What the US needs is Bill Clinton.

[pErvinalia]

Whatever. All I care about it destroying conservative canards. Sorry if I buggered up your Clinton love-in.

[Coito ergo sum]

And another:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 ... ack-obama/

And, this takes us back to the OP -- which demonstrates the problem with this chart:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 88398.html

Sadly for fiscal conservatives, the biggest surge in government spending came during the last two years of President George W. Bush's eight years in office (2007-2008). A weakened Republican president dealing with a strident Democratic Congress, led by then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, resulted in an orgy of spending.

Mr. Bush and Republicans in Congress capitulated to and even promoted each and every government bailout and populist redistribution canard put before them. It's a long list, starting with the 2003 trillion-dollar Medicare prescription drug benefit and culminating with the actions taken to stem the 2008 financial meltdown—the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, the bailout of insurance giant AIG and government-sponsored lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the ill-advised 2008 $600-per-person tax rebate, the stimulus add-ons to 2007's housing and farm bills, etc. The script had it that greedy right-wingers were the cause of our collapse, and deficit spending and easy money the answer.

After taking office in 2009, with spending and debt already at record high levels and the deficit headed to $1 trillion, President Obama proceeded to pass his own $830 billion stimulus, auto bailouts, mortgage relief plans, the Dodd-Frank financial reforms and the $1.7 trillion ObamaCare entitlement (which isn't even accounted for in the chart). While spending did come down in 2010, it wasn't the result of spending cuts but rather because TARP loans began to be repaid, and that cash was counted against spending.

In 2011 and 2012, the pace of spending was slowed when a new emboldened breed of Republicans took back the House promising to end the binge. The House Budget Committee, headed by Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, has identified about $150 billion of new spending Mr. Obama wanted in 2011 and 2012 that Republicans would not approve. As the chart shows, government spending as a share of GDP fell, and taxes were not raised. But to attribute this drop in government spending to the president or congressional Democrats would be dishonest.

Slowing spending and the decision not to raise taxes may have prevented the Great Recession from becoming the next Great Depression. In 1930, the Smoot-Hawley tariff was signed into law by another weak Republican president, Herbert Hoover. Smoot-Hawley was the largest single tax increase on traded products in U.S. history. Not surprisingly, the markets collapsed.

Like President Obama, President Hoover proposed massive tax increases. Unlike Mr. Obama, Hoover was successful. The highest marginal income tax rate jumped to 63% from 24% on Jan. 1, 1932. That November, Hoover lost the election to Franklin D. Roosevelt in a landslide.

As if Hoover's tax increases weren't enough, on Jan. 1, 1936, FDR raised the highest marginal income tax rate to 79% with further rate increases up to 83% coming later. Estate and gift taxes, taxes on retained earnings, state and local taxes were also raised. This is why the Great Depression was the Great Depression—massive deficit spending and tax rate increases.

Today's economy is again decelerating in no small part because on Jan. 1, 2013 we face Taxmageddon—the largest automatic tax increase on investment and businesses in generations, including the end of the Bush tax cuts and the more recent payroll tax cut. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this would drain $607 billion out of the economy next year, pushing us back into recession.

Keynesians, of course, are advising more deficit spending and easy money. But the most amazing feature of the nearby chart, which is rarely ever noted, is that when spending declined sharply the economy boomed under President Clinton, and when spending soared under Presidents Bush and Obama, the economy tanked.

Maybe Keynes was wrong and Milton Friedman was right when he warned that government spending is taxation and that government can't tax an economy into prosperity. Friedman made it clear time and again that restraining government spending stimulates the economy by liberating private resources.

[Coito ergo sum]

Whatever. All I care about it destroying conservative canards. Sorry if I buggered up your Clinton love-in.

What you're doing is fostering Liberal canards. You haven't "destroyed" anything.

And, it wasn't a Clinton love-in. I merely oppose your idiotic assumption that anyone who opposes Liberal talking points is accusing people of being Stalin or a Nazi.

[pErvinalia]

Who cares? [edit: in relation to your previous reply] Obama and the democrats aren't socialists. Republicans aren't for lower government spending as a principle. These charts put the lie to your bollocks at the start that repubs are for small government. Bullshit. You've drunk the cool-aid fully. Likewise the repubs aren't for "free markets". They are bigger croynists than the dems. While you get down to the specifics of some policies and actions (while hopefully understanding there are a wealth of other specific policies and actions that show the opposite occurs as well), what I concentrate on in these sorts of debates is overriding ideologies. And the overriding ideology of the repubs and conservatives around the world (and that includes the Dems, as they are a centre-right party compared to the rest of the developed world), is neoliberalism. An ideology that has been attempted to be foisted on our home populations since the 80s, with varying success in different countries. But where it can be seen in it's unadulterated form is via the conditioned money lending activities of the IMF and World Bank (and another international bank that has escaped my memory at the moment). In the vast majority of cases these practices have lead to the destruction of economies upon which they have been imposed. Anyway, neoliberalism, which the repubs fight for, involves corporate handouts and tax cuts to the rich (trickle down; long debunked), and protectionism of western industries/markets while forcing smaller less insulated industries/markets in developing countries to open right up. This is what "free trade" really means. This is what "economic liberalisation" really means. It is a system of rigging markets to favour the west over the developing countries, and withing the west of favouring the rich over the rest of society.

Shit. I wasn't supposed to be getting involved in this debate. Someone get me to the pub, STAT!

[pErvinalia]

Whatever. All I care about it destroying conservative canards. Sorry if I buggered up your Clinton love-in.

What you're doing is fostering Liberal canards. You haven't "destroyed" anything.

I'm not fostering liberal canards, you dumbass. All I've done is presented data. Christ. Arguing against a conservative is like arguing against a religious fundamentalist. Pointless, and they just make shit up.

And, it wasn't a Clinton love-in. I merely oppose your idiotic assumption that anyone who opposes Liberal talking points is accusing people of being Stalin or a Nazi.

As I said, I don't really care what you personally believe. A lot of republicans believe that Obama is a foreign muslim socialist terrorist. Those people are idiots and their views deserve to be squashed. Regardless of whatever you are banging on about.

[Randydeluxe]

Arguing against a conservative is like arguing against a religious fundamentalist. Pointless, and they just make shit up.

Disagree.

It's not pointless, because like arguing with the religious, you're only dealing with the results of their indoctrination. You're not dealing with conclusions that are based on observable facts. Pulling down some of the faith of economic conservatives, even if it is only bit by bit, is surely better than offering them nothing that might help them see that they've been consistently wrong on the economics. Conservative economics models have been so wrong for so long that it's embarrassing.

This is why they hate Paul Krugman so much. They can't forgive him for being right.

[pErvinalia]

You're right of course. A lot of debating I do on the net against neoliberals is for the lurkers or audience.

[Coito ergo sum]

Who cares? [edit: in relation to your previous reply] Obama and the democrats aren't socialists.

I never said they were, but they do support socialist ideas, generally speaking. And, Obama did suggest that he wanted a fundamental transformation of the United States. Are you suggesting that he wasn't talking about socialist ideas when he made that speech? Are you seriously suggesting that Obama doesn't have a fundamentally socialist mindset? Have you read his books? I urge you to.

Republicans aren't for lower government spending as a principle. These charts put the lie to your bollocks at the start that repubs are for small government. Bullshit.

The Democrats are overtly for bigger government. That's what they say they want. I realize that neither party gets the job done relative to reducing the size and intrusiveness of government, but mainly that's because the Democrats have controlled the US Congress for the better part of the last 80 years.

You've drunk the cool-aid fully. Likewise the repubs aren't for "free markets". They are bigger croynists than the dems.

They are both into cronyism to some extent. However, the Democrats are for managed economies, which is by definition cronyism. They are for higher barriers to entry into markets, and they are far more in favor of subsidies than Republicans. A subsidy to the corn ethanol industry is cronyism. 1/2 a billion dollars to Solyndra is cronyism.

While you get down to the specifics of some policies and actions (while hopefully understanding there are a wealth of other specific policies and actions that show the opposite occurs as well), what I concentrate on in these sorts of debates is overriding ideologies. And the overriding ideology of the repubs and conservatives around the world (and that includes the Dems, as they are a centre-right party compared to the rest of the developed world), is neoliberalism.

I'm a proponent of neoliberalism. Open markets, free trade, the philosophy of Hayek (aka - equality under the law and generality of the law, such that the law cannot be said to discriminate, grant preferences, or compel specific individuals to an end).

The problem with neoliberalism is that it hasn't yet been tried. Far from exemplifying neoliberalism, the US has trudged ever closer to command-style economy. To suggest that the US is today a freer market than it was 50 or even 30 years ago is just plain silly, and it's the trope and canard that folks like you have been selling for decades -- the idea that we've been in some sort of libertarian wonderland for decades and it's time we moved on from that. The reality is that we've had an ever increasing maze of specific regulatory systems that can't possibly be described as neoliberal.

[Coito ergo sum]

Whatever. All I care about it destroying conservative canards. Sorry if I buggered up your Clinton love-in.

What you're doing is fostering Liberal canards. You haven't "destroyed" anything.

I'm not fostering liberal canards, you dumbass. All I've done is presented data. Christ. Arguing against a conservative is like arguing against a religious fundamentalist. Pointless, and they just make shit up.

You have yet to address the article in the OP, which debunked your chart above. You are fostering Liberal canards -- the idea that the Democrats are really the ones who want smaller government, lower taxes and more corporate profits? I mean - that's what you and others were trying to sell here on this thread. It's total bullshit.

Follow the timeline outlined in the article I posted -- it shows quite clearly where the spending increases come from, and it ain't the Republicans. It was the same thing back in 1992 when GHWBush was lambasted and lost an election because the Democrats accused him of raising taxes, when what he did was sign the bill passed by a Democratic Congress! And, they excoriated him for it, and then they did not honor their commitment on spending cuts, which was the deal made back then. That is why the Republicans these days are so stalwart in their refusal to cut a similar tax increases for spending cuts deal with the Dems -- the Dems always want the tax increases now, and then they'll ignore the spending cuts later.

And, it wasn't a Clinton love-in. I merely oppose your idiotic assumption that anyone who opposes Liberal talking points is accusing people of being Stalin or a Nazi.

As I said, I don't really care what you personally believe. A lot of republicans believe that Obama is a foreign muslim socialist terrorist. Those people are idiots and their views deserve to be squashed. Regardless of whatever you are banging on about.

A lot of Democrats believe that Bush was behind 9/11, and that McCain wasn't eligible to be President because he was born in the Canal Zone. Big deal what the lunatic fringes believe... if that's what you're arguing about, then it's not the subject of this thread.

[pErvinalia]

I never said the US was "free market". It was you who said that is what the repubs want, despite all the evidence to the contrary. And I don't equate neoliberalism with free markets. That's the empty rhetoric that backs it up, but when you look at what's been implemented you see it's a different story. But, as I'm sure you're probably aware, I'm absolutely no fan of free markets either. But that's a different thread I guess (and one I will avoid so I don't get all shouty and cranky again).

edit: this post is in reply to your previous post to the one above.

[Coito ergo sum]

Arguing against a conservative is like arguing against a religious fundamentalist. Pointless, and they just make shit up.

Disagree.

It's not pointless, because like arguing with the religious, you're only dealing with the results of their indoctrination. You're not dealing with conclusions that are based on observable facts. Pulling down some of the faith of economic conservatives, even if it is only bit by bit, is surely better than offering them nothing that might help them see that they've been consistently wrong on the economics. Conservative economics models have been so wrong for so long that it's embarrassing.

This is why they hate Paul Krugman so much. They can't forgive him for being right.

Frankly, there is a lot of silliness in this particular post.

One -- "indoctrination?" An economic conservative holds a different view from yours. Some may be "indoctrinated," but doubtful it is a large percentage of folks.

Two - the conclusions ARE based on observable facts. I direct you to read the article in the OP. The facts are observable, and they demonstrate that increased government spending and higher taxes do NOT help the economy, and the article makes a great case for it. The fact that the article which was the subject of this thread has been so uniformly ignored by those posting on this thread speaks volumes.

Three - the Austrian economic models, Milton Friedman, etc., are so far and away more accurate and useful than the Keynesian models, it's not even comparable. The whole idea that raising taxes helps the economy is the most ridiculous trope that we have going now. "Oh, yeah! If you raise tax rates, it helps the economy!" -- joke. Not even Obama believes that, but they've sold it to the Democrat masses, who eat it up like it's dessert, because it operates to justify the "yeah! stick it to 'em!" mentality that many of them have.

[pErvinalia]

Whatever. All I care about it destroying conservative canards. Sorry if I buggered up your Clinton love-in.

What you're doing is fostering Liberal canards. You haven't "destroyed" anything.

I'm not fostering liberal canards, you dumbass. All I've done is presented data. Christ. Arguing against a conservative is like arguing against a religious fundamentalist. Pointless, and they just make shit up.

You have yet to address the article in the OP, which debunked your chart above. You are fostering Liberal canards -- the idea that the Democrats are really the ones who want smaller government, lower taxes and more corporate profits? I mean - that's what you and others were trying to sell here on this thread. It's total bullshit.

No. ALL I am doing is presenting figures that put the lie to the canard that repubs want smaller government. I don't really make any claims about the dems. As I've said, I'm no fans of theirs either. I'm way left and more libertarian than either of the major parties (in australia too). Economically speaking I'm more or less a keynsian, if I had to be pinned down. So, essentially I have no problem with government spending ideologically speaking. Of course, I don't want to see wasteful government spending. Something which both the left and right are guilty of.

Follow the timeline outlined in the article I posted -- it shows quite clearly where the spending increases come from, and it ain't the Republicans. It was the same thing back in 1992 when GHWBush was lambasted and lost an election because the Democrats accused him of raising taxes, when what he did was sign the bill passed by a Democratic Congress! And, they excoriated him for it, and then they did not honor their commitment on spending cuts, which was the deal made back then. That is why the Republicans these days are so stalwart in their refusal to cut a similar tax increases for spending cuts deal with the Dems -- the Dems always want the tax increases now, and then they'll ignore the spending cuts later.

Well, there's a theory widely held that the repubs are just economic saboteurs when in opposition in the last few years as they want to be able to pin the problems on the dems/obama. They have known all along that they have no hope of getting the presidency short of a crisis they can use to their advantage.

And, it wasn't a Clinton love-in. I merely oppose your idiotic assumption that anyone who opposes Liberal talking points is accusing people of being Stalin or a Nazi.

As I said, I don't really care what you personally believe. A lot of republicans believe that Obama is a foreign muslim socialist terrorist. Those people are idiots and their views deserve to be squashed. Regardless of whatever you are banging on about.

A lot of Democrats believe that Bush was behind 9/11, and that McCain wasn't eligible to be President because he was born in the Canal Zone. Big deal what the lunatic fringes believe... if that's what you're arguing about, then it's not the subject of this thread.

The thing is, this ISN"T the lunatic fringe in the republican party. It's more and more the mainstream. You sound like you are a moderate republican. What I can't understand is why the moderates don't ditch the whack jobs and form a new party (or kick the whack jobs out of the rebublicans).

[Coito ergo sum]

I never said the US was "free market". It was you who said that is what the repubs want, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

You didn't provide evidence to the contrary. They want freer markets than the Democrats want, that's for sure. The Democrats openly declare their preference for a controlled economy, because they view free markets as the "failed policies of the past."

And I don't equate neoliberalism with free markets.

One of the aspects of neoliberalism, by definition, is free markets.

That's the empty rhetoric that backs it up, but when you look at what's been implemented you see it's a different story.

Because neoliberalism hasn't been implemented. Instead, Keynsian economics is favored, and we really have increased protectionism and social liberalism. What has increased in the US over the last 30-40 years is social liberalism, not neoliberalism, clearly.

But, as I'm sure you're probably aware, I'm absolutely no fan of free markets either. But that's a different thread I guess (and one I will avoid so I don't get all shouty and cranky again).

What are you a fan of? Command economies?

[cowiz]

If you take the first letter of "Clinton" (that's a C) and swap it with the first letter of "Bill" (that's a B you fuck knobs), and switch them, you will end up with "Cill Blinton".

Coincidence? I think not. But the weirdness does not stop there....

If you replace the "C" with "K", suddenly, the word "Cill" becomes "Kill"....

Then if you replace everything after the "B" in his last name with random letters such as, let's say "kennedy", you end up with "Kill Bkennedy".

I heard some kind of conspiracy theory about what happens if you then drop the "B" from his last name, but I've been too busy to try it and it seems like collocks to me.

[Coito ergo sum]

No. ALL I am doing is presenting figures that put the lie to the canard that repubs want smaller government. I don't really make any claims about the dems. As I've said, I'm no fans of theirs either.

Focusing on this point -- really? What don't you like about them?

The Republicans generally WANT smaller government. They haven't been successful in achieving it because the Democrats have had the White House more than 50% of the years in the last 70, and had control of Congress for 67% of those years. News Flash: The Republicans haven't controlled the government, unlike the nonsense Democrats like to purvey.

I'm way left and more libertarian than either of the major parties (in australia too).

What sort of libertarian are you? It's difficult for someone to be "way left" and also "libertarian." But, I am interested in how you get there.

Economically speaking I'm more or less a keynsian, if I had to be pinned down.

That is the problem.

So, essentially I have no problem with government spending ideologically speaking. Of course, I don't want to see wasteful government spending. Something which both the left and right are guilty of.

The premise of the Keynesians, like Krugman, is that it doesn't matter where the government money is spent. That's why they generally don't care much about being frugal with it. Just pump in the money, and they think it's going to work. That is why nonsense like dumping Stimulus money on pork-barrel projects don't do much, if anything to help strengthen the economy.

Follow the timeline outlined in the article I posted -- it shows quite clearly where the spending increases come from, and it ain't the Republicans. It was the same thing back in 1992 when GHWBush was lambasted and lost an election because the Democrats accused him of raising taxes, when what he did was sign the bill passed by a Democratic Congress! And, they excoriated him for it, and then they did not honor their commitment on spending cuts, which was the deal made back then. That is why the Republicans these days are so stalwart in their refusal to cut a similar tax increases for spending cuts deal with the Dems -- the Dems always want the tax increases now, and then they'll ignore the spending cuts later.

Well, there's a theory widely held that the repubs are just economic saboteurs when in opposition in the last few years as they want to be able to pin the problems on the dems/obama. They have known all along that they have no hope of getting the presidency short of a crisis they can use to their advantage.

Well, one can fall for any number of conspiracy theories... I remember when Obama was thought to have had no chance of winning, because the Republicans controlled all the Deibold voting machines and had fixed the elections.

And, it wasn't a Clinton love-in. I merely oppose your idiotic assumption that anyone who opposes Liberal talking points is accusing people of being Stalin or a Nazi.

As I said, I don't really care what you personally believe. A lot of republicans believe that Obama is a foreign muslim socialist terrorist. Those people are idiots and their views deserve to be squashed. Regardless of whatever you are banging on about.

A lot of Democrats believe that Bush was behind 9/11, and that McCain wasn't eligible to be President because he was born in the Canal Zone. Big deal what the lunatic fringes believe... if that's what you're arguing about, then it's not the subject of this thread.

The thing is, this ISN"T the lunatic fringe in the republican party. It's more and more the mainstream. You sound like you are a moderate republican. What I can't understand is why the moderates don't ditch the whack jobs and form a new party (or kick the whack jobs out of the rebublicans).

Only in the same vein as mainstream folks on this forum post the most scurrilous and hyperbolic allegations about the Republican Party, yourself included. Look at some of the monstrous nonsense you've posted -- akin to allegations that you think the Republicans actually WANT to destroy the economy. It's the same shit -- once you adopt the "team mentality" it's easy to view the real scurrilous and ridiculous hyperbole as either true, or at least "fun to foster."

I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. My voter registration card says "no party affiliation," and I can't in good conscience have one, since I have many views which are not in accord with either party, and I share many views with both. I tended to agree with Hitchens on foreign policy, but not on Trotskyite Communism. I tend to agree with Austiran economics and Milton Freidman, rather than Krugman (whose economics I can never seem to rationalize). I am pro-choice on abortion, pro-gay marriage and equal rights for homosexuals, I am pro civil rights laws, pro-antitrust and anti-monopoly laws, I am pro free speech, pro freedom of and from religion, pro-REASONABLE gun laws but also pro private ownership of firearms, I am pro-rights of the accused in criminal trials and very cautious about giving powers to the government and law enforcement, I am pro legal immigration but very much opposed to illegal immigration (as are my immigrant parents and immigrant wife), I am in favor of lower taxes and lower government spending and fiscal responsibillity, I hate government waste and pork barrel politics, and I can't fucking stand Marxist socialism and its offshoots, and I can't stand fascism or totalitarianism, and I am very much anti-authoritarian, I hate nanny-statism and I think the government would to better to stay out of our personal lives - for the same reason a woman should have a right to an abortion, I should have the right to a supersize beverage, a giant cheeseburger in paradise, a cigar, and too many scotches. That about sums up where I'm coming from. Does that make me brainwashed and a foxnews devotee?