Conservatives, riddle me this . . .

[uglypeoplefucking]

i remember when President Bush the 2nd instituted lots of deregulation and tax cuts (remember the $400 dollar rebate back when we still had the surplus Bill Clinton left us with?) and then, with the help of FOX News, started the Iraq war, ballooned the deficit and pitched us into the Great recession. i then remember when Obama took office, increased industry oversight, raised taxes, and pulled out of Iraq, while at the same time cutting the unemployment rate in half, restoring the economy, saving the American car industry, and shrinking the deficit.

idk that i have a single, spell-out-able point to make or lesson to impart, i just want to know how conservatives explain these sequences of events while at the same time sticking to their free-market guns?

[Kriswest]

Before you blame the presidential puppets or give them credit , which party was dominant in senate and congress for each?

[uglypeoplefucking]

@Kriswest

Before you blame the presidential puppets or give them credit , which party was dominant in senate and congress for each?

Well, they were both two term presidents so Congress switched hands back and forth during the tenure of each - but it’s the policies themselves (tax cuts vs tax hikes / regulation vs. deregulation) that i’m thinking about, the party to which each president belonged is circumstantial.

[Eric_The_Pipe]

@uglypeoplefucking

i remember when President Bush the 2nd instituted lots of deregulation and tax cuts (remember the $400 dollar rebate back when we still had the surplus Bill Clinton left us with?) and then, with the help of FOX News, started the Iraq war, ballooned the deficit and pitched us into the Great recession.

So you start with a bias, most likely fulfilling a tautology of opinion rather than fact.

@uglypeoplefucking

i then remember when Obama took office, increased industry oversight, raised taxes, and pulled out of Iraq, while at the same time cutting the unemployment rate in half, restoring the economy, saving the American car industry, and shrinking the deficit.

Unemployment as measured by the number of people making clams for unemployment checks. This is like measuring unwanted children by the number of abortions. Or Hunger by… well how they do it (they take the number of people that can, financially apply for food stamps, but don’t, the difference is the number of hungry people…) The actual unemployment rate, particularly if combined with the underemployment rate has risen dramatically because of the actions of Government.

The wisdom of pulling out of Iraq is questionable (even if you argue that we should never have gone in, which I do).

“Restoring the economy” implies that it would never have, or never has, recovered on its own. Something that is not backed up with proof in your statements, nor proof in reality. Please show me what he did and how it worked, you know so it can be done exactly the same way the next time those bastard Republicans get in.

If by “saving the American car industry” you mean bailing them out from their own god damned mistakes, much as Bush did the banks… So can I now declare that Bush saved the American Banking industry… Which do you think would be more detrimental to the economy as a whole, the banks or one small aspect of the American economy. The Car industry bankrupted itself with protectionism and other foolish moves, hell we only only take pride in the car industry because we take pride having one, like a man-child taking pride in having a penis. We feel special for having one, even if we don’t always take care of were we put it. (You should note, I don’t actually support the bailing out of the banks. Nor do I support the Car industry on an existence basis alone. More can be learned from failure than from success.)

Finally, shrinking the deficit, again, you are putting a lot of presumptions behind this simple statement. If the deficit is taken, as I do, as the measurement of investment in the US, the shrinking of it just means that people are afraid to invest in this country, because we are unstable, do to the stupidity of President Obama (and others).

@uglypeoplefucking

idk that i have a single, spell-out-able point to make or lesson to impart, i just want to know how conservatives explain these sequences of events while at the same time sticking to their free-market guns?

Easy. I don’t start with the assumption that we are in a free market. (I heard this the other day and think it perfect right now.) You wouldn’t tie weights to Michael Phelps, throw him in the water and suggest that swimming doesn’t work because he doesn’t swim fast. Similarly, tying all those restrictions on the free market, then bitching about it slowing down is not realistic.

[uglypeoplefucking]

Hey Eric, i was hoping you’d respond - i saw that you posted recently elsewhere and i figured if anyone could answer the question, it would be you.

@Eric_The_Pipe

@uglypeoplefucking

i remember when President Bush the 2nd instituted lots of deregulation and tax cuts (remember the $400 dollar rebate back when we still had the surplus Bill Clinton left us with?) and then, with the help of FOX News, started the Iraq war, ballooned the deficit and pitched us into the Great recession.

So you start with a bias, most likely fulfilling a tautology of opinion rather than fact.

Bias insofar as it is my recollection of events, but not a unique or idiosyncratic bias, rather one rooted in my political persuasion - one shared by a great many other people, including economists. An intersubjective understanding of sequences of events. Narrative. That’s one of the primary ways of doing history. i’m not sure what you mean by a tautology of opinion rather than fact, tho . . .

“Restoring the economy” implies that it would never have, or never has, recovered on its own. Something that is not backed up with proof in your statements, nor proof in reality. Please show me what he did and how it worked, you know so it can be done exactly the same way the next time those bastard Republicans get in.

Alright sure, maybe it recovered on its own, i can buy that, but - according to the doctrines of conservative economists - the fact that Obama DID raise taxes and increase industry oversight probably should have thwarted that recovery, or at least made it less steady and thorough. (i know, i know - “steady” and “thorough” are subjective, biased descriptions of the recovery, but this is how people communicate)

If by “saving the American car industry” you mean bailing them out from their own god damned mistakes, much as Bush did the banks… So can I now declare that Bush saved the American Banking industry… Which do you think would be more detrimental to the economy as a whole, the banks or one small aspect of the American economy. The Car industry bankrupted itself with protectionism and other foolish moves, hell we only only take pride in the car industry because we take pride having one, like a man-child taking pride in having a penis. We feel special for having one, even if we don’t always take care of were we put it. (You should note, I don’t actually support the bailing out of the banks. Nor do I support the Car industry on an existence basis alone. More can be learned from failure than from success.)

Yeah, i agree with the thrust of your point here - but i mention that he saved the American car industry as a demonstration of government interventions that actually benefit industry.

Finally, shrinking the deficit, again, you are putting a lot of presumptions behind this simple statement. If the deficit is taken, as I do, as the measurement of investment in the US, the shrinking of it just means that people are afraid to invest in this country, because we are unstable, do to the stupidity of President Obama (and others).

Ok, so the deficit shrunk because we are unstable - but you can just as easily blame FOX News and Republican congressmen for our instability as you can Obama.

Are you also saying that larger deficits aren’t necessarily bad things?

@uglypeoplefucking

idk that i have a single, spell-out-able point to make or lesson to impart, i just want to know how conservatives explain these sequences of events while at the same time sticking to their free-market guns?

Easy. I don’t start with the assumption that we are in a free market. (I heard this the other day and think it perfect right now.) You wouldn’t tie weights to Michael Phelps, throw him in the water and suggest that swimming doesn’t work because he doesn’t swim fast. Similarly, tying all those restrictions on the free market, then bitching about it slowing down is not realistic.

i don’t think we have a free market either, and i am immensely grateful for that fact. And i am not bitching about the economy slowing down, only pointing out that - at least in recent national history - politically-liberal economic policies correlate with with stronger economies than politically-conservative economic policies. Granted, correlation is not causation, but it is at least reason to suspect causation.

[uglypeoplefucking]

Oh and i wanted to respond to this:

@Eric_The_Pipe

Unemployment as measured by the number of people making clams for unemployment checks. This is like measuring unwanted children by the number of abortions. Or Hunger by… well how they do it (they take the number of people that can, financially apply for food stamps, but don’t, the difference is the number of hungry people…) The actual unemployment rate, particularly if combined with the underemployment rate has risen dramatically because of the actions of Government.

Well, you’re the guy that likes statistics so much, right? In any case, i think there is reason enough to assume that if the number of unemployment claims has gone down by half then the number of people who are actually unemployed has probably dropped considerably as well. Certainly the number of recently laid off workers has gone down.

[Kriswest]

@uglypeoplefucking

@Kriswest

Before you blame the presidential puppets or give them credit , which party was dominant in senate and congress for each?

Well, they were both two term presidents so Congress switched hands back and forth during the tenure of each - but it’s the policies themselves (tax cuts vs tax hikes / regulation vs. deregulation) that i’m thinking about, the party to which each president belonged is circumstantial.

The president has limits on what can be done, Senate and Congress can override the president on anything.

[Mr_Reasonable]

On anything?

[surreptitious57]

Only thing that they cannot override him on is an Executive Order

[Eric_The_Pipe]

@uglypeoplefucking

Hey Eric, i was hoping you’d respond - i saw that you posted recently elsewhere and i figured if anyone could answer the question, it would be you.

LOL, It never hurts to help! I’m on spring break, and was in the neighborhood.

@uglypeoplefucking

@Eric_The_Pipe

@uglypeoplefucking

i remember when President Bush the 2nd instituted lots of deregulation and tax cuts (remember the $400 dollar rebate back when we still had the surplus Bill Clinton left us with?) and then, with the help of FOX News, started the Iraq war, ballooned the deficit and pitched us into the Great recession.

So you start with a bias, most likely fulfilling a tautology of opinion rather than fact.

Bias insofar as it is my recollection of events, but not a unique or idiosyncratic bias, rather one rooted in my political persuasion - one shared by a great many other people, including economists. An intersubjective understanding of sequences of events. Narrative. That’s one of the primary ways of doing history. i’m not sure what you mean by a tautology of opinion rather than fact, tho . . .

That other people agree with you is not a good argument.

Tautology, in this case my brain calls it a recursion. It calls itself for its justification. Many of your arguments start with bias premises, that only lead to the conclusions you want. Its something that I notice more and more among internet arguments. It’s also something that Leftists are very very good at, though I’ll accept without question (particularly as I read Trump supporter’s writings) that the right has the occasion to use it.

You start with regulation being good, so when good things happen it is because of regulation. No evidence supports this, no evidence is provided, etc… Even the phrasing of your questions are based in this idea… Roughly put, you think these things are good, because you think these things are good…

@uglypeoplefucking

“Restoring the economy” implies that it would never have, or never has, recovered on its own. Something that is not backed up with proof in your statements, nor proof in reality. Please show me what he did and how it worked, you know so it can be done exactly the same way the next time those bastard Republicans get in.

Alright sure, maybe it recovered on its own, i can buy that, but - according to the doctrines of conservative economists - the fact that Obama DID raise taxes and increase industry oversight probably should have thwarted that recovery, or at least made it less steady and thorough. (i know, i know - “steady” and “thorough” are subjective, biased descriptions of the recovery, but this is how people communicate)

You nailed it, the thesis I would percent is that it would be doing better if those regulations were not holding it back. The regulations are the cart behind the horse, just because the horse eventually made it someplace does not mean the cart wasn’t holding it back.

@uglypeoplefucking

If by “saving the American car industry” you mean bailing them out from their own god damned mistakes, much as Bush did the banks… So can I now declare that Bush saved the American Banking industry… Which do you think would be more detrimental to the economy as a whole, the banks or one small aspect of the American economy. The Car industry bankrupted itself with protectionism and other foolish moves, hell we only only take pride in the car industry because we take pride having one, like a man-child taking pride in having a penis. We feel special for having one, even if we don’t always take care of were we put it. (You should note, I don’t actually support the bailing out of the banks. Nor do I support the Car industry on an existence basis alone. More can be learned from failure than from success.)

Yeah, i agree with the thrust of your point here - but i mention that he saved the American car industry as a demonstration of government interventions that actually benefit industry.

At what cost to people and other industries? If they were the most efficient at producing cars, they would survive without help from the government, instead they’ve relied for years on protectionism, something that (most) Conservatives, particularly the econ based ones, would tell you only fuck things up… Which is why they needed the bail out, they had used the government as a crutch, resulting in distortion of healing their limbs, and they failed the moment it got a little hard…

@uglypeoplefucking

Finally, shrinking the deficit, again, you are putting a lot of presumptions behind this simple statement. If the deficit is taken, as I do, as the measurement of investment in the US, the shrinking of it just means that people are afraid to invest in this country, because we are unstable, do to the stupidity of President Obama (and others).

Ok, so the deficit shrunk because we are unstable - but you can just as easily blame FOX News and Republican congressmen for our instability as you can Obama.

Sure, why not.

@uglypeoplefucking

Are you also saying that larger deficits aren’t necessarily bad things?

It depends. The size of the deficit matters a lot, as does what the money is being used for… Right now it is not being used to strengthen anything, instead it is being used for political payments. So no, a deficit isn’t necessarily a bad thing… Like a hammer it can be a tool that builds, or you can crush someones skull in…

@uglypeoplefucking

@uglypeoplefucking

idk that i have a single, spell-out-able point to make or lesson to impart, i just want to know how conservatives explain these sequences of events while at the same time sticking to their free-market guns?

Easy. I don’t start with the assumption that we are in a free market. (I heard this the other day and think it perfect right now.) You wouldn’t tie weights to Michael Phelps, throw him in the water and suggest that swimming doesn’t work because he doesn’t swim fast. Similarly, tying all those restrictions on the free market, then bitching about it slowing down is not realistic.

i don’t think we have a free market either, and i am immensely grateful for that fact. And i am not bitching about the economy slowing down, only pointing out that - at least in recent national history - politically-liberal economic policies correlate with with stronger economies than politically-conservative economic policies. Granted, correlation is not causation, but it is at least reason to suspect causation.

I disagree that we are in a strong economy, I see it as limping along. A note I’ll touch on more in the next post.

[Eric_The_Pipe]

@uglypeoplefucking

Oh and i wanted to respond to this:

@Eric_The_Pipe

Unemployment as measured by the number of people making clams for unemployment checks. This is like measuring unwanted children by the number of abortions. Or Hunger by… well how they do it (they take the number of people that can, financially apply for food stamps, but don’t, the difference is the number of hungry people…) The actual unemployment rate, particularly if combined with the underemployment rate has risen dramatically because of the actions of Government.

Well, you’re the guy that likes statistics so much, right? In any case, i think there is reason enough to assume that if the number of unemployment claims has gone down by half then the number of people who are actually unemployed has probably dropped considerably as well. Certainly the number of recently laid off workers has gone down.

I am, and I do, like statistics. Reread what I said, I included Underemployment, which means that although the person has a degree they are working at a job that in no way requires one. It is actually a sign of a stunted economy, because people are not being put to their most efficient use. To be fair, this is also an indicator of the college problem, so many people getting college degree’s in useless things, like underwater basket weaving. But that’s a different subject for a different day.

Yes, the unemployment rate has dropped, but it is not as much as people like to pretend, in part because of how the data is collected. The people that are getting jobs are doing what they have to to get by, rather than something they have worked towards. Because those jobs aren’t there… The economy is hampered by the junk piled on it, and like the swimmer in my example, he’s moving forward, but that doesn’t automatically imply that he’s doing well… (A interesting indicator that we are in a good market however, is a decrease in college participation… Though again it just gets more complicated when you look closely.)

[Kriswest]

@surreptitious57

Only thing that they cannot override him on is an Executive Order

They can and have. I cannot recall the full law but, think about it, without the ability to override an executive order, Congress and Senate would have no power. By executive order any president can abolish congress and senate.

[uglypeoplefucking]

@Eric_The_Pipe

That other people agree with you is not a good argument.

No of course, but my bias is a common one and my implications are made based on examples of things that actually happened.

Tautology, in this case my brain calls it a recursion. It calls itself for its justification. Many of your arguments start with bias premises, that only lead to the conclusions you want.

Not true in this case. My rhetorical flourishes aside, i am pointing to sequences of events, namely: Bush cut taxes, rolled back regulations and oversaw the start of a costly war. Then the Great Recession started and the deficit ballooned. Obama subsequently raised taxes, oversaw the enactment of various regulatory initiatives, and withdrew from said war. At the same time, the economy underwent a steady recovery and the deficit shrunk. i am not arriving at those conclusions because i want to, i am arriving at them because these events follow each other in a way that makes sense. Now, at the same time i acknowledge that just because they make sense does not make them true and THAT is why i am asking for the conservative economist’s argument for why those conclusions are flawed.

Its something that I notice more and more among internet arguments. It’s also something that Leftists are very very good at, though I’ll accept without question (particularly as I read Trump supporter’s writings) that the right has the occasion to use it.

Everyone has occasion to use what you’re talking about. It is silly to think that Leftists generally have any special skill at using it, but i suppose if you can’t prove us wrong on the data you might as well condemn the presentation of the argument.

You start with regulation being good, so when good things happen it is because of regulation. No evidence supports this, no evidence is provided, etc… Even the phrasing of your questions are based in this idea… Roughly put, you think these things are good, because you think these things are good…

i never even said anything was good.

You nailed it, the thesis I would percent is that it would be doing better if those regulations were not holding it back. The regulations are the cart behind the horse, just because the horse eventually made it someplace does not mean the cart wasn’t holding it back.

i already know that’s the thesis you would make. i will point out that it entails the same “X is good because X is good” logic you are criticizing, and go further to point out that free marketers essentially rely on that form of reasoning in justifying their allegiance to the free market ideal, which they themselves will usually claim has never actually been realized, they just have faith that it is an ideal worth pursing. You know, because free markets are good.

[uglypeoplefucking]

At what cost to people and other industries? If they were the most efficient at producing cars, they would survive without help from the government, instead they’ve relied for years on protectionism, something that (most) Conservatives, particularly the econ based ones, would tell you only fuck things up… Which is why they needed the bail out, they had used the government as a crutch, resulting in distortion of healing their limbs, and they failed the moment it got a little hard…

If you say so. That means the American car industry was in crisis because it was less efficient at producing cars than the Germans or the Japanese or whomever. i suppose Japanese and Germans have less protectionist economies then? (i’m asking honestly, because i don’t know)

It depends. The size of the deficit matters a lot, as does what the money is being used for… Right now it is not being used to strengthen anything, instead it is being used for political payments. So no, a deficit isn’t necessarily a bad thing… Like a hammer it can be a tool that builds, or you can crush someones skull in…

Political payments? What does that mean?

@uglypeoplefucking

I disagree that we are in a strong economy, I see it as limping along. A note I’ll touch on more in the next post.

Well, is it stronger than it was prior to economic policy under Obama?

[Eric_The_Pipe]

@uglypeoplefucking

@Eric_The_Pipe

That other people agree with you is not a good argument.

No of course, ;-)] but my bias is a common one and my implications are made based on examples of things that actually happened.

@uglypeoplefucking

Tautology, in this case my brain calls it a recursion. It calls itself for its justification. Many of your arguments start with bias premises, that only lead to the conclusions you want.

Not true in this case. My rhetorical flourishes aside, i am pointing to sequences of events, namely: Bush cut taxes, rolled back regulations and oversaw the start of a costly war.

It is well known that war is costly (devastating to the economy in fact, in this Krugman got it exactly wrong(read Second Thoughts, pg 34-41, “How Military Mobilization Hurts the Economy”)). Any benefits provided by regulation roll back and tax cuts may have been offset by the war. I say may, because at this point all you’ve done is said events, you have provided no evidence for your argument.

@uglypeoplefucking

Then the Great Recession started and the deficit ballooned.

Except that, the Great Recession was an aspect of the Clinton Presidency, specifically the stupid regulations pass over housing. (Housing Boom and Bust, Thomas Sowell)

@uglypeoplefucking

Obama subsequently raised taxes, oversaw the enactment of various regulatory initiatives, and withdrew from said war.

Except that he didn’t really withdraw from the war… He is still there… At least in Afghanistan, though it is in such a minor war he’s just wasting money.

@uglypeoplefucking

At the same time, the economy underwent a steady recovery and the deficit shrunk.

President Obama at the end of the his last budget: $6.657 trillion, Bush at the end of his presidency: $3.294 trillion… While they are damned close, President Obama wasn’t fighting two wars, he did withdraw from one after all…

@uglypeoplefucking

i am not arriving at those conclusions because i want to, i am arriving at them because these events follow each other in a way that makes sense. Now, at the same time i acknowledge that just because they make sense does not make them true and THAT is why i am asking for the conservative economist’s argument for why those conclusions are flawed.

Except that you have not back up your claims, you are demanding that I defend against your undefended argument. Yes, you have listed a line of events, but then you made a claim as to the conclusions. No proof involved. You are asking Conservatives (me, a this point) to defeat your claims with no backing… So I kick over your sand castle, now what?

@uglypeoplefucking

Its something that I notice more and more among internet arguments. It’s also something that Leftists are very very good at, though I’ll accept without question (particularly as I read Trump supporter’s writings) that the right has the occasion to use it.

Everyone has occasion to use what you’re talking about. It is silly to think that Leftists generally have any special skill at using it, but i suppose if you can’t prove us wrong on the data you might as well condemn the presentation of the argument.

Eh, I think there is a bias for this on my part, because I seek out “fights” and I rarely fight against those on the Conservative side…

@uglypeoplefucking

You start with regulation being good, so when good things happen it is because of regulation. No evidence supports this, no evidence is provided, etc… Even the phrasing of your questions are based in this idea… Roughly put, you think these things are good, because you think these things are good…

i never even said anything was good.

lol, true enough.

@uglypeoplefucking

You nailed it, the thesis I would percent is that it would be doing better if those regulations were not holding it back. The regulations are the cart behind the horse, just because the horse eventually made it someplace does not mean the cart wasn’t holding it back.

i already know that’s the thesis you would make. i will point out that it entails the same “X is good because X is good” logic you are criticizing,

I do agree with this, I just feel no need to put up any more of a fight than you have…

@uglypeoplefucking

and go further to point out that free marketers essentially rely on that form of reasoning in justifying their allegiance to the free market ideal, which they themselves will usually claim has never actually been realized, they just have faith that it is an ideal worth pursing. You know, because free markets are good.

They are!!

[Eric_The_Pipe]

@uglypeoplefucking

At what cost to people and other industries? If they were the most efficient at producing cars, they would survive without help from the government, instead they’ve relied for years on protectionism, something that (most) Conservatives, particularly the econ based ones, would tell you only fuck things up… Which is why they needed the bail out, they had used the government as a crutch, resulting in distortion of healing their limbs, and they failed the moment it got a little hard…

If you say so. That means the American car industry was in crisis because it was less efficient at producing cars than the Germans or the Japanese or whomever. i suppose Japanese and Germans have less protectionist economies then? (i’m asking honestly, because i don’t know)

Yes, and no. I’m not 100% sure about Germans (I honestly know little about their economics which is a bad hole…) But Japanese have a lot of protectionism towards imports, but, they export ideas primarily, and they don’t have the resources to waste that we do, resulting in, yes, better made cars on the whole… Though, funny enough, a lot of Japanese made cars are assembled here in the US. The US has put MASSIVE protectionism for many years on their cars.

@uglypeoplefucking

It depends. The size of the deficit matters a lot, as does what the money is being used for… Right now it is not being used to strengthen anything, instead it is being used for political payments. So no, a deficit isn’t necessarily a bad thing… Like a hammer it can be a tool that builds, or you can crush someones skull in…

Political payments? What does that mean?

Payments to supporters, the ones that helped get them elected - “Political payments” Everyone does it, everyone must do it… Read Dictators Handbook it presents this clearer.

@uglypeoplefucking

@uglypeoplefucking

I disagree that we are in a strong economy, I see it as limping along. A note I’ll touch on more in the next post.

Well, is it stronger than it was prior to economic policy under Obama?

Yes and no… Understand, I’m not the biggest George W. Bush fan, and he wasn’t some sort of bastion of Conservative idea’s and practice. He was a Republican (which I am as well), and joining the Republican party does not make you G.K. Chesterton, Edmund Burke, or Thomas Sowell (Who if I remember correctly claims no party status). His line was, “I’m a different kind of Conservative, a compassionate Conservative.” Which is just a horrible thing to say, put it in any other context, I’m a different kind of volunteer, a compassionate volunteer…

Ultimately, many of the things he did were progressive ideals, not Conservative ones… Its why Obama took so many of them and expanded them.

So, is it super stronger, no, was it recovering from many of the policies passed before its time, hell yes, are we worse off now than we were before, Yes.

[uglypeoplefucking]

@Eric_The_Pipe

It is well known that war is costly (devastating to the economy in fact, in this Krugman got it exactly wrong(read Second Thoughts, pg 34-41, “How Military Mobilization Hurts the Economy”)). Any benefits provided by regulation roll back and tax cuts may have been offset by the war. I say may, because at this point all you’ve done is said events, you have provided no evidence for your argument.

But war has, in the past, galvanized the US economy. Krugman vs Howell aside, what if it’s just generally a bad idea to engage in a costly war while returning the government surplus and cutting taxes at the same time? It would, at least on the face of it, seem like a bad idea given that the government has to pay for the war, so giving away its money and cutting its revenue just doesn’t make a lot of intuitive sense. But i’ve gotten used to counter-intuitive theories from free-market economic theorists. Granted, there’s no denying that the truth is sometimes counter-intuitive, but if you are in fact advocating for a counter-intuitive idea then it’s not unreasonable to request that you elaborate on it.

Except that, the Great Recession was an aspect of the Clinton Presidency, specifically the stupid regulations pass over housing. (Housing Boom and Bust, Thomas Sowell)

Yeah, it’s possible it was Clinton’s policies which led to the great recession - it’s possible - but that would mean the fact the great recession happened following an 8 year period of conservative economic (and foreign relations) policy was a pure coincidence . . . i understand why you might WANT to believe that, but i don’t understand how you actually CAN believe it apart from the fact that a particular conservative economist you admire has an esoteric explanation for how it might be the case.

Except that he didn’t really withdraw from the war… He is still there… At least in Afghanistan, though it is in such a minor war he’s just wasting money.

Yup, i agree with you there.

President Obama at the end of the his last budget: $6.657 trillion, Bush at the end of his presidency: $3.294 trillion… While they are damned close, President Obama wasn’t fighting two wars, he did withdraw from one after all…

Sorry, deficit as percentage of GDP.

Again, it’s completely fine and reasonable if you want to claim that something which SEEMS to follow from something else is just a coincidence - but then it would behoove you to explain yourself a bit. No obligation on your part, of course, i’m totally grateful for you responding to me at all, i’m just saying . . .

Except that you have not back up your claims, you are demanding that I defend against your undefended argument. Yes, you have listed a line of events, but then you made a claim as to the conclusions. No proof involved. You are asking Conservatives (me, a this point) to defeat your claims with no backing… So I kick over your sand castle, now what?

i can’t prove that conservative economic policy caused the recession anymore than you can prove it didn’t, but i do have correlation on my side. i also have that fact that conservative economists have no choice but to A) Admit that some of their beliefs are wrong, or B) Blame Bill Clinton, a favorite Republican whipping boy and a liberal, for everything that went wrong during the 8 years of the Bush presidency.

Eh, I think there is a bias for this on my part, because I seek out “fights” and I rarely fight against those on the Conservative side…

Like i said, we all have our biases.

[Eric_The_Pipe]

@uglypeoplefucking

@Eric_The_Pipe

It is well known that war is costly (devastating to the economy in fact, in this Krugman got it exactly wrong(read Second Thoughts, pg 34-41, “How Military Mobilization Hurts the Economy”)). Any benefits provided by regulation roll back and tax cuts may have been offset by the war. I say may, because at this point all you’ve done is said events, you have provided no evidence for your argument.

But war has, in the past, galvanized the US economy. Krugman vs Howell aside, what if it’s just generally a bad idea to engage in a costly war while returning the government surplus and cutting taxes at the same time?

It depends on how much the taxes were before they were cut. If they were so high that they disincentivized wealth creation (or more likely wealth reporting, which is what the panama papers is all about) then lowering them could increase the amount of money coming into the Government. It is one of the things that happened during the Reagan Presidency, and increase in tax revenue, even as there is a decrease in taxes.

@uglypeoplefucking

It would, at least on the face of it, seem like a bad idea given that the government has to pay for the war, so giving away its money and cutting its revenue just doesn’t make a lot of intuitive sense. But i’ve gotten used to counter-intuitive theories from free-market economic theorists. Granted, there’s no denying that the truth is sometimes counter-intuitive, but if you are in fact advocating for a counter-intuitive idea then it’s not unreasonable to request that you elaborate on it.

It is completely intuitive, for me I suppose. I’ll try to explain. If we have zero taxes, the government will bring in no money (for obvious reasons), if we have 100% taxes, the government will also bring in no money (as no one will have a reason to produce anything) so the ideal point, of maximizing wealth to taxes, is somewhere in the middle. This is known as the Laffer curve.

There are arguments for, and against it, but it is completely intuitive… The big problem is that people like to think that government is business, or family finance. In those places, the money that comes in must be “made.” Gained by doing something. Government money, specifically taxes, is “made” by others doing something, if you intact regulations and decrease the amount of wealth created by these action you actually limit the amount of money coming into the government. (Quick Edit: One thing I have found on the differences between economists and everyone else is what is found to be intuitive… Which backs up what you are saying about intuition.)

Interestingly, (on a completely different point) government MUST rely on taxes, if they have their own revenue source it results in no feed back, and the become actual businesses, who’s goals do not align with the people they are governing.

@uglypeoplefucking

Except that, the Great Recession was an aspect of the Clinton Presidency, specifically the stupid regulations pass over housing. (Housing Boom and Bust, Thomas Sowell)

Yeah, it’s possible it was Clinton’s policies which led to the great recession - it’s possible - but that would mean the fact the great recession happened following an 8 year period of conservative economic (and foreign relations) policy was a pure coincidence . . . i understand why you might WANT to believe that, but i don’t understand how you actually CAN believe it apart from the fact that a particular conservative economist you admire has an esoteric explanation for how it might be the case.

Its not esoteric… And I wouldn’t disagree with an argument that stated that Bush helped it along, again, he wasn’t the most free market Republican President we’ve had.

@uglypeoplefucking

Except that he didn’t really withdraw from the war… He is still there… At least in Afghanistan, though it is in such a minor war he’s just wasting money.

Yup, i agree with you there.

WOOOOO! WIN ONE FOR ME!!! (Wait, what did I win? )

@uglypeoplefucking

President Obama at the end of the his last budget: $6.657 trillion, Bush at the end of his presidency: $3.294 trillion… While they are damned close, President Obama wasn’t fighting two wars, he did withdraw from one after all…

Sorry, deficit as percentage of GDP.

And now you have to prove that President Obama’s actions are responsible for the increase in GDP, and not just a natural part of the cycle, while accounting for his massive amount of money printing creating inflation… Go!

@uglypeoplefucking

Again, it’s completely fine and reasonable if you want to claim that something which SEEMS to follow from something else is just a coincidence - but then it would behoove you to explain yourself a bit. No obligation on your part, of course, i’m totally grateful for you responding to me at all, i’m just saying . . .

Correlation is not causation. I’ll accept I have not proved so. That is something I can live with, especially as you have not proved that it is.

@uglypeoplefucking

Except that you have not back up your claims, you are demanding that I defend against your undefended argument. Yes, you have listed a line of events, but then you made a claim as to the conclusions. No proof involved. You are asking Conservatives (me, a this point) to defeat your claims with no backing… So I kick over your sand castle, now what?

i can’t prove that conservative economic policy caused the recession anymore than you can prove it didn’t, but i do have correlation on my side. i also have that fact that conservative economists have no choice but to A) Admit that some of their beliefs are wrong, or B) Blame Bill Clinton, a favorite Republican whipping boy and a liberal, for everything that went wrong during the 8 years of the Bush presidency.

Um, I noted one thing, that had a direct correlation. Not everything that went wrong is his fault, though 9/11…

[Eric_The_Pipe]

So this came up in an article I was reading, I thought it really rather appropriate to this conversation:

[url=http://www.nationalreview.com/article/209217/george-w-bush-preservative?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=G-File04082016&utm_term=GFile]A few quick facts. George W. Bush has:
increased federal spending on education by 60.8 percent;

increased federal spending on labor by 56 percent;

increased federal spending on the interior by 23.4 percent;

increased federal spending on defense by 27.6 percent.

And of course he has:
created a massive department of homeland security;

signed a campaign-finance bill he pretty much said he thought was unconstitutional (thereby violating his oath to uphold, protect, and defend the constitution);

signed the farm bill, which was a non-kosher piñata filled with enough pork to bend space and time;

pushed through a Medicare plan which starts with a price tag of $400 billion but will–according to every expert who studies the issue–go up a gazillion-bajillion dollars over the next decade;

torched Republican–and American–credibility on trade, in both agriculture and steel;

got more people working for the federal government since the end of the Cold War;

not vetoed a single spending–or any other bill, and he has no intention of eliminating a single department;

sold out like a fire sale at Filene’s on Title IX, a subject I know a little about because my wife is the foremost expert in the universe on it;

pushed to send more Americans to Mars while inviting a lot more illegal immigrants to hang out here in America.[/url]

George W. Bush wasn’t exactly a free market promoter…

[uglypeoplefucking]

@Eric_The_Pipe

So this came up in an article I was reading, I thought it really rather appropriate to this conversation:

[url=http://www.nationalreview.com/article/209217/george-w-bush-preservative?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=G-File04082016&utm_term=GFile]A few quick facts. George W. Bush has:
increased federal spending on education by 60.8 percent;

increased federal spending on labor by 56 percent;

increased federal spending on the interior by 23.4 percent;

increased federal spending on defense by 27.6 percent.

And of course he has:
created a massive department of homeland security;

signed a campaign-finance bill he pretty much said he thought was unconstitutional (thereby violating his oath to uphold, protect, and defend the constitution);

signed the farm bill, which was a non-kosher piñata filled with enough pork to bend space and time;

pushed through a Medicare plan which starts with a price tag of $400 billion but will–according to every expert who studies the issue–go up a gazillion-bajillion dollars over the next decade;

torched Republican–and American–credibility on trade, in both agriculture and steel;

got more people working for the federal government since the end of the Cold War;

not vetoed a single spending–or any other bill, and he has no intention of eliminating a single department;

sold out like a fire sale at Filene’s on Title IX, a subject I know a little about because my wife is the foremost expert in the universe on it;

pushed to send more Americans to Mars while inviting a lot more illegal immigrants to hang out here in America.[/url]

George W. Bush wasn’t exactly a free market promoter…

Well, yeah. The Republican party has never been the party of free markets, they just steal the votes of free marketers with their rhetoric . . . and tax cuts. Who doesn’t love having their taxes cut? It’s the same way Democrats support affirmative action to keep their hold on the black vote. Who doesn’t want an unearned advantage in getting accepted to the college they most like?