The Graph of the Week, and a rant

I’m not the first person to notice this, but whenever you read conservatives trying to critique what they think the other side believes, you find them assuming that their opponents must be mirror images of themselves. The right believes that less government spending is always good, regardless of circumstances, so it assumes that the other side must always favor more government spending. The right says that deficits are always evil (unless they’re caused by tax cuts), so they assume that the center-left must favor deficits in all conditions.

I personally get this a lot, of course. Not a day goes by without someone blithely asserting that I have never called for spending cuts on anything, and that I have never called for action against budget deficits. A few minutes searching this blog would disabuse them of these beliefs, but they don’t need to check — they know.

What seems beyond their intellectual range is the notion that other people might have subtler beliefs than their own. Keynesianism, in particular, is not about chanting “big government good”. It’s about viewing recessions through the lens of an economic model under which temporary increases in government spending can, under certain circumstances, help reduce unemployment. Indeed, not all recessions call for fiscal stimulus; it’s the special conditions of the liquidity trap that make it essential now — which is why the Bush deficits, run under non-liquidity trap conditions, say nothing at all about the desirability of deficits now.

I have no hope of actually getting through with this, of course. For to actually understand what people like me are saying, we’d have to get past crude slogans and simplistic nostrums. The problem is obvious.

Click to expand...

napa23 said:

So fiscal responsibility includes giving tax cuts to executives that continue to lay off workers while lining their pockets? Or big corporations and oil companies that pay little or no taxes while making record profits, while unemployment maintains its high levels? Also, why did these republican candidates ask for federal stimulus money to fund various projects in their districts if stimulus can't create jobs? In fact, they put tangible numbers on the amount of jobs it can create. Stimulus can work, if it goes in the right places. But conservatives are against it at all costs, aren't they. If they had any integrity at all, they wouldn't be asking for that money...that's called hypocrisy. Their job is to get Obama out of office. They're against anything democrats come up with and they've shown themselves capable of dragging us down to accomplish it. You guys expect things to turn around overnight. This problem was years in the making before obama even took office, it's not going to go away just like that. We had begun to turn things around until congress wanted to bicker and push the debt debate right up until the deadline. But you don't see that do you?

Click to expand...

Charlie Ventura said:

1. The right places? Name them.

2. What ideas have Democrats come up with? Name them. Hell, they haven't passed a budget in almost three years.

3. Begun to turn things around? How? When?

Come on Man, you've made a lot of claims here, now be specific. And by the way, I'm not a Republican. I did not vote for Bush. I did not support Bush.

Click to expand...

napa23 said:

1. Like strengthening crappy levies that can't withstand hurricanes or by rebuilding the many outdated and dangerous bridges that are in the country. Or by investing in alternative energy and actually implementing those ideas. Or any of the projects that republicans requested stimulus money for.

2. Look above.

3. Stocks had started to stabilize and unemployment had stopped growing. I can't point you to specific numbers, as I'm not trying to look them up for you and I don't keep up with it all that consistently. I'm in school and am kind of preoccupied. Even if I did, I doubt you would listen. You all can't be reasoned with, that much is obvious. But yeah, keep blaming Obama. All his fault. I also like how you completely ignored the first part of my post, nice. If there was a better alternative to Obama, I'd vote for them. but as of now, none of the other candidates cut it. They refuse to compromise and then blame the consequences on him. That' not how democracy works. We need to work together. Obama has compromised over and over and the other side just keeps demanding.

Click to expand...

Mike Tidwell author of "Bayou Farewell: The Rich Life and Tragic Death of Louisiana's Cajun Coast said:

Why in the world is New Orleans below sea level to begin with? I think the media has sort of accepted it uncritically that this city is below sea level which is why we have this problem. Miami is not below sea level. New York's not below sea level. It's below sea level because of the levees. The levees stop the river from flooding and the river's what built the whole coast of Louisiana through 7,000 years of alluvial soil deposits. And if you stop that flooding, the other second natural phenomena in any delta region in the world is subsidence. That alluvial soil is fine, it compacts, it shrinks. That's why New Orleans is below sea level. That's why the whole coast of Louisiana is--the whole land platform is sinking. An area of land the size of Manhattan turns to water in south Louisiana every year even without hurricanes.

You can't just fix the levees in New Orleans. We now have to have a massive coastal restoration project where we get the water out of the Mississippi River in a controlled fashion toward the Barrier islands, restore the wetlands. If you don't commit to this plan which is this $14 billion, costs of the Big Dig in Boston, or two weeks of spending Iraq, you shouldn't fix a single window in New Orleans. You shouldn't pick up a single piece of debris because to do one without the other is to set the table for another nightmare.

Click to expand...

napa23 said:

I don't see how those graphs prove that. I see that tax revenue has decreased, which republicans fail to pay attention to. I also see that spending has increased, but when the average american is spending less, who else is there to keep the market going? Does no one want to pay attention the the first half of my other post? Ok, so we shouldn't do anything about the levees, we should have this coastal restoration project? That doesn't cost any money? Explain this, I feel like I'm missing the point. What about the bridges, any thoughts on that? Should we let them deteriorate? By the way, democrats have agreed to compromise, to spending cuts. But what does that translate to? It translates to budget cuts in education, making it hard for people to afford college. That's a great idea huh?

Click to expand...

sync0s said:

A lot of things to cover, so I'll try to go in order.

1) Comparing graphs you can see that during the same time period of Mame's graph, the spending/debt skyrockets while the revenue and economic production continually goes down. This should be firm enough illustration to make you think at least: "Hey, maybe we ought to try another approach, yeah?"
Yes, in your graph I see tax revenue decreasing. So are you saying that should increase? Because all the candidates say they wouldn't support any type of revenue increase. It's all about spending cuts, which dems have agreed to. I also see in your other graph that federal outlays, which i'm guessing means spending and GDP both increase. I still feel like I'm missing your argument.

2) You assume that we need to continue the spending in order to make up for America's lack of. You need to contemplate the reason Americans aren't spending: they're broke. Why? Debt. Yes the housing bubble is the originating factor in this. Businesses lost money when the bubble burst, people lost their jobs and then had to incur large debts just to support their families. You have to remember, in order for the government to spend money they must first take it away from the American people. Why is it logical to take the extra spending money from the American people and push them further behind on their bills? Seems counter productive to me. I mean, why not cut taxes for middle and low class Americans and increase their net wealth, thus freeing up more money to spend on the market.
People are broke because stocks crashed and they no longer have any savings. Yes, the housing market crash, coupled with the fact that Bush used up all our surplus started this. Which brings me back to the point that all of this started before Obama. So why is the other side trying to pin everything on him? I agree, cut taxes for the middle and lower class. No one's saying tax them anymore. Just close the loopholes that allow big businesses and oil companies to line their pockets while laying off workers. If you're getting tax breaks, you need to hire. That's the only justification I can see for it. Trickle Down does not work, we've seen that first hand. But Reps are on a one-track stance. Which is why I won't be voting for them. That and they're hypocrites.

3) My point with the levees is to illustrate how we have conditioned our own "necessities" by sticking the governmental hand where it didn't belong. We are creating our own problems and making things worse. Furthermore, imagine if our government sold every dam or levee to the private sector. They would have profit potential in building technologies (i.e. hydroelectric power stations), add in the factor that the private citizen will now have recourse against these companies if they fail to maintain the dams or levees and cause property damage. Much greater motivation to keep the properties in better shape than our government has.
You assume the private sector will listen to the people. Greed nullifies that. Case in point, insurance companies. People complain about rising premiums and being denied coverage, but do the companies care? Not one bit. But conservatives want to reverse health care reform and throw poor people back to the wolves. If they're poor and get denied coverage or just can't afford it, fuck em, let them die right? No one cares about their fellow American anymore.

4) Bridges hold the same motive. A complete free market could enterprise the idea of private sector ownership with toll booths and the likes. It would be coupled with cutting the gas taxes and the multi-billion budget commitment to infrastructure development that so far has been failing miserably. Just an idea.
So you want a toll booth on every bridge then? That would be a traffic nightmare.

5) Should a college degree that costs $100k+ that promises an income of $30k per year if your lucky be affordable? Isn't the premise of a college degree to show excel and greater knowledge than your counterparts being destroyed by having a 100% of the population (Obama's goal) obtain college degrees further forcing more debt and need for greater education just to prove that you know more and thus are more qualified for the job? As a fiscal conservative myself, I can think of a thousand things to cut before education. War on Iraq/Afghanistan, oil/big business subsidies and loopholes, foreign aide, and much more.
Just because you go to college doesn't make you equally qualified for a job. There are still slackers out there, and the over-achievers will be rewarded. The idea is that everyone should have the OPTION to go to college. No one's forcing you to, but you should be able to if you desire. You say as a fiscal conservative you can think of other places to cut, but that's not what happens. I see it continuously. The first thing that gets cut is education. Are you saying only the rich should be able to go to college? The idea is to get a degree to better your living situation and to better be able to provide for the family you'll have one day. I agree on the things you said to cut before education though, 100%. Hell, I'd elect you over the republican candidates that are running.

edit: I just wanted to add on to #4: The famous 35W Bridge (one that collapsed in Minnesota) carried a price tag of $234 million. With the surrounding twin cities carrying a population of 2,849,567. 160,000 people work in downtown Minneapolis on a daily basis. This means that for the 160,000 workers a daily pass would cost $0.02 (at a price of 1 penny per pass) each bringing in $3,200 per day, or $1,168,000 per year. This is not including the other 2,689,567 residents in the area as well as truck drivers and visiting commuters. The price tag for the individual 160,000 workers would only be $7.30 per year.

Keep in mind, the bridge is expected to last 100 years. So with just the 160,000 workers at a constant rate would bring in $116,800,000 over the course of the 100 years. This would leave a deficit of $117,200,000, meaning you would just need to double the traffic to meet your bottom line. Either that, or increase your price a couple pennies per pass. A lot cheaper than paying the road taxes.

Click to expand...

napa23 said:

My message was too short because i responded in your quote, so here's 10 characters .

Click to expand...

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]HMO's are part of the legacy of price and wage controls supported by "conservative" president Richard Nixon who supported them (among other ill-conceived reasons) as a means for controlling health care costs. The high costs of the early seventies were not produced by free market health care, but by the ever expanding government giveaways of Medicare and Medicaid which removed individuals from the process of making health care transactions and created a situation where third parties (i.e. government) were making the payments to health care providers. You can imagine that in a system where the consumer of health services is responsible for none of the costs, a little excess demand might result. And that was indeed the result. No longer restrained by paying for health care, patients ended up in the doctor's office for every stubbed toe and every bloody nose resulting in spiraling health care costs due to such massively inflated demand. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Far from being free-market health care as Ted Kennedy would have you believe, managed care has always been a system of complex government regulation which favors large politically influential insurance companies over smaller more entrepreneurial insurance companies. To claim that there is anything even remotely resembling a competitive marketplace in health care is absolutely preposterous. In fact, the United States government controls over 45% of the health care industry in the United States. In Canada, home of socialized medicine, the number is 75%. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Now, the Congress is trying to tell us that we need more of their regulations to ensure that better quality care can be assured to all Americans. The biggest problem that people have with HMO's is the control of expenditure by reviewing and managing doctor recommended treatment options that sometimes end in denial over physician recommendations. Can government solve this problem? The last time I checked, Canadians were waiting for months and even years to receive treatments that the government had decided against funding. In Britain, the non-government health care sector is exploding because so many Brits must go outside the government health services to receive treatment. (In the US, it is illegal for recipients of government health care to purchase private services from a Medicare/Medicaid doctor unless the doctor gives up all other patients for two years.)[/FONT]​

Click to expand...

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]4) That's what you would logically assume. I don't blame you for that, but you're forgetting a detail. Remember how many cars I said need to pass through that toll to make the bottom line? In fact, the private sector would want more cars running through those tolls, and traffic equals less traffic. This would force the private sector to find methods of speedy payment and ridding of traffic congestion. It's like this: do I want road capacity passing through my toll while going stop and go, or road capacity at a free flow? Obvious that the latter would equal more customers. More customers equals more profit.[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]5) Whether or not the government provides loans to all students, the free market has always been there to offer up scholarships. Just yesterday a friend of mine told me of a trade school in my state that allows you to attend for free ($0 tuition) in exchange for an agreement of teaching at the school for 3 or some odd years and/or working for them. There are nursing scholarships that pay your schooling in exchange for you to work at free clinics in urban areas. These programs are geared toward the poor, as the rich people would have no need for such things. Beauty is they are the ingenious ideas of private sector entrepreneurs.[/FONT]
I do appreciate your open mindedness, unlike many others who would rather choose to blaspheme these views. You really should look into Ron Paul.
​

redivider said:

[youtube]KH--vt2lTMQ[/youtube]

REPUBLICAN HIPOCRISY.

STIMULUS CAN'T CREATE JOBS???????? OK......

START WATCHING AT THE 2 MINUTE MARK...

Click to expand...

sync0s said:

Well, let me start my response by saying I am not a republican. I'm libertarian. Continuing the same format:

1) You need to compare the charts I posted with mame's. During the period that his chart shows decreasing GDP production below what is considered the national "potential," you also see substantial increases in spending (a Keynesian philosophy) coupled with substantial decreases in revenue. I am arguing that in order to meet the philosophical belief that spending will recover the economy we are forced to do what democrats want and that is to raise taxes. In doing so, we are taking money out of the private sector (in all classes; low, middle, and upper) and putting it in bureaucratic hands and it's being spent in so many ways that is not only being spent wrong, but it is being used heavily for other things (primarily the national debt interest). We are effectively forcing the private sector to sit on its hands.
Again, no one is talking about raising taxes on the middle and lower classes. There's a difference between raising taxes and stopping the tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans and corporations. I fail to see how that takes money from ordinary Americans if those people aren't hiring anyway. Could it be that our GDP would increase if those rich would hire more people instead of sitting on their money, taking expensive trips in their jets, and letting the rest of America fall behind? All I see is rewarding them for being greedy. On another note, I'm not accusing you of being republican, it really doesn't matter. Like I said, I'd vote for whoever I thought was best for the job, able to compromise and work with the other side to get things done. I can't see it in the other people.

2) There is no arguing that Bush started this whole charade, how ever the same can be said of Obama continuing it. In fact, Obama has made more steps to worsen the state of the economy then Bush. In the third graph I posted you can clearly see the expenses under Bush in '08 being at about 21% of the GDP, while the revenue sits at about 18% of the GDP. The very next year under Obama you see 25% of the GDP in expenses and 14% of the GDP in revenue. From there, you see no substantial change in the numbers. This goes to show that Obama has had the time and fully effected his ideas and policies and that they are not helping our nation to recover. In fact, in mame's graph it shows that Obama has been able to recover only $1billion in GDP while staying $2billion behind in potential. Meanwhile he has dumped well over $4 trillion dollars in spending. I mean, in no way should spending $4 trillion for a $1 billion return ever make any sense.
Maybe we aren't getting any revenue increases because the other side won't let him?? Like I said before, things aren't going to go back to positive right away. Maybe we could make more progress if the other side wasn't so concerned with power, but would try to work together with the Dems. And again, they've agreed to spending decreases and got nothing in return.

3) Common misconception. I'll quote something off for this one
I still maintain that the healthcare system is broken and needs changing. I don't see how you can think otherwise. If private insurance companies would take care of people like they're supposed to, we wouldn't need the government to regulate it and provide another OPTION. Key word, option. If the rich healthy people want to keep their doctors and insurance companies they can. They're not the ones being denied coverage. Last time I checked, Canadians would take their system over ours any day. So then, are you for dismantling medicare and medicaid? Do you want the poor, who do jobs most of us don't want to do, or retired old people to just have to pay for it themselves? That would be nice, if they actually could. But we should just let them all die huh? I guess that might help unemployment numbers.

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]4) That's what you would logically assume. I don't blame you for that, but you're forgetting a detail. Remember how many cars I said need to pass through that toll to make the bottom line? In fact, the private sector would want more cars running through those tolls, and traffic equals less traffic. This would force the private sector to find methods of speedy payment and ridding of traffic congestion. It's like this: do I want road capacity passing through my toll while going stop and go, or road capacity at a free flow? Obvious that the latter would equal more customers. More customers equals more profit.[/FONT]
That's an awful lot of assuming. So all roads should be transferred to private companies. What about neighborhoods that can't afford it? What if customers aren't happy with the job their doing? What are they going to do, take an alternate route to work? Not always feasible.

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]5) Whether or not the government provides loans to all students, the free market has always been there to offer up scholarships. Just yesterday a friend of mine told me of a trade school in my state that allows you to attend for free ($0 tuition) in exchange for an agreement of teaching at the school for 3 or some odd years and/or working for them. There are nursing scholarships that pay your schooling in exchange for you to work at free clinics in urban areas. These programs are geared toward the poor, as the rich people would have no need for such things. Beauty is they are the ingenious ideas of private sector entrepreneurs.[/FONT]
I do appreciate your open mindedness, unlike many others who would rather choose to blaspheme these views. You really should look into Ron Paul.
​

Click to expand...