What Warren said....Follow

The point gbaji is making is that any spending by the GOP is good, but any spending done by the Dems is bad. Even though the GOP is supposed to be all about less spending and smaller government, etc.

No. My point is that any spending increase that is modest will allow for a speedy economic recovery while spending that is too high will *not* allow for a speedy economic recovery. Which party does which doesn't make any difference. The facts though, show that when the GOP is in charge of congress, spending during a recession-causing crisis tends to be lower than when the Dems are in control of congress.


And, of course, when the Dems control both congress and the white house, we get the utter disaster we're in right now.

You're not comparing Bush & Obama's stimulus spending because you're a partisan hack.

Anyhoo, since the most recent recession is said to be the worst since the great depression, what got us out of the great Depression? The New Deal. What happened when the Conservative Coalition rolled back some of those policies? It HURT the recovery.

Just like NOT raising taxes (Which was done on businesses back during the New Deal) on the debt ceiling deal is currently hurting the economy!!!

I'm comparing Bush's spending in 2001 to Obama's spending in 2009 because that's relevant to the question at hand (why did we recover from the first recession, but not the second). What you are insisting I compare *isn't* relevant.

Can you agree that Obama choose to spend money on stimulus *after* TARP was passed? Can you agree that he fully knew how much TARP cost at the time? So the responsibility for him spending more money is wholly his, right? And if the problem we're having is that we spent too much money, then no amount of pointing at TARP excuses Obama from taking the brunt of that blame. I guess I'm just not sure what you're trying to argue here. You're making no sense.



Nope. That's what liberals have taught you though. So great job showing your indoctrination. There is zero evidence that the New Deal did anything to hasten the end of the Great Depression. There are many economists (conservatives of course) who argue that the New Deal actually made the Great Depression worse and lengthened it by the better part of a decade.

It wasn't until FDR and the Democrats actually got sufficient push back from Conservatives (in both parties) in the late 30s that things started to turn around.



Which is interesting given that the actual recovery from a Depression state occurred after said Coalition formed. While there were on paper gains through the 30s, the economy was running on debt (much like the Dems are trying to do now). An economy which is dependent on constant government intervention is *not* a healthy sustainable economy. Only when the private sectors of the economy are able to provide sufficient jobs and wealth to create economic growth will you really get out of the woods.

And that didn't happen until after the Dems influence on such things began to wane.




Yeah. Parroting a talking point doesn't make it true. I'll point out again that actual tax rates really do have very little to do with the resulting revenue. Raising the top rate from 25% to 90% during the Great Depression didn't have any real effect on federal revenues at all. But some people (like myself) argue that what it did do was discourage economic activity which might put some wealthy person into that rate. So the government kept borrowing money to make it look like things were getting better, all while really making things worse.


Same things going on here. The Dems are spending tons of borrowed money on things which aren't helping the economy. On paper, they can talk about jobs "saved or created", but it's BS. An economy isn't really recovered until it's able to stand on its own without needing the government to prop it up. I'd explain why, but it should be obvious. It's the private market which pays the taxes. So as long as the portion of our economic figures which is generated by government spending grows relative to the portion of those figures which is generated by the private market, what you're really doing is increasing the costs, while decreasing that which pays for it. That's simply not sustainable.

No. I'm not suggesting there wasn't a colossal amount of waste involved with either TARP nor Obama's stimulus, but TARP really only helped the people who fucked over economy in the first place & helped the rest of us, who were REALLY effected, not get fucked over more. Granted, some of TARPs has been paid back- but it's the least the bastards could do for Dubya saving their asses.

Dubya chose to save the banks, lenders, & insurers while Obama's saved the unemployed, saved some states from going bankrupt, kept up some infrastructure, & gave some tax breaks. One helped wallstreet, one helped everyone else: And they cost roughly the same.

Both were wasteful, both were necessary, both increased the deficit almost the same amount- though some of TARP's has been paid back. However, TARP created virtually no jobs while Obama's created some that, granted, can only be sustained while there's still stimulus money to spend.

Both have their pluses & minuses, both were wasteful, both are necessary to recover from the current recession.

The New Deal was also necessary to recover from the Great Depression. It got us to WWII when fat Gov. contracts got the economy going again. Pretending it wasn't is silly, even for you Gbaji.



I'll grant you, people will certainly try & figure out ways around paying their true amount of taxes: A Capitalist isn't going to purposefully try NOT to make more money. What're you, a god damn socialist?



I agree. If it's not recovering by the time the stimulus money starts running out it's going to get worse before it gets better, again.

Our economy is in trouble, but it HAD started to recover. This credit downgrade @#%^ed over the world economy, but hopefully, it's just a hiccup. If the debt deal had included the return to the tax rates on the "rich" that Warren talked about; there's a chance the USA wouldn't have been downgraded & this "hiccup" wouldn't have happened.

While I'm sure @#%^ing over the economy again wasn't the intent of the perpetually campaigning morons whom got the debt ceiling passed, that's what they did. Some, like "let's default!" Bachman, were stupider than others. They very easily could have compromised, but chose not too.

By any way you look at it: raising taxes while cutting spending would have been a better fix to the debt ceiling deal.

This is a fact.

It may also have had the benefit of not causing the S&P downgrade that lead to the recent economic recovery "hiccup".

That is speculation.

But maybe, just maybe, the recent investigation into S&P's mortgage ratings will lead to a conviction, which would be the first one, of someone directly related to causing the current recession in the first place.

That is probably fantasy.



Edited, Aug 25th 2011 12:17pm by Omegavegeta

Had to head to a meeting, so I split my replies:



That's not true at all. And you're also continuing to assume that simply raising tax rates will significantly increase revenue. That's incredibly short sighted. In an economy where business is already not putting enough money into job creation, the negatives of raising taxes far outweigh any positives. We would at best trade one problem for yet another, and in all likelihood not do much about the first problem either.



Lol! There's lots of harmful things politicians can do. I like that some of them occasionally choose not to though.



No. That's an opinion. One I and a whole hell of a lot of people disagree with.



They both are. YOu're also being short sighted. It might have prevented the immediate downgrade, but would have caused worse problems down the line.

That's my opinion. Let's also not forget that we wouldn't be in a position to be downgraded in the first place, if the Dems hadn't spent more money than we could afford. Isn't it absurd to absolve those who spent more than we could afford and instead blame those who refuse to raise taxes to pay for it? I think so.

But that's also just an opinion.



Get back to me when we jail Barney Frank.

If we're talking about jailing people at ratings agencies like S&P for telling people that mortgage backed securities were safe when they really weren't, why not talk about jailing Frank who told people that there was no reason to investigate the issue to see if ratings agencies like S&P were really telling us the truth.



So you blame the people who didn't act because they were threatened if they did, and *not* the guy who threatened them? That seems... odd. So if someone walked into a bank with a note saying that he had a bomb and would blow up the bank if the tellers didn't give him the money, you'd blame the tellers and not the guy threatening them?

of course there was. Are you seriously trying to argue that the Democrats never follow through on such rhetoric when a GOP majority does something they don't like? They never have their activist/union supporters descend somewhere and start protesting and marching? They never have their buddies in the media cover this 24/7, complete with biased color commentary? And this never has any impact at all on public opinion and potentially even future election outcomes?

Funny, because I seem to recall this happening all the time. Heck, it's pretty much the primary political methodology the Dems have employed for the last decade. It's why they won in 2006 and 2008. It's why Obama is in the white house right now. You even cheer when they do this Joph, or are you now suddenly developing amnesia with regards to the whole events in WI just a few months ago?


So when the GOP doesn't stand up to the Dem threats, you call them cowards, but when they do apparently they are "unwilling to compromise". Gotta love that!


Don't get me wrong. I do blame the GOP for not standing up to the Dems back then with regard to the rising danger of the sub-prime loans in the system. However, I blame the Dems even more. And it makes one wonder why you support the Dems knowing that they're the ones who have to be stood up to in order to do the right thing and avoid a financial meltdown. And you wonder why so many conservatives are cheering when the GOP is today standing up to the Dems. It's because we've learned that when we don't, the whole country suffers.


Which, really ought to make one wonder about what the hell the Dems are doing.

I'd say that the Tea Party is a conservative version of what the Dems have been doing for decades, but sure. The difference being that as a conservative I largely applaud the actions of those who do involve themselves in those rallies and protests and otherwise work to raise awareness of conservative issues.


What Joph is doing is taking the somewhat bizarre approach of not defending (much less applauding) what the Dems did, or what their activists pushed for on their behalf, but rather blaming the GOP for failing to stand up to them and prevent a financial disaster. You'll notice he didn't say that what Frank did was right, nor that it was even acceptable. He simply blamed the GOP for not ignoring him and doing the right thing anyway.


That's kind of a hell of a way to show support for your party. I mean, it shows that you know that what your guys did was wrong, and you can't think of any way to defend what they did, but you're still going to find some reason to blame the other side anyway. Which, again, begs one to wonder why the hell you're supporting these guys in the first place?

I condemn the position. I absolutely support the right of people to protest and rally. I do often wonder why they do this for things which I think are 100% wrong, but they absolutely have the right to do so.




If I believe that the position taken is the right one, I will defend it. If I believe it's the wrong one, I will condemn it. And in both cases, I will present my reasons for supporting or opposing the position taken. Isn't that the correct way to do this? I just think it's bizarre when you aren't willing to defend your own sides position but instead attack the other side for failing to stand up to them.





But in this case, the GOP was in the right and the Dems were in the wrong. What Joph is doing by his approach is essentially admitting that his party was in the wrong. If he thought Frank was right to challenge the GOP when they were trying to investigate sub-prime loans, he could do that. But he didn't. Instead he is blaming the GOP for backing down.


Arguing that your guy was right is perfectly reasonable and normal. Choosing to attack the other guy for failing to stand up to your guy is downright insane. It shows that you know your guy was wrong, but you're choosing to defend him (by attacking the other guy) anyway. Which is a pretty extreme example of partisanship IMO.

Edited, Aug 25th 2011 3:44pm by gbaji

You can always accuse someone you don't agree with of doing this. It's kinda meaningless.




And what about not arguing that your guy is right but instead arguing that the other guy was wrong for failing to stand up to your guy and prevent a disaster? I mean, that really takes the crazy-partisan cake right there, doesn't it?

Edited, Aug 25th 2011 4:45pm by gbaji

I'm blaming the GOP because, and hold on because this will be crazy, they were in control of the government at the time this supposedly Barney Frank juggernaut was destroying America.

And Gbaji's defense for this is "Oh, no! What if they got called names?! That is just like a BOMB!"

That's f-ing retarded no matter how you try and spin it. If Frank was truly the issue here, it was a pure abdication of power and compete ineptness that the controlling party sat by with their thumbs up each other's asses ands let it happen. And for the most pathetic reason imaginable... One most of us learned to get over in the 5th grade.

But if that's what he wants to defend because he's that hard up to play the "blame the Democrats" game, who am I to stop him?

Edited, Aug 25th 2011 7:13pm by Jophiel

I don't follow it, just sounds like Frank was an idiot and the Republicans are sheep.

They were proposing to open an investigation and open the books at Freddie and Fanny to see if anything was going on Joph. As you well know, at that time everything we (and they) were being told was that these securities were perfectly safe and there was nothing to be alarmed about. They just felt like something was wrong because the whole thing looked like too much easy money (and they were right).

It's politics Joph. You pick your battles, even when you are the majority party. Doubly so when you're the majority party and you're already taking a beating in the public's perception of your brand. They decided that expanding an investigation which might not turn anything up wasn't worth the political cost. It's unfortunate, but that's the nature of politics.

Again though, I'm going to put a hell of a lot more blame on the guy who choose that particular issue to use the racist/poor-hater card on, than the guys who choose to drop that issue as a result. Preventing an investigation into those GSEs was really that important to the Dems that he'd do that? Think about that.

Oh. And for the record, Joph's last post was the opposite of an admission that Frank did something wrong. Just in case anyone is keeping score or anything.

I'm sorry, what was that about projections, bubula?

Didn't say that, though in your defense that's probably what you read. Note, I don't blame you. You have a fanatical problem. No, I said that if they didn't pursue the issue, knowing full well that it was bad, then they're due blame as well. I guess it's your policy to shirk responsibility.

You said I was "quick to divert blame to the other party". Which isn't really a correct evaluation of what I said either.

I said that while I do blame the GOP for backing off on the investigation, I place greater blame for the result on Frank. He's the one who created the conflict over that investigation in the first place.

Do you disagree with what I actually said? Yes or no? And if no, then why the hell are you arguing with me?




Sigh. Stop playing semantic games. I've already acknowledged that they are due "some blame". The follow up statement, the one you made a big freaking deal about was that more blame is due Barney Frank. It's interesting that even though I pointed this out directly to you, you've actually tapped danced around that issue.


Do you agree that Frank is more to blame than the GOP? Yes or no?

I didn't know it was a solo game. Sorry for encroaching on your territory.You're trying to divert attention from the issue of your overall fanaticism. We're not talking about a specific instance. We're talking your behavior patterns, encompassing any topic with a decided political environment. Well, maybe not "we" so much as "I." You're doing everything you can to distract from it.

Why? Like you often say, it's irrelevant to our conversation.

No, I was using it as an example of your pattern of behavior. The issue itself was irrelevant, your reaction to it is. But, being the better man, I'll make you a deal. You give me incentive to answer your irrelevant question, and I'll answer it. Or, we can spend the rest of the time of you trying to show me as someone dancing around your "oh so important" political issue when our conversation was actually about your neurological behavior, and me collecting more and more proof of your zealotry and denial. My post count goes up either way.

gbaji, it's not a conservative/liberal thing right now. It's a "you're a fanatic" thing. I've said it before and I'll say it again - you need medication or something. Sometimes you're truly scary.

I'be come up with a theory that all West Coasters, living with the knowledge of the impending Big One, are nihilists which completely deranges their thought processes. They believe in nothing.

Ok. How about: You were the made a big deal out of it. I said that Frank bears more blame than the GOP. You quoted that statement and seemed to argue that by making that claim I somehow nullified my earlier statement that I do place some blame on the GOP for not pushing forward with the investigation.

Let me also remind you that you were the one who said you would respect me if I was willing to place some blame on the GOP. So I did exactly what you said you would respect, but then instead of respecting it, you shifted to talking about my statement about Frank bearing more of the blame.

I think it's more than fair that I ask if you think I'm wrong about this, and why. Because if you disagree, then your shift to that part of my post has some validity to it. If you don't, then it was just you trying to weasel out of your own claim about what you would or would not respect. I would think you'd want to show that you aren't a weasel who makes claims and promises and then doesn't keep them, so I'm honestly surprised that you'd even need encouragement to do this.

Good enough?

Um... Except that Ryan's district didn't get the money they applied for. Did you read the article?

It's also more than a bit unfair to argue that because members of the GOP opposed spending the money in the first place, that they should not allow any of that spending to occur in their states or districts once the decision has already been made. They do also have an obligation to their constituents. Those constituents will have to pay an equal share of the cost of those things, right? There's nothing wrong with opposing doing something entirely, but then also saying that if we're going to do it, I may as well get something out of it so my own constituents don't get screwed.

Imagine there's a group of friends going out to the movies. Some of them want to see the movie on the most expensive Imax/3d screen, but a couple guys think it's too expensive and isn't worth it. They get overruled and so everyone ponies up for the more expensive tickets. Your argument is like saying that having been overruled, and having paid for the more expensive tickets, they should be chastised for wearing the 3d glasses while watching the movie.




Correct.



I have never claimed that he didn't. My argument has always been about the rate of spending increase, not that there was one. Some spending increase can be handled by the economy. Too much spending increase cannot. Bush did the former, Obama did the later. That's why we recovered after the recession in the early 2000s, but have not recovered as well from this most recent recession.




In 1/4th the time. Which means that he's increased spending at double the rate. Math is hard, I know!

You're also making the mistake of looking at the time line in terms of presidential terms and not gaps between/through recessions. The recession started in 2008. We should look at spending increases in response to that recession and not as some general trend. Look at the pattern of spending through the first shaded area. Now look at the spending pattern in the second. Notice anything? There is nearly no change to the overall spending pattern as we went through the first recession on that chart.


I's very different in the second though, right? That's what I'm trying to get people to see. Funny thing is that you dug up a chart that shows exactly what I'm talking about but you didn't see it.



That's the wrong question: Who increased spending at a greater rate? Answer: Obama.



I suppose it "could" be argued that Bush was more responsible, but it would be an incredibly weak argument consisting of imaginary things like unicorns and pixies.



Yes. They both increased spending. So did Clinton, and Bush 41, and Reagain, and Carter, and Ford, and Nixon, and Johnson, and Kennedy, and Eisenhower... Every president has spent more dollars than the president before him. It's completely meaningless to simply point that out and leave it as that. What matters is the rate of spending increase. And Obama's is massively greater that Bush's. Doubly so when we look specifically at "spending in a recession".



They decreased revenue from that 60 year relative high in 2000, yes. But that's also somewhat meaningless. Did they reduce revenue to dangerously low levels? Absolutely not. As I have repeatedly pointed out, revenue just prior to the start of this recession was at 18.5% of GDP. In the last 40 years, there have only been 9 years in which revenue was higher than that.

So historically, revenue was not low as a result of the Bush tax cuts. So if you are attempting to claim that the revenue part of the deficit is because of the Bush tax cuts, you are absolutely provably wrong.



Correct. Revenues drop when a bubble bursts (or some other dramatic shift occurs). This is usually what causes recessions. Let me remind you of a fact that I've already pointed out earlier in this thread: Between 2001 and 2003 revenues dropped by 3.3% of GDP. Between 2007 and 2009 revenues dropped by 3.6% of GDP. The point here being that the relative revenue loss in this recession was similar to that in the previous one. So if you're going to try to blame the current debt crisis on that, you're going to have to look elsewhere.



How do you conclude this? Let me point out that in 2007, the deficit was only $160B dollars. That deficit had been falling for 3 years straight. To say that Obama "inherited a deficit" is a gross misstatement. The deficits which occurred as a result of the housing bubble had nothing to do with the tax rates. It was purely because of losses as a result of the recession (and actions taken during it as well).

Also, as I have pointed out repeatedly in this thread, the revenue losses in this recession, while high historically were similar to those in 2001-2003. Yet, the job market recovered quickly from that one, and hasn't from this one. What is the difference? Spending. The rate of spending is why we aren't recovering. The data is right there in front of you, but you refuse to see it.



You're the one who is conveniently ignoring important facts and coming to conclusions which are completely false. I suppose I turn this forum into a den of lies, but that's because so many people find that in order to argue against the facts I present they have to lie. Maybe you should look to yourself and figure out why you feel you have to do that?

Edited, Aug 26th 2011 2:13pm by gbaji