No lie dept: Ezra Klein, "The Democrats have lost on sequestration"

[fskimospy]

Not a stretch at all. Money simply doesn't mean anything to Spenders, so it can be $30k, $100k, $300k, whatever. When debt doesn't matter, or, a debt that is so "small" now in relation to GDP (the magical GDP that lets Spenders spend with no regard), especially compared to other countries that haven't fully collapsed, we can almost pick any amount we want.

I used to fight the Spenders but they've really won me over in the past few months by their long term logic, it's truly...wonderous. So, I'm on board. All I want to know is when does my stimulus check get here? I'm not talking some pittance like $500, we need to stimulate this economy like a meth addict being locked into the police evidence room. I know they're probably busy overpaying the IRS to give the Fed gov the money they believe they should be paying, so they aren't hypocrites when they advocate for it, but I wish they'd hurry up and get done so they can get those checks a flowin. It sucks living within my means, I want to be a Spender! :wub:

Chuck

I genuinely don't understand your motivation here. What you've cooked up in your mind is an absurd straw man that generally represents Modern Monetary Theory, but that's something that I have never seen someone advocate on here. No one has argued that debt loads have no limits, that unlimited stimulus would be effective, or anything else like that. What's even stranger is that I am well aware that you know all this. My guess would be that your primary goal here is to fight with people who aren't part of your political sports team.

It seems like your reaction to empirical evidence showing your economic ideas are bad is just to double down on them and attempt to distort your opponents' position. Continuing to follow foolish conservative economic ideas has real life consequences for people. Wouldn't you rather be wrong and prosperous?

 

[chucky2]

What are you talking about? You yourself have said on here that it's all about debt/GDP correct? That the level could get up to 200% and you've seen no problems?

Why all the hate for me jumping onboard with your "logic"? Just think how awesome our economy would be if we mailed every taxpayer a $300k stimulus check? Would our debt go up? Absolutely! But look at how F'ing awesome our GDP would be! My god, we could stimulate our asses off each year even, our debt/GDP numbers would be high, but our economy would be roaring.

Like I said, I truly am onboard with what you and the rest of the Spenders have been advocating for. Rather than just use the money we don't have to payback Union votes though and repave roads in a shitty fashion, I instead am wanting the "free" money love spread to Everyone. What could be more stimulating than that??

I would have thought you'd be happy...

 

[fskimospy]

What are you talking about? You yourself have said on here that it's all about debt/GDP correct? That the level could get up to 200% and you've seen no problems?

Yes, it's all about debt/GDP; that's econ 101. I have no idea why that's relevant to what I wrote.

Why all the hate for me jumping onboard with your "logic"? Just think how awesome our economy would be if we mailed every taxpayer a $300k stimulus check? Would our debt go up? Absolutely! But look at how F'ing awesome our GDP would be! My god, we could stimulate our asses off each year even, our debt/GDP numbers would be high, but our economy would be roaring.

I wish you would jump on board with my logic. Unfortunately it seems like you've found out that you can't actually argue against people's real positions because you keep losing.

Like I said, I truly am onboard with what you and the rest of the Spenders have been advocating for. Rather than just use the money we don't have to payback Union votes though and repave roads in a shitty fashion, I instead am wanting the the "free" money love spread to Everyone. What could be more stimulating than that??

I would have thought you'd be happy...

Why would we just cut everyone a check? That would be a really inefficient and wasteful way of conducting a stimulus effort, not to mention that you want broader, sustained spending to chance perceptions about long term aggregate demand as opposed to a one time event. Not that you were actually genuinely interested in an answer, I'm sure as you seem to enjoy raging and foaming more than anything else.

If you want to discuss this based on real positions and actual arguments I'm very open to doing so. In fact I've tried on numerous occasions in the past, and I'm sure if you utilize the search function you could find my positions to you quite clearly laid out. If you are just going to continue to rage against straw men because you're afraid of having your ideas challenged, well... what's the point?

 

[Incorruptible]

What austerity? I'm not aware of any austerity whatsoever, unless you consider increasing spending by less than you wanted "austerity".

Back on topic, I don't think anyone was outmaneuvered or outplayed, the truth is that the whole sequester was a non-event and the public doesn't care. I think the dems overplayed that card with the white house tours and all that, but ultimately the public simply didn't care because the amounts we're talking about are inconsequential compared to the budget as a whole.

More people must understand this. The US hasn't been under austerity or Europe either. Both are addicted to spending.

 

[chucky2]

Yes, it's all about debt/GDP; that's econ 101. I have no idea why that's relevant to what I wrote.

I'd think cutting checks with money we don't have would be relevent to debt and hence debt/GDP, which is why I mentioned it. I guess not...

I wish you would jump on board with my logic. Unfortunately it seems like you've found out that you can't actually argue against people's real positions because you keep losing.

Your real position is Spender, and, I am fully onboard with that. If your real position isn't blow shittons of money we don't have, in perpetuity, then please state it here because the way you rabidly argue against austerity like you get paid to do so and/or your job depends on it makes the gist of what you advocate what I just typed above.

Why would we just cut everyone a check?

Why? Well, all that money will be insta-spent of course...insta as fast as product is available to be consumed that is. If the demand is there for...well, everything...would not the demand for employees to fulfill that demand be there? Would not the unemployment rate drop? Would not manufacturing and transportation be up? This seems like the perfect way to stimulate every sector of the economy without political bias, and I know being a Lefty, you don't want there to be bias in the Spender payout, right?

That would be a really inefficient and wasteful way of conducting a stimulus effort, not to mention that you want broader, sustained spending to chance perceptions about long term aggregate demand as opposed to a one time event.

God, that sounds great! Wait though...lets think about that. If we do what you say, then Politicians are going to decide where that money is spent. If Politicans decide where the money is spent, that defacto means the money will be spent where the Politicians can get the most votes for the next election cycle. That seems like a really bad way to spend the money we don't have. I'm liking my way much better; I'm thinking most Americans would agree with me as well. We don't have cut the stimulus checks all at once either. I mean, we can cut a $50k check now, another lets say right before Thanksgiving, then another maybe again next year at this time. Who wants a $50k bonus of "free" money each half? I do! Lookee there, we've got broad sustained spending spurring long term aggregate demand as opposed to a one time event!

I knew we could compromise! :thumbsup:

Not that you were actually genuinely interested in an answer, I'm sure as you seem to enjoy raging and foaming more than anything else.

Highly ironic given I've said I'm fully onboard with your Spender ideology (ssshh...don't tell 234, he thinks ideology is the enemy!), and you are all emo rage on austerity (well, austerity that's not really full austerity, and, that's short term and not long term, but hey, it's close right?)...

If you want to discuss this based on real positions and actual arguments I'm very open to doing so. In fact I've tried on numerous occasions in the past, and I'm sure if you utilize the search function you could find my positions to you quite clearly laid out. If you are just going to continue to rage against straw men because you're afraid of having your ideas challenged, well... what's the point?

But I am. I'm fully in your Spender camp. I honestly want there to be multiple payouts using money we don't have (just like what you want) to the entire US taxpayers to stimulate the economy. That's an even better real position than what you've advocated above. You want it to be to pet constituencies whereas I'm advocating it be distributed the most fairly and effectively.

It seems you yourself are raging against your own strawman and are afraid of having your ideas challenged. You have won me over onto the Spender side, can't you accept that I want the money we don't have spent on Everyone fairly rather than used to buy votes as you advocate? All or nothing with you huh?

Chuck

 

[fskimospy]

Meh, you're just hugging your straw men ever more tightly the more you are challenged on your ideas. I imagine you're probably pretty aware of how badly conservative economics have failed here, but this is an easier way out for you than admitting you were wrong.

Either way, since you aren't actually trying to have a discussion this gets boring pretty fast. When you grow up a little feel free to stop back and we can chat! My door is always open!

 

[chucky2]

I honestly don't know what to say. I've come over to your Spender side, and I'm advocating for blowing money we don't have in the most fair fashion.

In return, you call your own ideology a strawman and are saying you're challenging my ideas and I'm clinging to them when they're your ideas and I'm agreeing with them. Conservative economics isn't even being brought up here by anyone other than you.

Now you want me to admit I'm wrong when I'm saying I agree with your Spender side, and are asking me to grow up for some reason...presumably because you want me to disagree with your Spender ideology that you yourself believe in and I've accepted???

I don't know what to say...your logic here isn't boring, it's entertaining. I'm chatting with you, agreeing with you, and in return you're insulting me and closing your door in my face.

Now what? You don't believe in the Spender ideology, but don't believe in living within ones means...perhaps you could be specific in exactly what you'd like to see done. Maybe it's best to start over because so far you're all over the map.

Chuck

 

[fskimospy]

I honestly don't know what to say. I've come over to your Spender side, and I'm advocating for blowing money we don't have in the most fair fashion.

In return, you call your own ideology a strawman and are saying you're challenging my ideas and I'm clinging to them when they're your ideas and I'm agreeing with them. Conservative economics isn't even being brought up here by anyone other than you.

Now you want me to admit I'm wrong when I'm saying I agree with your Spender side, and are asking me to grow up for some reason...presumably because you want me to disagree with your Spender ideology that you yourself believe in and I've accepted???

I don't know what to say...your logic here isn't boring, it's entertaining. I'm chatting with you, agreeing with you, and in return you're insulting me and closing your door in my face.

Now what? You don't believe in the Spender ideology, but don't believe in living within ones means...perhaps you could be specific in exactly what you'd like to see done. Maybe it's best to start over because so far you're all over the map.

Chuck

No, I call your straw man of Keynesian economics that you childishly claim to have adopted a straw man. It's childish sure, but really your far greater offense is being boring.

While I would like it if you were to grow up some, I would also take you being entertaining. You're doing a bad job at both right now though, so I'm sort of at a loss.

 

[cubby1223]

What austerity? I'm not aware of any austerity whatsoever, unless you consider increasing spending by less than you wanted "austerity".

It is austerity. By definition austerity is reducing deficits, not debt, in poor economic times. The U.S. deficit is being reduced, despite the debt growing, and in my judgment these still are poor economic times.

 

[chucky2]

No, I call your straw man of Keynesian economics that you childishly claim to have adopted a straw man. It's childish sure, but really your far greater offense is being boring.

While I would like it if you were to grow up some, I would also take you being entertaining. You're doing a bad job at both right now though, so I'm sort of at a loss.

What do you mean? It's what Spenders advocate, is it not? Yes or No, Spenders do or do not advocate spending money the country doesn't have? If they do, then I'm simply advocating for following their (well, now, our) ideology and spending it in the most fair way. And, I must say, in the way most assuredly it will be spent, and, spent broadly.

If not, then please clarify because I honestly believe the entire premise of Spender ideology is for the Fed gov to deficit spend (meaning: Spend money they don't have) to prop up the economy in the bad times, and then, as justification for blowing this money they never had and propping up the economy in the bad times, to then cut back in the good times, maybe even raise taxes also, and thus run surplus to pay back down the massive debt racked up in the bad times.

That is the core of your, sorry, our, ideology, is it not?

Chuck

 

[fskimospy]

What do you mean? It's what Spenders advocate, is it not? Yes or No, Spenders do or do not advocate spending money the country doesn't have? If they do, then I'm simply advocating for following their (well, now, our) ideology and spending it in the most fair way. And, I must say, in the way most assuredly it will be spent, and, spent broadly.

If not, then please clarify because I honestly believe the entire premise of Spender ideology is for the Fed gov to deficit spend (meaning: Spend money they don't have) to prop up the economy in the bad times, and then, as justification for blowing this money they never had and propping up the economy in the bad times, to then cut back in the good times, maybe even raise taxes also, and thus run surplus to pay back down the massive debt racked up in the bad times.

That is the core of your, sorry, our, ideology, is it not?

Chuck

This has to be the worst attempt at imitating Stephen Colbert I've ever seen.

If you're interested in exactly what my views are on them you can reference previous conversations that we have had on this exact subject. Did you forget?

 

[zephyrprime]

Why would we just cut everyone a check? That would be a really inefficient and wasteful way of conducting a stimulus effort, not to mention that you want broader, sustained spending to chance perceptions about long term aggregate demand as opposed to a one time event. Not that you were actually genuinely interested in an answer, I'm sure as you seem to enjoy raging and foaming more than anything else.

On the contrary, I believe that just cutting everybody a check is by far the best way to stimulate the economy. Government spending is wasteful and I believe that individuals are better suited to knowing what they need to purchase. Government always spends on various either infrastructure or welfare giveaways. Infrastructure spending takes too long to return dividends and also, during a recession, infrastructure utilization generally goes down. Welfare alleviates human suffering but is also subject to huge inefficiency in transfers and also fraud.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Looks like the last holdouts are starting to realize what was obvious from the beginning of the sequester battle - the Democrats were outmanuevered and completely outplayed by the Republicans. And it's only going to get worse from here as the GOP ratches things up further in the next budget cycles. Prepare for a long couple years of bleating from Krugman and the rest of the "but austerity doesn't work" crowd that are still in denial.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/26/the-democrats-have-lost-on-sequestration/

Are you daft? It's not like any good proposal that the repubs might even want will live through a vote, they are just confident that by fucking up the US as much as possible you'll blame it on the Democrats and Obama and guess what...

You're so fucking stupid it's working.

 

[chucky2]

This has to be the worst attempt at imitating Stephen Colbert I've ever seen.

If you're interested in exactly what my views are on them you can reference previous conversations that we have had on this exact subject. Did you forget?

Previous conversations are you screaming Austerity is Bad! Look I've said it so it's Proven! "The Experts" agree with me!

So your past conversations really aren't helpful. I'm literally begging you for your, doh!, sorry again, our, platform as a Spender. You keep deflecting for some odd reason. I eagerly await our ideology spelled out in specifics by a devout Spender such as yourself (I am but a new member of your camp, I won't pretend to be able list the Spender ideology other than to state the obvious blowing of massive sums of imaginary money). Since you seem to be having such a difficult time, let me help you further:

"...not to mention that you want broader, sustained spending to chance perceptions about long term aggregate demand as opposed to a one time event."

Please expound on that. Be specific.

Chuck

 

[Incorruptible]

If people really wanted to stimulate the economy then not bailing out the banks and engaging in crony Capitalism would have worked much better. Along with cutting taxes, spending and regulations to help create more jobs. But no according to big government idiots it's more important for the government to manage the economy and "stimulate" the economy from the crash which they caused.

 

[fskimospy]

On the contrary, I believe that just cutting everybody a check is by far the best way to stimulate the economy. Government spending is wasteful and I believe that individuals are better suited to knowing what they need to purchase. Government always spends on various either infrastructure or welfare giveaways. Infrastructure spending takes too long to return dividends and also, during a recession, infrastructure utilization generally goes down. Welfare alleviates human suffering but is also subject to huge inefficiency in transfers and also fraud.

Except of course that infrastructure spending pays long term dividends that greatly magnify the overall benefit and we have direct experience with cutting everyone a check from 2008.

The primary purpose of stimulus spending is to stimulate spending and consumption going forward. Bush tried the whole 'cut everyone a check' idea in the early months of 2008, but what happened is that a significant portion of people who were not income constrained just used it to pay down debt or saved it as opposed to its intended purpose. Sure it might be more 'fair', but it is also less effective.

 

[fskimospy]

Previous conversations are you screaming Austerity is Bad! Look I've said it so it's Proven! "The Experts" agree with me!

So your past conversations really aren't helpful. I'm literally begging you for your, doh!, sorry again, our, platform as a Spender. You keep deflecting for some odd reason. I eagerly await our ideology spelled out in specifics by a devout Spender such as yourself (I am but a new member of your camp, I won't pretend to be able list the Spender ideology other than to state the obvious blowing of massive sums of imaginary money). Since you seem to be having such a difficult time, let me help you further:

"...not to mention that you want broader, sustained spending to chance perceptions about long term aggregate demand as opposed to a one time event."

Please expound on that. Be specific.

Chuck

I've been specific on it in the past and I undertook considerable effort to spell out my position. You clearly ignored everything I wrote in the past, so why would I expect you to behave any better this time?

If you're genuinely interested in learning about your newfound ideology just go search our past conversations. It's all there. You can also crack open econ 101 textbooks which will also tell you the same thing. Expecting me to take the time to repeat myself when you're so clearly uninterested in actually having a discussion is awfully silly, don't you think?

 

[chucky2]

But as I've said, your past conversations are you just stating "experts" agree with you, the science is settled, austerity is bad, Spend is good. I never remember specifics, it's just a general mantra from you.

You seem in what I quoted to actually have an idea finally, general as though it may be, of what you want to Spend on. No amounts given, no details (although I see you list "infrastructure"...Union heavy and thus vote heavy).

Perhaps my $300k was too much sticker shock? I'll scale it back then, although since actually having money to spend isn't a concern, I'm not sure what it'd matter. How about we cut every actual taxpayer (someone who paid net more than $0 in taxes after filing) a $5k check right now. Followed by another $5k check in early Nov. '13. Followed by another $5k check this same time next year, followed by another $5k check in early Nov. '14? That's a mere $20k per actual taxpayer over 2 years. For the best bang for the buck, we'd need to make it untaxable income so they're not penalized. Loaded on a debit card, not to be used for saving (remember: Saving is bad, Spend is good).

That's a lot of coin spread throughout the entire economy. You are saying this won't jumpstart a stagnant economy, but, coin spent slower to much smaller (but vote influential) areas of the economy will. I find that...very interesting.

Chuck

 

[glenn1]

Except of course that infrastructure spending pays long term dividends that greatly magnify the overall benefit and we have direct experience with cutting everyone a check from 2008.

The primary purpose of stimulus spending is to stimulate spending and consumption going forward. Bush tried the whole 'cut everyone a check' idea in the early months of 2008, but what happened is that a significant portion of people who were not income constrained just used it to pay down debt or saved it as opposed to its intended purpose. Sure it might be more 'fair', but it is also less effective.

Oh, so you mean the hundreds of billions spent in aid to state governments so they can virtuously spend it on unquestionably beneficial programs like High Speed Rail™ between Fresno and Bakersfield. The stimulative benefits flowing from those decisions are obvious in the latest economic reports and will no doubt pay dividends for decades or centuries to come.

 

[chucky2]

Oh, so you mean the hundreds of billions spent in aid to state governments so they can virtuously spend it on unquestionably beneficial programs like High Speed Rail™ between Fresno and Bakersfield. The stimulative benefits flowing from those decisions are obvious in the latest economic reports and will no doubt pay dividends for decades or centuries to come.

What are you talking about man?!?! Politicians would never spend money to get/maintain votes! Never!

 

[ElFenix]

Except of course that infrastructure spending pays long term dividends that greatly magnify the overall benefit and we have direct experience with cutting everyone a check from 2008.

money pits are money pits regardless of whether they are infrastructure money pits or not. there needs to be a return to society greater than at least the government's borrowing rate (and, to the extent taxes are involved, better than the rate private parties could net). but government employees aren't any better at picking winners and losers than anyone else, are just as susceptible to the sales pitch, and are probably more susceptible to boondoggles and pet projects than private parties. to balance that out government should be capable of more long term thinking, but no politician or political appointee seems to see beyond the next election.

 

[glenn1]

I've been specific on it in the past and I undertook considerable effort to spell out my position. You clearly ignored everything I wrote in the past, so why would I expect you to behave any better this time?

If you're genuinely interested in learning about your newfound ideology just go search our past conversations. It's all there. You can also crack open econ 101 textbooks which will also tell you the same thing. Expecting me to take the time to repeat myself when you're so clearly uninterested in actually having a discussion is awfully silly, don't you think?

Yes, because austerity is so terrible that most major economy countries have stongly rebuked anti-austerity parties at the ballot box, or rendered them irrelevant (e.g. U.S. with Republican control of Congress and thus spending). Must suck knowing that almost everyone who has heard your arguments have rejected them.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, because austerity is so terrible that most major economy countries have stongly rebuked anti-austerity parties at the ballot box, or rendered them irrelevant (e.g. U.S. with Republican control of Congress and thus spending). Must suck knowing that almost everyone who has heard your arguments have rejected them.

I'll just repost the links from earlier in this thread:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/29/the-era-of-austerity-is-over-for-now/

http://www.goldmansachs.com/gsam/ad...1_2013/reflections-on-japan-and-elsewhere.pdf

I'm feeling pretty great about things!

It's sad that so many had to suffer before more sensible economic policies are being looked at, but some people take a long time to learn.

 

[glenn1]

I'll just repost the links from earlier in this thread:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/29/the-era-of-austerity-is-over-for-now/

http://www.goldmansachs.com/gsam/ad...1_2013/reflections-on-japan-and-elsewhere.pdf

I'm feeling pretty great about things!

It's sad that so many had to suffer before more sensible economic policies are being looked at, but some people take a long time to learn.

Wow, you're just as impervious to reality as a Ron Paul supporter. Let me guess, the resounding defeat of anti-austerity parties just shows the strength of your argument; its appeal is simply becoming more selective?

 

[fskimospy]

Wow, you're just as impervious to reality as a Ron Paul supporter. Let me guess, the resounding defeat of anti-austerity parties just shows the strength of your argument; its appeal is simply becoming more selective?

Yeah I'm sure the G-20 was just kidding and the head of asset management at Goldman Sachs has zero information on near term government policy preferences. But hey, you linked a vaguely worded editorial from FT.

I'm quite confident about the trend away from austerity and it's pretty clear to me that your arguments here are almost entirely emotional and irrational. Time will tell who is right; I'm not worried in the slightest.