Unemployment Falls

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Yes, as I pointed out, there are opinions and there are facts. You are entitled to opinions of your own, but not to your own facts. Yet you quoted Fast Gunn's "alternate reality" statement, agreed with it, and put in one of those little hand-clapping smileys.

Are you living in a fantasy world, too, WTF?

I do not think so but who knows? I think we all live in our own reality. Some of it is closer to reality than others.


Question: If you think FastGunn is living in a fantasy world, why are you debating him?

Do you think economics is an exact science? Or are their many different views from some very bright folks?

Lastly Reagan did exactly wtf Obama is done , increased the deficit. Spin that however you want....the bottom line is paying down the deficit and neither have done it. But that is politics, you forgive your side and blame the other.

Now I am off to Lake Tahoe for 5 days of sking. You boys have all the worlds troubles solved by then please.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by WTF

Now I am off to Lake Tahoe for 5 days of sking. You boys have all the worlds troubles solved by then please.

i have a thing at the ridge tahoe there... be careful

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by WTF

Lastly Reagan did exactly wtf Obama is done , increased the deficit. Spin that however you want....the bottom line is paying down the deficit and neither have done it. But that is politics, you forgive your side and blame the other.

What's this "my side" stuff? What do you think is "my side?" (Hint: it's not the Republicans.) So: Forgive "my side?" I do no such thing. You're the one who does that, as is obvious to everyone else reading this forum. When did I ever say it was a good thing that deficits increased during the 1980s? I have posted before that Reagan failed in a few fundamental ways, that being one of them, and you damn well know it -- but you just like to pick arguments and deflect attention from previous posts that make you look clueless. And you've been continually obsessed with Reagan, as demonstrated in this and a number of other threads, even though he's been out of office for almost a quarter of a century. But the scale of the debt and deficits then was small compared with today, and there was a reasonably practicable path back to fiscal balance. Now there isn't.

If you want to blame a GOP president who actually did have a lot to do with the fiscal hole we're in, why don't you turn your guns on George W. Bush instead? With you, everything's always about Reagan.

Although deficits of the '80s are simply dwarfed by current deficits, you seem to have no problem with that. Do you think Obama is acting responsibly? (Of course, I realize there's no way you're going to give any kind of straight answer to that question.)

Originally Posted by WTF

Do you think economics is an exact science? Or are their many different views from some very bright folks?

Of course I don't think economics is an exact science. Many university courses are called "political economy" rather than simply "economics." You can see why if you take a look at policy debates today. That's why we get all this stuff like "stimulus packages" that never work very well in the real world. In the minds of people like Mark Zandi, any type of government spending, even for things like transfer payments and food stamps, produces "fiscal multipliers" in the range of 1.75. If that stuff actually worked as claimed, don't you think the economy would be a lot better than it is today?

I have posted before that believing in this stuff is not significantly different from falling for Bastiat's "broken window fallacy."

You should realize that there's a good reason big-spending politicians like Obama get off on surrounding themselves with intervention-loving neo-Keynesian economists. Guys like Zandi, Alan Krueger, and Paul Krugman love to ingratiate themselves to the political elite and offer them arguments undergirding their efforts to do what they like best, which is to buy votes with other people's money.

We are paying a very steep price for that, and will continue doing so for a long time to come.

[Fast Gunn]

When exactly did you go off the deep end, CM?

You used to make sound and convincing arguments, but lately you seem to have become simply argumentative.

This country was in a serious nose dive when Bush finished his term, but thankfully, President Obama has reversed that course.

That to me seems like incontrovertible facts, but yet you keep telling us what a terrible job President Obama has done.

And could you please stop harping about the Simpson -Bowles commission? I've heard that so much I'm about to gag!

Do you think that a responsible President is obligated to follow the advise of every committee that reports to him?

. . . Honestly, trying to change your mind seems to me as doomed a proposition as sitting down with John Wilkes Booth and trying to convince him that President Lincoln was doing a good job for the country!

[TheDaliLama]

You are...

A Moron.

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

What's this "my side" stuff? What do you think is "my side?" (Hint: it's not the Republicans.) So: Forgive "my side?" I do no such thing. You're the one who does that, as is obvious to everyone else reading this forum. When did I ever say it was a good thing that deficits increased during the 1980s? I have posted before that Reagan failed in a few fundamental ways, that being one of them, and you damn well know it -- but you just like to pick arguments and deflect attention from previous posts that make you look clueless. And you've been continually obsessed with Reagan, as demonstrated in this and a number of other threads, even though he's been out of office for almost a quarter of a century. .....................

Didn’t you know? All roads to hell begin and end with Regan. Obama, on the other hand, is the all-knowing Oz that is at the other end of The Yellow Brick Road. Remember how that fairy tale one turned out!

[Fast Gunn]

. . . Oh, if you only had a brain!


Clarification: This post is not directed at the post immediately above, but one before.

. . . However, if the shoe fits, then please wear it!

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

. . . Oh, if you only had a brain!


Clarification: This post is not directed at the post immediately above, but one before.

. . . However, if the shoe fits, then please wear it!

Ohhhh, I don't think my shoe collection would look good on a scarecrow lol. He could try a pair of kitten heals, but still...............I don't think he could carry it off.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

. . . Oh, if you only had a brain!


Clarification: This post is not directed at the post immediately above, but one before.

. . . However, if the shoe fits, then please wear it!

But if you remember correctly, the Scarecrow already had a brain. And the small man behind the curtain – allegorically the president – remained a huckster and a charlatan. In this instance, your allusion is apropos!

[Whirlaway]

Ray Bolger could hoof-it effortlessly in your kitten heels.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnaVsYO0WAI

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

When exactly did you go off the deep end, CM?

You used to make sound and convincing arguments, but lately you seem to have become simply argumentative.

This country was in a serious nose dive when Bush finished his term, but thankfully, President Obama has reversed that course.

That to me seems like incontrovertible facts, but yet you keep telling us what a terrible job President Obama has done.

And could you please stop harping about the Simpson -Bowles commission? I've heard that so much I'm about to gag!

Do you think that a responsible President is obligated to follow the advise of every committee that reports to him?

. . . Honestly, trying to change your mind seems to me as doomed a proposition as sitting down with John Wilkes Booth and trying to convince him that President Lincoln was doing a good job for the country!

Off the deep end? Isn't that a little rich coming from someone who stated earlier in this thread that Obama is the "best president in generations?"

First you accused me of "emotion-laden" posts when I simply suggested that you remove the partisan blinders and take a cold, hard look at reality. I offered a dose of that in post #59. If you want to have a meaningful debate on this topic, how about telling us what I wrote that you disagree with? Please be specific. If you can't make a reasoned case that everything I stated in that post is either wrong or irrelevant, then I think you're going to have a pretty hard time making the case that Obama is even a reasonably responsible president, let alone a good one.

And now I've "gone off the deep end??"

With regards to whether or not I have become "argumentative", you might note that it's difficult not to seem so while discussing something with WTF, perhaps the forum's leading argumentarian. Debating him is like playing a whack-a-mole game. Any time you refute something he says, he starts dodging and weaving in an apparent attempt to prove that he was right about something. I should probably kick myself for even wasting a few minutes doing it. But it does get pretty funny sometimes! (This forum is still fun!)

Now about Simpson-Bowles. Sorry to make you gag again, Fast Gunn, but if not that, what course do you recommend that we choose? I have written that it's far from perfect, but at least offers a starting point for debate on how to put us on a non-suicidal glidepath. But your hero simply extended his middle finger at it. It would involve tough decisions. But there are votes to be bought and elections to be won!

And now, once again, these questions:

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Emotions and raw political biases are subjective, but simple arithmetic is not. It cannot be amended or superseded by politicians. Did you not notice the staggering spending increases of the last three years, which of course were stacked atop already obese budgets? It would be quite interesting to see someone try to argue that we are coming even remotely close to getting something resembling our money's worth.

How do you think we should pay for all this spending? What sorts of taxes should be raised, when, and on whom? Do you support a VAT? Or do you think we should simply try to pay for all this largesse with borrowed and printed money forever, and simply hope against hope that nothing goes terribly wrong?

Do you think Obama was correct in completely ignoring the findings of the Simpson-Bowles commission? Don't you think he should have at least used it as a starting point to begin discussions of how we might be able to establish a glidepath to fiscal sanity?

With his last couple of posts, Fast Gunn moved blithely on, refusing to even make an attempt to answer those questions. I submit that he needs to give us some clear answers, particularly on the question of taxation, or tacitly admit that the Obama administration is an abject failure.

Go ahead, Fast Gunn. Accept the challenge. Convince us that the president you so idolize is going to chart a responsible, sustainable path for the future, and suggest just how you think he should do it.

Otherwise, everyone will realize that you are indeed living in a fantasy world, and that you are simply not capable of critical thinking.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

This country was in a serious nose dive when Bush finished his term, but thankfully, President Obama has reversed that course.

And the funniest part is,

He really believes this shit!!!!!

[CuteOldGuy]

And remember everyone, Obama can run up the deficit and national debt as much as he wants, regardless of the consequences, because Reagan did. No one needs to show any fiscal restraint, because Reagan didn't, and Bush 43 didn't. So when the economic collapse occurs, even though President Obama could have prevented it by adopting sane fiscal policy, he is not obligated to because Republicans haven't.

No one needs to fix this mess, because others have promised, and they turned out to be liars. So President Obama is allowed to lie, too.

See, it makes sense, and when we are all in the soup lines, we can comfort ourselves with that fact.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

And remember everyone, Obama can run up the deficit and national debt as much as he wants, regardless of the consequences, because Reagan did. No one needs to show any fiscal restraint, because Reagan didn't, and Bush 43 didn't. So when the economic collapse occurs, even though President Obama could have prevented it by adopting sane fiscal policy, he is not obligated to because Republicans haven't.

Yep, the hypocrisy can get pretty deep when one is a blind partisan who always thinks that only one party is ever irresponsible.

In the investment world, we often enjoy making fun of the astonishingly clueless and hypocritical Paul Krugman. Nine years ago, he mused about the tendency of irresponsible governments to "print money", both to pay current bills and eventually to inflate away debt. At the time, he worried about 10-year deficit projections that in his opinion were in the neighborhood of $3 trillion.

But now that that they are several times that high, he has no problem with endless deficit spending and money-printing. In fact, he has been calling for much more of it, claiming that we need it to stimulate the economy more by stacking up even more deficit spending! (Even though at no time in history have such efforts ever turned out well.)

While Krugman blasted Bush for large tax cuts (which went primarily to lower-income groups, not the wealthy, contrary to popular belief), he says nary a word in opposition to Obama's decision to leave them in place while adding large payroll tax cuts, which are likely to be politically very difficult to restore. For some of these clowns, perspective always depends on which party is in power.

You just can't make this stuff up!

Here's the article from 2003:

A Fiscal Train Wreck

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 11, 2003
With war looming, it's time to be prepared. So last week I switched to a fixed-rate mortgage. It means higher monthly payments, but I'm terrified about what will happen to interest rates once financial markets wake up to the implications of skyrocketing budget deficits.

From a fiscal point of view the impending war is a lose-lose proposition. If it goes badly, the resulting mess will be a disaster for the budget. If it goes well, administration officials have made it clear that they will use any bump in the polls to ram through more big tax cuts, which will also be a disaster for the budget. Either way, the tide of red ink will keep on rising.
Last week the Congressional Budget Office marked down its estimates yet again. Just two years ago, you may remember, the C.B.O. was projecting a 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. Now it projects a 10-year deficit of $1.8 trillion.

And that's way too optimistic. The Congressional Budget Office operates under ground rules that force it to wear rose-colored lenses. If you take into account -- as the C.B.O. cannot -- the effects of likely changes in the alternative minimum tax, include realistic estimates of future spending and allow for the cost of war and reconstruction, it's clear that the 10-year deficit will be at least $3 trillion.



So what? Two years ago the administration promised to run large surpluses. A year ago it said the deficit was only temporary. Now it says deficits don't matter. But we're looking at a fiscal crisis that will drive interest rates sky-high.

A leading economist recently summed up one reason why: ''When the government reduces saving by running a budget deficit, the interest rate rises.'' Yes, that's from a textbook by the chief administration economist, Gregory Mankiw.

But what's really scary -- what makes a fixed-rate mortgage seem like such a good idea -- is the looming threat to the federal government's solvency.

That may sound alarmist: right now the deficit, while huge in absolute terms, is only 2 -- make that 3, O.K., maybe 4 -- percent of G.D.P. But that misses the point. ''Think of the federal government as a gigantic insurance company (with a sideline business in national defense and homeland security), which does its accounting on a cash basis, only counting premiums and payouts as they go in and out the door. An insurance company with cash accounting . . . is an accident waiting to happen.'' So says the Treasury under secretary Peter Fisher; his point is that because of the future liabilities of Social Security and Medicare, the true budget picture is much worse than the conventional deficit numbers suggest.

Of course, Mr. Fisher isn't allowed to draw the obvious implication: that his boss's push for big permanent tax cuts is completely crazy. But the conclusion is inescapable. Without the Bush tax cuts, it would have been difficult to cope with the fiscal implications of an aging population. With those tax cuts, the task is simply impossible. The accident -- the fiscal train wreck -- is already under way.

How will the train wreck play itself out? Maybe a future administration will use butterfly ballots to disenfranchise retirees, making it possible to slash Social Security and Medicare. Or maybe a repentant Rush Limbaugh will lead the drive to raise taxes on the rich. But my prediction is that politicians will eventually be tempted to resolve the crisis the way irresponsible governments usually do: by printing money, both to pay current bills and to inflate away debt.

And as that temptation becomes obvious, interest rates will soar. It won't happen right away. With the economy stalling and the stock market plunging, short-term rates are probably headed down, not up, in the next few months, and mortgage rates may not have hit bottom yet. But unless we slide into Japanese-style deflation, there are much higher interest rates in our future.

I think that the main thing keeping long-term interest rates low right now is cognitive dissonance. Even though the business community is starting to get scared -- the ultra-establishment Committee for Economic Development now warns that ''a fiscal crisis threatens our future standard of living'' -- investors still can't believe that the leaders of the United States are acting like the rulers of a banana republic. But I've done the math, and reached my own conclusions -- and I've locked in my rate.

E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com

[Whirlaway]

COG: You are guilty of the same reasoning. You are constantly telling us that Romney is no different from Obama who is no different from Bush who was no different from ....

You are telling us that the previous guy did it so Romney will too. You rely on the same arguements that you destain.