IMF admits it got the effects of Austerity wrong

[dank69]

Clinton's budget surplus was due to increased government revenues as a direct result of the dot com bubble. To paint it any other way is either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.

Is it intellectual dishonesty to not admit he also cut spending?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Is it intellectual dishonesty to not admit he also cut spending?

He didn't cut spending.

 

[Jaskalas]

Clinton's budget surplus was due to increased government revenues as a direct result of the dot com bubble. To paint it any other way is either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.

There was NEVER a Clinton 'surplus'.

I would like to remind people that there was no "real" surplus during the Clinton administration. During those years, Social Security ran a surplus that was then loaned to the federal government in order to balance the budget. In return, Social Security received IOUs. These IOUs need to be paid back just like any other form of government debt. It can hardly be said, then, that there was a surplus. The debt was simply hidden by rhetoric and propaganda.

 

[EagleKeeper]

No it's not. If you paid nothing but interest and got to live in a nice house, you came out on top.

And what happens after a few years. Principal eventually needs to be paid and also interest costs go up.

No one is going to let you stay in a house that is tying up capital indefinitely
When you get booted to the curb; you have nothing.

You are essentially paying rent with nothing to show for it and no contract allowing you a set time to live on the property.

 

[dank69]

He didn't cut spending.

That ignores factors like mandatory spending.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That ignores factors like mandatory spending.

I'm talking about overall spending...wtf are you talking about?

 

[dank69]

I'm talking about overall spending...wtf are you talking about?

So you don't understand that if the president and congress do nothing at all, our spending will increase every year all by itself? And that cutting the amount that it will increase still qualifies as a cut?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So you don't understand that if the president and congress do nothing at all, our spending will increase every year all by itself? And that cutting the amount that it will increase still qualifies as a cut?

Look...you asked a question "Is it intellectual dishonesty to not admit he also cut spending?"

He didn't cut spending. If you believe he actually did cut spending, then you're lying to yourself.

Actually I thought Clinton did a good job of keeping spending under control. Bush and Obama not so good. I wish there were more liberals like you who actually think we have a spending problem. 😉

 

[dank69]

Look...you asked a question "Is it intellectual dishonesty to not admit he also cut spending?"

He didn't cut spending. If you believe he actually did cut spending, then you're lying to yourself.

🙄

Actually I thought Clinton did a good job of keeping spending under control. Bush and Obama not so good. I wish there were more liberals like you who actually think we have a spending problem. 😉

Obama not so much, huh? Looks like from your own graph you have to admit that Obama cut spending from year 1 to year 2. And what's year 1 in that graph, btw? 2009? Lol.

 

[brencat]

I think you're missing the point.... If you die in debt, you won.

I seriously hope you are joking but if you're not, it is exactly this kind of selfish attitude that is punishing future generations with, among other things, the crushing national debt obligations we currently have.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

🙄

Obama not so much, huh? Looks like from your own graph you have to admit that Obama cut spending from year 1 to year 2. And what's year 1 in that graph, btw? 2009? Lol.

Please. Just stop. TARP was a one year emergency spend under Bush...it wasn't a baseline to honestly use for year-to-year comparison purposes.

Tell me...just wtf are you trying to prove? That Obama is doing a good job on spending? Please say it isn't so.

 

[brencat]

Then there was a PROJECTED surplus IF the economy and government spending stayed on course.

As we know; it did not.

The economy tanked while Clinton was still in office and 9/11 impact has helped screw up the economy even more.

Exactly correct. As Eagle and others have stated in this thread, the 'surplus' was a 10yr forward projection (as all projections are) based on then current, but unsustainable cap gains tax revenue driven primarily by an unsustainable internet bubble.

There was no Clinton surplus. And absolute government spending continued to increase every single year. We all need to get away from bullshitting ourselves into believing that 'slowing the rate of growth in spending' actually qualifies as a cut. NO IT DOES NOT. Only absolute spending cuts, where the number in the following year is LOWER than the previous year, is a cut.

 

[glenn1]

I think you're missing the point.... If you die in debt, you won.

The flaw in your reasoning is that the government doesn't die, despite your side's best efforts.

 

[dank69]

Please. Just stop. TARP was a one year emergency spend under Bush...it wasn't a baseline to honestly use for year-to-year comparison purposes.

Tell me...just wtf are you trying to prove? That Obama is doing a good job on spending? Please say it isn't so.

And TARP was not enough by itself to get us out of that emergency. It took three more years and it was still only enough to start a slow recovery. But now the recovery isn't good enough for you. Can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Exactly correct. As Eagle and others have stated in this thread, the 'surplus' was a 10yr forward projection (as all projections are) based on then current, but unsustainable cap gains tax revenue driven primarily by an unsustainable internet bubble.

There was no Clinton surplus. And absolute government spending continued to increase every single year. We all need to get away from bullshitting ourselves into believing that 'slowing the rate of growth in spending' actually qualifies as a cut. NO IT DOES NOT. Only absolute spending cuts, where the number in the following year is LOWER than the previous year, is a cut.

Well then Obama cut spending from year 1 to year 2. Just look at the graph. Oh, wait, there are other factors besides your simplistic definition of cuts? Say it isn't so...

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

And TARP was not enough by itself to get us out of that emergency.

Bullshit...TARP was highly effective.

It took three more years and it was still only enough to start a slow recovery. But now the recovery isn't good enough for you. Can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Porkulus wasn't very effective. There is no cake to eat.

Well then Obama cut spending from year 1 to year 2. Just look at the graph. Oh, wait, there are other factors besides your simplistic definition of cuts? Say it isn't so...

Just what are you trying to prove?

 

[dank69]

Bullshit...TARP was highly effective.



Porkulus wasn't very effective. There is no cake to eat.



Just what are you trying to prove?

I'm not trying to prove, I have proved. Using the metric that the only time spending has been cut is when spending is less than the year before is a bullshit metric that means nothing in reality.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'm not trying to prove, I have proved. Using the metric that the only time spending has been cut is when spending is less than the year before is a bullshit metric that means nothing in reality.

I'm not sure what you've think you've proved. We were talking about year-to-year spending and it now appears that you don't approve of that metric. Perhaps spending as a percentage of GDP would be more appropriate.

No metric is perfect. TARP is the only thing I can recall that would substantially mislead when making year-to-year spending comparisons. Perhaps you have another example I missed.

 

[Raghu]

The solution does not lie in deciding between austerity or spending. The solution lies in what you do with money, rather than just spending more/less money compared to last year.

Cutting unproductive expenditure or increasing productive expenditure? Or some combination of both?

Given that the US has already shown the inability to spend its money wisely, does it seem prudent to try spending even more? What are you going to do differently with the money this time than you have done all these years?

The consequence of failure with increased spending is EPIC FAIL. While, the consequence of failure with austerity is epic fail. This is the reason cutting spending is seen as the slightly better way to deal with deficit.

Both methods dont guarantee success. Both methods have chances of success/failure.

 

[Fayd]

Got that far.

same.

 

[Fayd]

Paul Krugman is one of the most respected economists in the world. This is not debatable.

He also happens to be right most of the fucking time...

yes it is debatable. krugman's a worthless keynesian. the brand of thinking responsible for the fiscal mess.

"tax and spend your way to riches!"... idiots.

 

[Nemesis 1]

So I think bring the other topic back we had when this all started it is proper to see which way these poster blow in the wind . Its actually the proper thing to do . Exposing the truth is always proper . Maybe hurtful but still proper

 

[dank69]

I'm not sure what you've think you've proved. We were talking about year-to-year spending and it now appears that you don't approve of that metric. Perhaps spending as a percentage of GDP would be more appropriate.

No metric is perfect. TARP is the only thing I can recall that would substantially mislead when making year-to-year spending comparisons. Perhaps you have another example I missed.

Are you saying you approve of spending as a percentage of GDP as a metric? Because then you'd have to admit that Clinton and Obama cut spending while both Bushes and Reagan increased it.

 

[dank69]

The solution does not lie in deciding between austerity or spending. The solution lies in what you do with money, rather than just spending more/less money compared to last year.

Cutting unproductive expenditure or increasing productive expenditure? Or some combination of both?

Given that the US has already shown the inability to spend its money wisely, does it seem prudent to try spending even more? What are you going to do differently with the money this time than you have done all these years?

The consequence of failure with increased spending is EPIC FAIL. While, the consequence of failure with austerity is epic fail. This is the reason cutting spending is seen as the slightly better way to deal with deficit.

Both methods dont guarantee success. Both methods have chances of success/failure.

All that matters is where the government spending goes, even if it is wasteful. If the government overpays for some military technology, but all that extra money goes to American workers and is pumped right back into the economy in the form of demand, then things will be just fine. If that extra money goes to paying salaries in China, then we have a problem. If it goes into a billionaire's pocket when he can't possibly spend the money he already has, then we have a problem.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Are you saying you approve of spending as a percentage of GDP as a metric? Because then you'd have to admit that Clinton and Obama cut spending while both Bushes and Reagan increased it.

LOL. I've already said that I thought Clinton did a good job. However, I now see what you're really trying to do...wanting to make this a D vs R thingy. We already talked about TARP being a one-time emergency spend and 2008 wasn't an honest baseline to use for year-to-year comparison purposes. But if it somehow makes your good buddy Obama look fiscally responsible in your eyes...go for it...and while you're at it...tell me facts have a liberal bias. 🙄

 

[dank69]

LOL. I've already said that I thought Clinton did a good job. However, I now see what you're really trying to do...wanting to make this a D vs R thingy. ...

No, I'm rebutting the poster who says no President has cut spending. It naturally turns into a D vs R thing when facts get involved.