Obama to propose $3.99 trillion budget

[fskimospy]

How can you say that we were nowhere close to hitting diminishing returns? How do you know that tripling stimulus spending wouldn't have given us significant diminishing returns? This appears to be all theory and speculation with no real basis in fact (or historical fact as you indicated). I see no compelling support that Delong and Krugman were indeed correct.

I don't know at what level you would hit diminishing returns, but logic says it is most likely that diminishing returns would happen gradually as spending increased. Considering that fiscal multipliers were substantially above 1 even with all the stimulus spending going on that strongly indicates we had a ways to go before we dipped below 1.

It is very odd to say you see no argument that they were correct when they predicted the following things: multipliers above 1 (correct), large deficits won't cause inflation (correct), large increases in the monetary base won't cause inflation (correct), that the stimulus would be insufficient to bring us out of the recession quickly (correct). Considering how difficult economic predictions are that's knocking it out of the ballpark, especially when what they were saying was directly opposed by most conservatives.

is your argument that even modest increases in stimulus would quickly push the multiplier below zero? If so, please provide literally any evidence for this. Considering the fact that countries enacted a wide range of amounts of stimulus relative to GDP and no evidence of this emerged, you are going to have a hard time.

You basically seem to be setting up an impossible hurdle in order to avoid admitting Krugman was right, that because no one enacted what he deemed to be sufficient stimulus that there isn't any evidence that he was right. The economics literature says otherwise, as does the paper I linked before. The data speaks for itself.

 

[ivwshane]

Most of them were after the fact. Predicting history is pretty easy.

Like I said, you have a shitty memory.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/opinion/09krugman.html?_r=0

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jan/19/barack-obama-economic-stimulus

I can provide many more links for but what's the point?

 

[IGBT]

no surprise. Liberals like Big.Gov because they like police states and presidents for life.

 

[alcoholbob]

Japan's been doing QE for the past 20 years and..... oh
:awe:

They don't have the world reserve currency. We still have China covering the other side of the trade and OPEC is still upholding the 1972 Aramco deal. Of course, until these conditions change, which they will.

 

[fskimospy]

no surprise. Liberals like Big.Gov because they like police states and presidents for life.

Is this due to too many drugs or not enough?

 

[brycejones]

no surprise. Liberals like Big.Gov because they like police states and presidents for life.

herp derp.....

 

[Matt1970]

Like I said, you have a shitty memory.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/opinion/09krugman.html?_r=0

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jan/19/barack-obama-economic-stimulus

I can provide many more links for but what's the point?

Congratulations, you found 2. There were a lot of people claiming the stimulus was enough.

How about Christina Romer, then chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the vice president's top economic adviser. They actually were the ones who released the report that claimed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan would keep unemployment below 8%, but I know, it's that shitty memory of mine.

 

[ivwshane]

Congratulations, you found 2. There were a lot of people claiming the stimulus was enough.

You are so predictable.

 

[Matt1970]

You are so predictable.

You mean by actually backing up my statement of economists predicting the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8% by actually showing you two of the top ones at the time? I guess I am.

 

[lucia]

Repubs--"but what about the middle class and the growing wealth gap?!"

Obama--"here's a budget that will address some of that"

Repubs--"more government spending and tax increases!"

Obama--"it's spending on needed infrastructure and tax decreases for the lower and middle class paid for by tax increases on the wealthy by raising taxes on capital gains and profits kept out of America"

Repubs--"sorry, no! Try helping the middle class some other way, we've got to protect the wealthy. And no we have no ideas on how to do that"

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Either lead, follow, or get the fuck out of the way!

:sneaky: fair enough!

 

[ivwshane]

You mean by actually backing up my statement of economists predicting the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8% by actually showing you two of the top ones at the time? I guess I am.

Oh look Matt moved the goal post again! Surprise surprise! You've refuted nothing I've said, would you like to look back at the thread and reread your comments and mine?


As to your tired ass talking point, shove it where the sun don't shine (aka where you keep your head)

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...bama-promised-unemployment-would-not-exceed-/

 

[Matt1970]

Oh look Matt moved the goal post again! Surprise surprise! You've refuted nothing I've said, would you like to look back at the thread and reread your comments and mine?


As to your tired ass talking point, shove it where the sun don't shine (aka where you keep your head)

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...bama-promised-unemployment-would-not-exceed-/

My goalposts have been right where they were all along. Obama's top economic advisors claimed unemployment wouldn't drop below 8%. Read what you post you fucking moron.

"The source for Ryan’s statement -- and others like it -- is a Jan. 9, 2009, report called "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" from Christina Romer, then chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the vice president's top economic adviser.

Their report projected that the economic stimulus plan would create 3 to 4 million jobs by the end of 2010. It also included a chart predicting unemployment rates with and without the stimulus. Without the stimulus (the baseline), unemployment was projected to hit about 8.5 percent in 2009 and then continue rising to a peak of about 9 percent in 2010. With the stimulus, they predicted the unemployment rate would peak at just under 8 percent in 2009"

You really take stupidity to a whole new level don't you?

 

[ivwshane]

I love it when you play the role of the stupid twat!!

Directly below the part that you quoted was this little piece of info your dumbass didn't bother reading:

The important word here is projection. The economic analysis wasn’t a promise, it was an educated assessment of how events might unfold. And it came with heavy disclaimers.

"It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error," the report states. "There is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity."

There's also a footnote that goes along with the chart stating: "Forecasts of the unemployment rate without the recovery plan vary substantially. Some private forecasters anticipate unemployment rates as high as 11% in the absence of action."

My goalposts have been right where they were all along. Obama's top economic advisors claimed unemployment wouldn't drop below 8%. Read what you post you fucking moron.

"The source for Ryan’s statement -- and others like it -- is a Jan. 9, 2009, report called "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" from Christina Romer, then chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the vice president's top economic adviser.

Their report projected that the economic stimulus plan would create 3 to 4 million jobs by the end of 2010. It also included a chart predicting unemployment rates with and without the stimulus. Without the stimulus (the baseline), unemployment was projected to hit about 8.5 percent in 2009 and then continue rising to a peak of about 9 percent in 2010. With the stimulus, they predicted the unemployment rate would peak at just under 8 percent in 2009"

You really take stupidity to a whole new level don't you?

 

[Matt1970]

I claim they said it, you claim they said otherwise. I prove they said it, you prove they said it with caveats. You win fool. I just can't compete on this level of stupidity.

 

[nickqt]

Bad economy: "we need government to spend more, to get the economy back in gear. Right now is the worst time to cut back, we need to spend more!"

Good economy: "times are good, we can finally do all that stuff we couldn't afford to do before. Spend more!".

Result: 18 trillion in debt and counting.

Yeah.

Let's be real clear on how all of that happened.

Bad Economy: Reagan says let's spend money, triples the debt in 8 years.

Mediocre Economy: Clinton says let's up taxes a smidge and start paying down debt. Republicans vote against it, but Democrats vote for it.

Good Economy: Clinton starts paying down the debt. Debt clocks turned off.

Good Economy: Bush says we need to cut taxes. Stops paying down debt, debt clocks turned back on. Massive deficits.

Bad Economy: Bush says we need to bail out the banks.

Bad Economy: Obama says we need some stimulus, passes 2/3 stimulus 1/3 tax cut bill.

Decent Economy: Obama says we should up the tax rate a smidge, close some tax loopholes, perhaps start paying down some debt. Republicans are against it.

There we go. Some needed context.

 

[fskimospy]

I claim they said it, you claim they said otherwise. I prove they said it, you prove they said it with caveats. You win fool. I just can't compete on this level of stupidity.

Again, when reality conflicts with how you want to see the world, you pretend reality doesn't exist.

 

[ivwshane]

I claim they said it, you claim they said otherwise. I prove they said it, you prove they said it with caveats. You win fool. I just can't compete on this level of stupidity.

That's what I thought. Now run away with your tail between your legs like you always do

 

[michal1980]

Yeah.


Decent Economy: Obama says we should up the tax rate a smidge, close some tax loopholes, perhaps start paying down some debt. Republicans are against it.

There we go. Some needed context.

That is an outright lie.

Unless Obama's budget is magically balanced, theres no way it pays down any debt.

 

[nickqt]

That is an outright lie.

Unless Obama's budget is magically balanced, theres no way it pays down any debt.

Outright lie?

So, everything else was right on the money, and all you have is that I'm a liar mcliarpants because Obama's budget isn't balanced?

First off, learn the difference between a proposed budget by the President vs. who actually delineates the money being spent.

Second, raising taxes will decrease any budget shortfall, so unless you're arguing that the US shouldn't spend any money, at all, increases in taxes bring us closer to paying down debt.

 

[Matt1970]

Again, when reality conflicts with how you want to see the world, you pretend reality doesn't exist.

I am not the one who has a problem with reality. There were a lot of economists who think the stimulus was enough, even Obama's top 2, but you guys seem to want to deny it because there were some that wanted more.

 

[Matt1970]

That's what I thought. Now run away with your tail between your legs like you always do

I just know when to give up. You win. All the economists were calling for more stimulus.

 

[Matt1970]

Outright lie?

So, everything else was right on the money, and all you have is that I'm a liar mcliarpants because Obama's budget isn't balanced?

First off, learn the difference between a proposed budget by the President vs. who actually delineates the money being spent.

Second, raising taxes will decrease any budget shortfall, so unless you're arguing that the US shouldn't spend any money, at all, increases in taxes bring us closer to paying down debt.

$474 billion is a long way from paying down debt.

 

[michal1980]

Outright lie?

So, everything else was right on the money, and all you have is that I'm a liar mcliarpants because Obama's budget isn't balanced?

First off, learn the difference between a proposed budget by the President vs. who actually delineates the money being spent.

Second, raising taxes will decrease any budget shortfall, so unless you're arguing that the US shouldn't spend any money, at all, increases in taxes bring us closer to paying down debt.

Me not addressing any other points in no way makes a claim that they are valid.

The point I did call a lie was a lie.

Your the one saying Obama's budget will pay down the debt. Not me, not anyone else. Please show us how having a deficit will pay down the debt. I would love to see the math on that logic.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yeah.

Let's be real clear on how all of that happened.

Bad Economy: Reagan says let's spend money, triples the debt in 8 years.

Mediocre Economy: Clinton says let's up taxes a smidge and start paying down debt. Republicans vote against it, but Democrats vote for it.

Good Economy: Clinton starts paying down the debt. Debt clocks turned off.

Good Economy: Bush says we need to cut taxes. Stops paying down debt, debt clocks turned back on. Massive deficits.

Bad Economy: Bush says we need to bail out the banks.

Bad Economy: Obama says we need some stimulus, passes 2/3 stimulus 1/3 tax cut bill.

Decent Economy: Obama says we should up the tax rate a smidge, close some tax loopholes, perhaps start paying down some debt. Republicans are against it.

There we go. Some needed context.

Wow. I could spend a lot of time on this post! Anyway, I about fell out of my chair at the bolded. A proposed $2T tax increase is not considered a a "smidge" in the real world...just saying. And his proposal doesn't come close to paying down debt.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I don't know at what level you would hit diminishing returns, but logic says it is most likely that diminishing returns would happen gradually as spending increased. Considering that fiscal multipliers were substantially above 1 even with all the stimulus spending going on that strongly indicates we had a ways to go before we dipped below 1.

It is very odd to say you see no argument that they were correct when they predicted the following things: multipliers above 1 (correct), large deficits won't cause inflation (correct), large increases in the monetary base won't cause inflation (correct), that the stimulus would be insufficient to bring us out of the recession quickly (correct). Considering how difficult economic predictions are that's knocking it out of the ballpark, especially when what they were saying was directly opposed by most conservatives.

is your argument that even modest increases in stimulus would quickly push the multiplier below zero? If so, please provide literally any evidence for this. Considering the fact that countries enacted a wide range of amounts of stimulus relative to GDP and no evidence of this emerged, you are going to have a hard time.

You basically seem to be setting up an impossible hurdle in order to avoid admitting Krugman was right, that because no one enacted what he deemed to be sufficient stimulus that there isn't any evidence that he was right. The economics literature says otherwise, as does the paper I linked before. The data speaks for itself.

I'm saying that we don't know that Krugman was right or wrong in his assertion that that we should have authorized significantly more stimulus spending...and history certainly doesn't show he was right in this regard as you incorrectly asserted. Krugman was right about many things...but we have no way of knowing whether or not he was right on this particular point.