Penn Jillette's counterintuitive commentary

[pchams]

and tell me, oh gurus, where does the buck stop?

 

[pchams]

It's an arbitrary prison for most.

 

[Meadmaker]

his exact words:

"Obama tells us that we can spend our way out of debt "

Obama has said no such thing

His budget says that he will spend a lot more, tax a little more, and have lower deficits. If Jillette were offering testimony, I would say he's inaccurate, but as a summary for a column, it's not bad.

 

[Bluefire]

... 80% unionization rates with many government owned industries, high welfare and regulation, etc. = free market capitalism?

Except for the unionization rate (a free market may lead to high or low),
obviously the other things are not free market capitalism. Please spell out explicitly the argument you want to make using the nordic countries (preferably with Sweden, since there is where I have good knowledge).

 

[volatile]

Oh, stuff that exists doesn't count. You should know that by now.

If it doesn't exist in Atlas Shrugged, it doesn't exist.

 

[technoextreme]

And, lest this be seen as a derail, let's not forget why we're discussing this. Penn Jillette questioned whether Obama's methods, which he found counterintuitive, were the best. I agree with Jillette.

It is counterintuitive because Obama is trying to adress multiple disasters at the same time and most people are approaching it as if there is one. It is debatable whether or not spending will help our economic situation. It isn't debatable that we need to spend money to fix our infrastructure which is beginning to show signs of it becoming dangerous.

 

[Almo]

So I'm a bit confused as to why any theory other than laissez-faire capitalism, a libertarian's economic position, is still considered viable today?

Because LFC has been proven to fail. It needs regulation.

 

[mhaze]

His budget says that he will spend a lot more, tax a little more, and have lower deficits. If Jillette were offering testimony, I would say he's inaccurate, but as a summary for a column, it's not bad.

I'll help out on this. His current spending drops the dollar to about 40 cents, then everyone making a salary is jacked into the high tax brackets. Plus imported goods triple in price.

Spending more, taxing more, higher deficits.

 

[elbe]

Spending more, taxing more, higher deficits.

Wouldn't spending more but taxing less be higher deficits? Which, based off of experience, appears to be the only other option.

 

[Meadmaker]

Wouldn't spending more but taxing less be higher deficits? Which, based off of experience, appears to be the only other option.

Obama's plan is spend a lot more. Tax a little more.

 

[lomiller]

His budget says that he will spend a lot more, tax a little more, and have lower deficits.

Are you claiming future Budgets will spend more then the Budget + Stimulus + bank bailout that makes the 2009 deficit so large? If so you need to support that claim, because it looks to me like you are trying the old bait and switch.

 

[mhaze]

Wouldn't spending more but taxing less be higher deficits? Which, based off of experience, appears to be the only other option.

I'm thinking that when the currency devalues due to printing more of it, everyone moves into higher tax brackets and the alternative minimum. Meanwhile many entitlement programs racket up with inflation. Interest rates rise because they can't keep them low any longer. Bingo! You always need more money than taxes bring in - always - so you always print more.

Now consider the implications of Obama "raising tax rates on the wealthy".

The only road to fixing the problem is/would have been serious cuts in government. Like 20% across the board.

Obama's "budget" is a lie, and an excuse for irresponsible increases in government . The opposite from what is needed. Let's say "counterintuitive" is, well, polite.

 

[elbe]

I'm thinking that when the currency devalues due to printing more of it, everyone moves into higher tax brackets and the alternative minimum. Meanwhile many entitlement programs racket up with inflation. Interest rates rise because they can't keep them low any longer. Bingo! You always need more money than taxes bring in - always - so you always print more.

Now consider the implications of Obama "raising tax rates on the wealthy".

The only road to fixing the problem is/would have been serious cuts in government. Like 20% across the board.

Obama's "budget" is a lie, and an excuse for irresponsible increases in government . The opposite from what is needed. Let's say "counterintuitive" is, well, polite.

It doesn't change my point, however. If in both situations you are spending more (assuming some fixed quantity "more") then taxing less would, automatically, increase the deficit more than taxing more. Which one is best for any particular situation will always be up for debate, but this isn't about that. It's simply receipts minus outlays equals deficit (or surplus), smaller outlays creates larger deficits.

 

[Meadmaker]

Are you claiming future Budgets will spend more then the Budget + Stimulus + bank bailout that makes the 2009 deficit so large? If so you need to support that claim, because it looks to me like you are trying the old bait and switch.

You can look up the numbers if you like. I don't care to. He uses optimistic economic growth numbers to say that all will be well. (At least, if "well" is defined as half trillion dollar annual deficits.)

Maybe he's right.

ETA: Bottom line. He wants government to do more. He wants expanded health care, education, and energy investment. Fine. Someone has to pay for it.

 

[elbe]

You can look up the numbers if you like. I don't care to. He uses optimistic economic growth numbers to say that all will be well. (At least, if "well" is defined as half trillion dollar annual deficits.)

Maybe he's right.

ETA: Bottom line. He wants government to do more. He wants expanded health care, education, and energy investment. Fine. Someone has to pay for it.

I've actually saw the projected budget numbers, as a percentage of GDP, when I looked up historical budgets for another thread and they are projected, from the white house, as around 18% with a slight growth for the next five years or so. That's less than it was in 2000 (20%).
Granted these are projected budgets.

You can see what they project here

 

[lomiller]

Meadmaker, you are moving the goalposts all over the field.

First you claimed Jillette never said Obama’s plan was to “buy our way out of debt”, it was pointed out that he did say it.

Next you claim Jillette was correct in saying that was Obama’s plan, but couldn’t back it up.

Next you said Obama was going to increase the deficit because “spending will go up” and I had to point out that this years deficit includes stimulus and bank bailout spending.

To that you replied you didn’t want to talk about the numbers, proceed to beg the question by asking if he (Obama) is right to try and spend his way out of debt.

 

[mhaze]

It doesn't change my point, however. If in both situations you are spending more (assuming some fixed quantity "more") then taxing less would, automatically, increase the deficit more than taxing more. Which one is best for any particular situation will always be up for debate, but this isn't about that. It's simply receipts minus outlays equals deficit (or surplus), smaller outlays creates larger deficits.

No it does not work that way.

You can look up the numbers if you like. I don't care to. He uses optimistic economic growth numbers to say that all will be well. (At least, if "well" is defined as half trillion dollar annual deficits.)

Maybe he's right.

ETA: Bottom line. He wants government to do more. He wants expanded health care, education, and energy investment. Fine. Someone has to pay for it.

Sure...all the newly create "Rich People" can pay. They who have millions, but whom are all taxed at the highest rates and who all get hit with the death taxes and alternative minimums. That's when a coke out of the machine costs $10.

 

[littlehulkster]

I don;t trust Penn at all in anything that he says. He deceptively edits the hell out of his "BS" show so that he can look better yelling at the people. And many times, as happens often on opinion shows, the coverage of other viewpoints, angles and facts can leave a lot to be desired. (Not that I have hated every episode or anything, I do like some of them.)

He is better than most pundits, however, in that he readily admits he's biased and isn't trying to present anything beyond his opinion.

 

[Meadmaker]

Meadmaker, you are moving the goalposts all over the field.

First you claimed Jillette never said Obama’s plan was to “buy our way out of debt”, it was pointed out that he did say it.

Next you claim Jillette was correct in saying that was Obama’s plan, but couldn’t back it up.

Next you said Obama was going to increase the deficit because “spending will go up” and I had to point out that this years deficit includes stimulus and bank bailout spending.

To that you replied you didn’t want to talk about the numbers, proceed to beg the question by asking if he (Obama) is right to try and spend his way out of debt.

I'd be happy to talk about the numbers. I'm just not sufficiently interested to look them up and post them. However, I promise that if you do so, I'll talk about them.


What I'm pretty sure you'll find is that he is spending more than GWB, and taxing more than GWB, but that the rate of increased spending is greater than the rate of increased taxes. Feel free to count or not count the current fiscal year as you see fit.

 

[Meadmaker]

I've actually saw the projected budget numbers, as a percentage of GDP, when I looked up historical budgets for another thread and they are projected, from the white house, as around 18% with a slight growth for the next five years or so. That's less than it was in 2000 (20%).
Granted these are projected budgets.

You can see what they project here

Exactly. As percent of GDP, deficits are projected to go down. In other words, he is projecting that economic growth will make all things well.