with no concerns about the welfare of others. Any libertarian must be labelled as the most extreme wing anarcho-capitalist who views Somalia as a paradise or else a RonPaul gold-nutter These sorts of slanders are not harmless - they are justification to treat others as unequal, as politically and socially inferior. They cause polarization and halt any real discussion of issues.

They have a closed doctrinal system of belief that allows them to label and dismiss any dissent as unacceptable and unworthy of consideration. "Modern liberalism" is anything but liberal.

In the spring of 2009, there was a sense of despair among smaller government types as it looked like liberalism was on a roll. Not only did we have a new, very liberal President, but he had charisma,[...]

We should expect the one-sided one-party supported bills be be revisited when the other party holds power. That's the flaw in running the table when you have superior power - that it never is stable w/o other-side support. My objection to your description its that it's hard to call Obama "liberal". Even a modern-liberal should have enough appreciation of liberty and human rights to kill the NSA programs, the NDAA, the Patriot Act, Gitmo detention, and never accept the drone kill-list notion.

Scary times, but it had nothing to do with the color of Obama's skin

But his supporters are often unable to see past skin color. They can't accept that a black president can be a feckless *ss too. It violates their world view.

 

[stevea]

You do understand that national debt is not like household debt, don't you?

Yes- quite, I made no such comparison.

Do you understand that national debt of the level we are approaching has never been resolved without monetization, devaluation, default or war ? We don't need or want zero debt, but at 100+% of GDP the risk is substantial and systemic. Government needs to make the tax base grow fast enough to cover debt service plus expenses - added debt service hinders growth.

 

[AlBell]

So, if you believe that, you think that Eisenhower and Nixon were both outright communists, right, and Reagan was seriously liberal?

Eisenhower and Reagan, no. Nixon, maybe, but he did get us talking to China.

That's what goes along with your claims about Obama. Obama is a moderately right-wing president.

Obama is imo a marxist.

 

[Bogative]

I'll disagree with Regnad Kcin and SezMe and agree completely; Obama skin color has naught to do with TeaParty opposition. His (and Pelosi-Reid) ultra liberal policies are the problem.

Now, now, AlBell, those racist right-wing tea partiers hate all ******* and Latinos.

That's why 30% of them voted for the brown skinned guy and another 30% of them voted for a black skinned guy and only 10% voted for the closest cracker as their preferred candidate for president at the Republican Leadership Conference last week.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/05/31/cruz-convinced-gop-to-retake-congress-this-fall/

 

[geni]

Labeling opposition to Obama's policies as racist allows them to discount it entirely. Plus it allows them to feel good about opposing the opposition. Never underestimate the value of moral preening to liberals.

In fairness its far easier to comperhend a racist opposition than one that viewes anything Obama does as ultra liberal. Most people know a few racists, we got plenty of historical and current data one them. People being racist is a concept that can generaly be understood.

The mindset that views obama as ultra liberal is on ther other hand much harder to model. At least if you require that the person also be able to function within society. Impressive compartmentalisation perhaps but even that has its limits.

 

[thaiboxerken]

In fairness its far easier to comperhend a racist opposition than one that viewes anything Obama does as ultra liberal. Most people know a few racists, we got plenty of historical and current data one them. People being racist is a concept that can generaly be understood.

The mindset that views obama as ultra liberal is on ther other hand much harder to model. At least if you require that the person also be able to function within society. Impressive compartmentalisation perhaps but even that has its limits.

To view Obama as an ultra liberal involves ignoring reality as well.

 

[NoahFence]

Eisenhower and Reagan, no. Nixon, maybe, but he did get us talking to China.


Obama is imo a marxist.

A marxist?

How so? Samples please, not platitudes.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

It's strategic "posturing" in the sense that kristallnacht was a strategic position statement. It's thuggery, political intolerance and an attempt to destroy with a clear insinuation of disenfranchisement and an invitation to violence. Just look at the posts on this thread. How can anyone accept that the "crazy" and "racist" have a position worthy of consideration ? deserve an equal voice in government ? or even a right to exist ? It's obviously a claim to a right to treat these ppl as inferiors and to disenfranchise them at best.

It's not just against TPers. Anyone who opposes Obama policy is ipso facto a racist.

I couldn't agree more, and wowza has it reached epic proportions on this forum. The frequency and arbitrariness of the accusations of racism towards those not adhering to their particular dogma has rendered the word meaningless.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Obama is imo a marxist.

You have no idea what a Maxist is do you?

Let me make it easy for you. In NZ Obama's Policies would be considered Right Wing, in some cases middle to far Right Wing. He's a conservative, as are most Democrats, and most Americans. Most of our Centre Right Parties are Left of the Democrats and Obama (with perhaps the exception of ACT who are closer to the moderate GOPs.) That you think someone who sits on the Right of the political spectrum is a Maxist really shows you don't have a clue.

Get back to me when Obama...

Nationalises all Industry
Turns farming in Co-ops
Sets up a national wage for everyone
Confiscates and redistributes all bank accounts
Removes Private ownership and introduces Common Ownership

 

[Brainster]

In fairness its far easier to comperhend a racist opposition than one that viewes anything Obama does as ultra liberal. Most people know a few racists, we got plenty of historical and current data one them. People being racist is a concept that can generaly be understood.

The mindset that views obama as ultra liberal is on ther other hand much harder to model. At least if you require that the person also be able to function within society. Impressive compartmentalisation perhaps but even that has its limits.

Both sides do it. Remember the Bush/Hitler comparisons? How do those people manage to function?