http://tinyurl.com/99s6j9

1/5/2009 12:08:10 PM

now if he can only cut spending we'll be in good shape.

1/5/2009 12:17:33 PM

So why should we be happy that we're tacking yet another trillion onto the debt?

1/5/2009 1:07:02 PM

We should print money until we are no longer in debt. It worked for Zimbabwe in a dream I had.

1/5/2009 1:14:06 PM

If it disproportionately favors one class of society over another, this is a means that is not inconsistent with that advocated by socialists and practiced by socialistic economies. If this is structured anything like what he proposed on the campaign trail, it will likely have very perverse long-term side effects and unintended consequences...

Quote :

" Mr. Lerrick is a professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. What happens when the voter in the exact middle of the earnings spectrum receives more in benefits from Washington than he pays in taxes? Economists Allan Meltzer and Scott Richard posed this question 27 years ago. We may soon enough know the answer. Barack Obama is offering voters strong incentives to support higher taxes and bigger government. This could be the magic income-redistribution formula Democrats have long sought. Sen. Obama is promising $500 and $1,000 gift-wrapped packets of money in the form of refundable tax credits. These will shift the tax demographics to the tipping point where half of all voters will receive a cash windfall from Washington and an overwhelming majority will gain from tax hikes and more government spending. In 2006, the latest year for which we have Census data, 220 million Americans were eligible to vote and 89 million -- 40% -- paid no income taxes. According to the Tax Policy Center (a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute), this will jump to 49% when Mr. Obama's cash credits remove 18 million more voters from the tax rolls. What's more, there are an additional 24 million taxpayers (11% of the electorate) who will pay a minimal amount of income taxes -- less than 5% of their income and less than $1,000 annually. In all, three out of every five voters will pay little or nothing in income taxes under Mr. Obama's plans and gain when taxes rise on the 40% that already pays 95% of income tax revenues. The plunder that the Democrats plan to extract from the "very rich" -- the 5% that earn more than $250,000 and who already pay 60% of the federal income tax bill -- will never stretch to cover the expansive programs Mr. Obama promises. What next? A core group of Obama enthusiasts -- those educated professionals who applaud the "fairness" of their candidate's tax plans -- will soon see their $100,000-$150,000 incomes targeted. As entitlements expand and a self-interested majority votes, the higher tax brackets will kick in at lower levels down the ladder, all the way to households with a $75,000 income. Calculating how far society's top earners can be pushed before they stop (or cut back on) producing is difficult. But the incentives are easy to see. Voters who benefit from government programs will push for higher tax rates on higher earners -- at least until those who power the economy and create jobs and wealth stop working, stop investing, or move out of the country. Other nations have tried the ideology of fairness in the place of incentives and found that reward without work is a recipe for decline. In the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher took on the unions and slashed taxes to restore growth and jobs in Great Britain. In Germany a few years ago, Social Democrat Gerhard Schroeder defied his party's dogma and loosened labor's grip on the economy to end stagnation. And more recently in France, Nicolas Sarkozy was swept to power on a platform of restoring flexibility to the economy. The sequence is always the same. High-tax, big-spending policies force the economy to lose momentum. Then growth in government spending outstrips revenues. Fiscal and trade deficits soar. Public debt, excessive taxation and unemployment follow. The central bank tries to solve the problem by printing money. International competitiveness is lost and the currency depreciates. The system stagnates. And then a frightened electorate returns conservatives to power. The economic tides will not stand still while Washington experiments with European-type social democracy, even though the dollar's role as the global reserve currency will buy some time. Our trademark competitive advantage will be lost, and once lost, it will be hard to regain. There are too many emerging economies focused on prosperity and not redistribution for the U.S. to easily recapture its role of global economic leader. Tomorrow's children may come to question why their parents sold their birthright for a mess of "fairness" -- whatever that will signify when jobs are scarce and American opportunity is no longer the envy of the world. "

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463231048556587.html

[Edited on January 5, 2009 at 2:42 PM. Reason : .]

1/5/2009 2:38:48 PM

Quote :

"If it disproportionately favors one class of society over another, this is a means "

George Bush clearly favored the upper 0.1% and big businesses who disproportionaly benefited during his presidency.

Does this mean he is an aristocratic corporatist

1/5/2009 3:59:53 PM

Quote :

"Does this mean he is an aristocratic corporatist"

Is this a trick question?

1/5/2009 4:02:52 PM

yay federal debt

1/5/2009 5:25:54 PM

Blame Bush's bullshit wars for most of this. He had no fiscal responsibility so here we are.

I hate to be so crass but who cares, for right now we need stuff to get back on track pronto. Obama can reduce the debt in the later part of his term, but right now it can't be helped. We can worry about the federal debt later, the alternative proposal of sitting on our asses (cutting spending, not recovering anything, and letting this 'solve itself') is kind of retarded.

And if you don't think it is retarded, it doesn't matter because you won't get your way.

1/5/2009 5:54:29 PM

Not to defend Bush but i'd only claim one of his wars bullshit

1/5/2009 6:43:07 PM

Quote :

"George Bush clearly favored the upper 0.1% and big businesses who disproportionaly benefited during his presidency."

It is a fallacy that Bush favored the rich. By low­ering the initial tax brackets from 15 percent to 10 percent, expanding the refundable child tax credit and enacting refundable earned income tax credit (EITC), the 2003 tax cuts actually disfavored the "rich."



To suggest that the 2003 tax cuts were "unfair" implies that our tax system was "fair" prior to the cuts. Per the above, it is obvious they were already biased against the upper brackets, not the lower.

It is also misleading to characterize the top bracket as "rich." Incomes are not always a good measure of wealth. For example, a doctor may earn $150k, but be saddled with $150k in student debt. Trying to discern who is "rich" and subsequently confiscating disproportionate levels of income runs the risk of creating disincentives for those not yet in the top bracket from pursuing means to get there (e.g. more Americans may decide not to spend decades in debt pursuing a medical degree if their income is mostly confiscated via taxation and thus doesn't justify forgone wages and additional debt)

There is also the case of income mobility, which is largely ignored. See the following report from the US Treasury for more: http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/hp673.htm


[Edited on January 5, 2009 at 7:12 PM. Reason : .]

1/5/2009 6:49:27 PM

I like what Obama has done so far, his Cabinet appointments, and his stated platform for day 1 and beyond.

He has surrounded himself with highly-respected economists and has chosen to listen to them. I'm impressed that he has reversed course, let ideology fall to the wayside and understood that in this economic climate, we need tax cuts on businesses, rather than increases, in order to get back on track.

[Edited on January 5, 2009 at 6:57 PM. Reason : 2]

1/5/2009 6:56:07 PM

Quote :

"Not to defend Bush but i'd only claim one of his wars bullshit"

The Bush administration is involved in more than just two wars, correct?

Quote :

"It is also misleading to characterize the top bracket as "rich." Incomes are not always a good measure of wealth. For example, a doctor may earn $150k, but be saddled with $150k in student debt."

I would argue that a doctor who makes $350,000 with no debt would still not fall under the classification of "rich."

1/5/2009 7:16:16 PM

Quote :

"expanding the refundable child tax credit "

I actually disagree with further subsidizing the cost of having children forcing those who decide to abstain, have not yet had, or
have children past maturity get stuck shouldering th cost. Though this does discredit my statement above.

Quote :

"It is also misleading to characterize the top bracket as "rich." Incomes are not always a good measure of wealth. "

i never mentioned income or wealth. This is actually a major pet peeve of mine when your avg working class american argues
about tax policy they are one-dimensional to differentiate income and wealth. Usually b.c they are to busy living paycheck
to paycheck to understand that the elite's of society are not so b.c they make XYZ,000 6-figure income but b.c they have
such a huge accumulation of wealth.

Quote :

"He has surrounded himself with highly-respected economists "

one of Bush's many failures

Quote :

"The Bush administration is involved in more than just two wars"

Two REAL wars. Iraq and Afghanistan. I do not count ideological wars that sound super cool in speeches as a literal war i.e
War on Drugs; War on Terrorism, War on communism, war on hunger, etc

[Edited on January 5, 2009 at 8:13 PM. Reason : l]

1/5/2009 8:13:01 PM

Quote :

"George Bush clearly favored the upper 0.1% and big businesses who disproportionaly benefited during his presidency. Does this mean he is an aristocratic corporatist"

No it would not. It is the airstocratic and corporatist policies of his that make him an aristocratic corporatist.

1/5/2009 9:29:06 PM

I don't think cutting spending right now is a good idea. The situation is too precarious and uncertain to risk a deflationary spiral. The best time to cut spending is in economically good times, when the private sector can absorb fired government workers.

1/6/2009 12:40:26 AM

It depends on which economic theory you subscribe to. There are those that argue the boom/bust cycle is a monetary phenomenon (people decided to hold more cash) and that even laying off the entire government workforce would have little impact upon the money supply and therefore not substantially delay recovery. These individuals would even argue that doing so might speed recovery as the higher unemployment would push wages down faster, reaching equilibrium faster, causing recovery faster.

These same individuals might argue that a mechanism should be developed to drop cash from helicopters.

I do not exclusively subscribe to this theory. I believe there is also a large sectorial component to any recession, in that what was being produced people no longer want and what they would happily pay for is not being produced. Nevertheless, both these theories lead to the same policy conclusion: just wait longer.

[Edited on January 6, 2009 at 10:36 AM. Reason : .,.]

1/6/2009 10:35:41 AM

THIS THING COULD REACH $700 BILLION???? WHAT!?!?

If this stimulus package actually reaches $700 billion this thing will cost taxpayers MORE THAN WE SPENT ON IRAQ OVER 5 YEARS!!!!!! And this doesn't even include all the other things on the Obama agenda or the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5grKX5FG8-CHs6ijfJYJUXc4feHgA
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/washington/19cost.html

A Stimulus package that big is really just crazy. And it's really funny which party is now saying that deficits don't matter. Remember when Paul Krugman worried in **2003** (on March 11, before we even invaded Iraq) that Bush's deficit's "threatened the federal government's solvency" (and before you cite the current recession as being an excuse for throwing caution to the wind, please remember that Krugman has argued that this period was essentialy a time of recession in everything but name). Partisanship-much?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B06EFDE173EF932A25750C0A9659C8B63

Now, listen, I am not suggesting we start trying to balance the budget. I am just worried that we are putting our selves at long-term risk to solve a relatively minor short-term problem. After nearly 13 months of recession, unemployment is barely close to 7%. It sucks, but it isn't the end-times folks. Slow down and think it through.

[Edited on January 6, 2009 at 10:41 AM. Reason : ``]

1/6/2009 10:37:30 AM

Quote :

"After nearly 13 months of recession, unemployment is barely close to 7%."

And rising. And that is just the U3.

You missed a pretty key point in your partisan hacking you're doing there with the anti-Krugman bit. His entire rant in 2003 was rising interest rates we're going to crush the US if their debt increased massively...that is, unless the rates don't rise. The key line was this

Quote :

"But unless we slide into Japanese-style deflation, there are much higher interest rates in our future. "

And that is in fact what is happening. Deflation is real and it is here. Everyone keeps forgetting that the Fed can contract the money supply as necessary, and once the economy starts to turn they will hopefully being doing just that.

1/6/2009 11:38:07 AM

boy, i sure am glad I don't make much money so Obama won't be sticking it to me, lol

1/6/2009 11:57:24 AM

Quote :

"Deflation is real and it is here. Everyone keeps forgetting that the Fed can contract the money supply as necessary, and once the economy starts to turn they will hopefully being doing just that."

And your evidence of this is what, exactly? Declining interest rates? Not a surefire sign of deflation; deflation is a monetary pheonema, which occurs due to a contraction of the money supply.

Injecting untold billions trillions of dollars into the banks isn't exactly a supply-contracting move. Nor are historically low interest rates.

1/6/2009 12:00:12 PM

Deflation on cars, clothes, luxury, and other non-essential items.

On the other hand i have noticed some rediculous inflation on essentials such as food.

1/6/2009 12:07:23 PM

Quote :

"And your evidence of this is what, exactly?"

CPI.

1/6/2009 12:16:05 PM

Even the CPI hardly indicates deflation once you factor out energy prices:

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid0811.pdf

Quote :

"May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 Aug. 2008 Sep. 2008 Oct. 2008 Nov. 2008 All items ................................. 0.6 1.1 0.8 -0.1 0.0 -1.0 -1.7 -10.2 1.1 Food and beverages ........... .3 .7 .9 .6 .6 .3 .2 4.1 5.9 Housing ............................... .5 .5 .6 -.1 -.1 .0 -.1 -1.0 2.7 Apparel ................................ -.3 .1 1.2 .5 -.1 -1.0 .3 -3.3 .0 Transportation ..................... 2.0 3.8 1.7 -1.5 -.6 -5.4 -9.8 -48.1 -8.9 Medical care ........................ .2 .2 .1 .2 .3 .2 .2 2.9 2.7 Recreation ........................... .1 .1 .4 .5 .2 .1 .0 1.2 2.0 Education and communication .............. .4 .5 .5 .2 .1 .2 .2 2.1 3.6 Other goods and services ... .4 .4 .4 .2 .2 .3 .0 1.9 3.8 Special indexes: Energy ................................. 4.4 6.6 4.0 -3.1 -1.9 -8.6 -17.0 -69.3 -13.3 Food .................................... .3 .8 .9 .6 .6 .3 .2 4.0 6.0 All items less food and energy ........................... .2 .3 .3 .2 .1 -.1 .0 .4 2.0"

Look at what your biggest drivers of a drop in prices are - the collapse of energy prices and associated transportation. Both of which are largely due to a decline in economic activity - this, however, is not synonymous with deflation. Factoring out food and energy, you see one month of negative price growth.

[Edited on January 6, 2009 at 12:25 PM. Reason : source]

1/6/2009 12:22:09 PM

Quote :

"yay federal debt"

Quote :

"So why should we be happy that we're tacking yet another trillion onto the debt?"

As far as i can tell republicans are equally as guilty when it increasing the national debt.

1/6/2009 2:38:53 PM

instead of trying to say that republicans always increase our deficit, why not just say "everyone other than Bill Clinton increases our deficit"?

1/6/2009 2:49:32 PM

my point, which was obvious, was that people on the right tend to place the blame solely on the left.

please read what i wrote and point out to me where i said that republicans always increase the national debt or admit that you jumped the gun. etiher way.

Quote :

" As far as i can tell republicans are equally as guilty when it increasing the national debt. "

1/6/2009 2:59:59 PM

0bama has predicted trillion dollar deficits for years to come. So I'll go out on a limb and say those red & blue deficit graphs will become less popular in the near future.

1/6/2009 5:15:51 PM

1/6/2009 5:32:04 PM

It would be interesting to overlay that graph with control of congress since they control the checkbook.

1/6/2009 6:03:17 PM

I thought the implication was going to be that Obama would be good for the deficit... considering that this thread is about him.

He won't.

1/6/2009 6:05:39 PM

Quote :

"Factoring out food and energy, you see one month of negative price growth."

Rofl. Why the emphasis on 'one'? Obviously we've only had a month or two of it because it is a lagging indicator. It was running along at .2 and .3 and it has suddenly flipped negative in 1 months time and it isn't deflation starting to set in? What is it?

Keep in mind the way the BLS calculates the data was understating inflation and is now overstating it (ie, the -.1 is more negative in reality).

1/6/2009 6:38:04 PM

Quote :

"It would be interesting to overlay that graph with control of congress since they control the checkbook."

Republican congress the last few years duh! until 2007 of course

1/6/2009 6:54:06 PM

Quote :

"Rofl. Why the emphasis on 'one'? Obviously we've only had a month or two of it because it is a lagging indicator. It was running along at .2 and .3 and it has suddenly flipped negative in 1 months time and it isn't deflation starting to set in? What is it?"

The emphasis is upon "one" because it's not a sustained trend of negative price growth. A decreasing but positive growth rate is certainly believable in light of an economic slowdown, however evidence of an actual deflationary trend is lacking. Especially in light of what I already pointed out - where the main drivers of negative price growth are. Which, we observe, are generally in energy & transportation.

1/6/2009 9:07:27 PM

Quote :

" The emphasis is upon "one" because it's not a sustained trend of negative price growth."

Yeah, no joke. Do you think that it will magically go back to .1, .2, .3 for the December data? It wasn't like the economy kinda slowed over a few months/quarters, it flipped negative quickly.

Quote :

"however evidence of an actual deflationary trend is lacking"

You do realize that massive amounts of defaults destroy credit and cause deflation right?

Quote :

"Especially in light of what I already pointed out - where the main drivers of negative price growth are. Which, we observe, are generally in energy & transportation."

Earlier you wanted to take these out, now you want to include them and say they are the ones driving deflation?

Additionally, if deflation wasn't a looming problem, why all the talk about pulling out all the stops to prevent it

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a..jRxlr8_Ac

[Edited on January 6, 2009 at 10:48 PM. Reason : .]

1/6/2009 10:46:37 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, no joke. Do you think that it will magically go back to .1, .2, .3 for the December data? It wasn't like the economy kinda slowed over a few months/quarters, it flipped negative quickly."

Look, you made the claim of a deflationary trend. So far, taking out energy & transport, you've got one data point - and looking back at the data, that point is still likely being strongly influenced by housing prices.

Therefore, it's a little early to be claiming we've got a "deflation trend" going on.

Quote :

"You do realize that massive amounts of defaults destroy credit and cause deflation right?"

You do realize that pumping trillions of dollars directly into banks is inflationary, right?

Quote :

"Earlier you wanted to take these out, now you want to include them and say they are the ones driving deflation?"

I'm saying, "The observed negative price growth." Take those drivers out and we've got, what, one data point of actual negative growth? Now look at what's negative. Oh look, housing has collapsed. Wonder if that has anything to do with it?

Quote :

"Additionally, if deflation wasn't a looming problem, why all the talk about pulling out all the stops to prevent it"

Because we've got a bunch of people in charge whose philosophy is, "Everybody panic!"? I mean, is this even a serious question?

1/6/2009 11:43:10 PM

I said deflation is real and it is here. I also obviously admit that it is just now showing up in the CPI number, and yet you want to continue to argue the point...that it is just now showing up in the CPI number. I'm thinking a little more forward here.

Quote :

"You do realize that pumping trillions of dollars directly into banks is inflationary, right? "

The various Libor numbers and other indicators of banks willingness to loan to each other are still really high compared to normal numbers. They came way down from their panic highs, but by most measures, the credit wheels haven't begun to run smoothly yet. We also have to figure out which one is winning, the deflationary let down from the bubble or the attempt to reinflate it. What does it look like to you?

Quote :

"Oh look, housing has collapsed. Wonder if that has anything to do with it?"

Are you being obtuse here or what?

Quote :

" Because we've got a bunch of people in charge whose philosophy is, "Everybody panic!"? I mean, is this even a serious question?"

They didn't have that philosophy with Lehman and look where that got us. Besides, that's strawman-ish. There isn't anything in that link that implies panic.

1/7/2009 7:24:53 AM

Quote :

"They didn't have that philosophy with Lehman and look where that got us"

exactly where do you think their philosophy on Lehman has gotten us that we wouldn't otherwise be

1/7/2009 10:20:44 AM

Quote :

"I said deflation is real and it is here. I also obviously admit that it is just now showing up in the CPI number, and yet you want to continue to argue the point...that it is just now showing up in the CPI number. I'm thinking a little more forward here."

And I'm saying you don't have the numbers to back up a sustained trend, yet. You have depressed price growth, certainly, but most of your negative price growth is driven by a few sectors, of which we have pretty good proximate causes for.

So, while deflation may be on the horizon, the data does not support your assertion that "it's already here." Removing energy and transport, you have a grand total of one month of negative growth in prices, and that still includes a major sector of which we know why demand has collapsed.

Quote :

"The various Libor numbers and other indicators of banks willingness to loan to each other are still really high compared to normal numbers. They came way down from their panic highs, but by most measures, the credit wheels haven't begun to run smoothly yet. We also have to figure out which one is winning, the deflationary let down from the bubble or the attempt to reinflate it. What does it look like to you?"

Banks not loaning to each other is not the same as a general lack of credit availability overall. Yes, I know this is the prevailing story of the day, but face it - a lack of trust between the banks does not itself "prove" the general narrative of the widespread credit shortage we are being sold. Nor at all does it indicate that frantically pumping money into banks is even going to solve said problem - a trillion dollars later, banks still don't seem that happy about lending to one another.

I mean, it is possible that simple panic may not be the most appropriate response, right?

Quote :

"Are you being obtuse here or what?"

No, I'm making a point. Are you being obtuse here?

Quote :

"They didn't have that philosophy with Lehman and look where that got us. Besides, that's strawman-ish. There isn't anything in that link that implies panic."

Now who's being obtuse? We've got a leadership demanding absolute power over a trillion dollars to buy up troubled assets with near-zero oversight, and it has to be done right now. (And splendid job that lack of oversight has done for us so far - really dodged a bullet on that one, now didn't we?) We've gone into bailout frenzy mode, but this isn't "everybody panic!" mode? Really?

1/7/2009 10:24:48 AM

Quote :

"And I'm saying you don't have the numbers to back up a sustained trend, yet. "

According to Bernanke and other experts on the Great Depression, deflation is not something you want to wait and see a 'sustained trend in'.

1/7/2009 2:51:31 PM

Quote :

"According to Bernanke and other experts on the Great Depression, deflation is not something you want to wait and see a 'sustained trend in'."

And I bet if we throw a few trillion dollars into the banks, all the scariness will alll go away...

No, seriously, here. Argument has been, "Deflation is here." My counter-argument has been, "The data does not support that contention." And, seeing as we see any signs of negative price growth being controlled by a few driving industries with well-known causes, this might lead one to the conclusion that it is at the least speculative to say, "Deflation is here."

Go ahead and come up with whatever hare-brained policy you want, but it's not even the argument. The question is whether "Deflation is here." The claim, as I have repeatedly demonstrated, is not a well-supported trend in the data. Removing two of the major drivers - transport and energy - the trend virtually disappears altogether.

Which might lead one to believe that perhaps we are looking at a contraction of particular sectors of the economy, rather than widespread panic. But hey, what the hell do I know? It's just the numbers that seem to back my statement.

1/7/2009 2:58:17 PM

Quote :

"And I bet if we throw a few trillion dollars into the banks, all the scariness will alll go away..."

The government has already placed that bet on your behalf.

The few trillion will serve to reflate, and we'll need to deal with the subsequent runaway-hyperinflation from 2010 onwards.

1/7/2009 3:01:42 PM

Quote :

"Removing two of the major drivers - transport and energy - the trend virtually disappears altogether. "

No, it most certainly not. I already addressed this and you just outright refused my comment. Look at the numbers. They don't look something like .3 .3 .2 .3 .2 .2 .1 .2 .1 .1 .2 .1 0 0 .1 0 0 -.1 0 -.1 which you would could conclude a contraction (not even bad enough to be labeled a recession) is or has been occuring.

The numbers go from a still growing and humming economy to a complete flip negative. Of course it isn't an outright trend yet - I readily conceded that it's early, we have to wait until January 16th to find out what December was. I'm going to guess in the -.5 range. And about this:

Quote :

"Which might lead one to believe that perhaps we are looking at a contraction of particular sectors of the economy, rather than widespread panic."

What? No really, what? Deflation does not imply widespread panic.

Quote :

"Now who's being obtuse? We've got a leadership demanding absolute power over a trillion dollars to buy up troubled assets with near-zero oversight, and it has to be done right now. (And splendid job that lack of oversight has done for us so far - really dodged a bullet on that one, now didn't we?) We've gone into bailout frenzy mode, but this isn't "everybody panic!" mode? Really?"

Preventing individual companies from failing disastrously doesn't sit on the other side of the fence from what you just describe. You'll find no argument from me that TARP was a knee jerk and hasty reaction, but that doesn't mean some of these firms shouldn't have been handled in a way that wouldn't grind the world financial system to a complete and disastrous halt.

1/7/2009 6:21:59 PM

Quote :

"No, it most certainly not. I already addressed this and you just outright refused my comment. Look at the numbers. They don't look something like .3 .3 .2 .3 .2 .2 .1 .2 .1 .1 .2 .1 0 0 .1 0 0 -.1 0 -.1 which you would could conclude a contraction (not even bad enough to be labeled a recession) is or has been occuring."

Quote :

"All items less food and energy ........................... .2 .3 .3 .2 .1 -.1 .0"

I stand by my point; it is you who has failed to address the issue.

Quote :

"The numbers go from a still growing and humming economy to a complete flip negative. Of course it isn't an outright trend yet - I readily conceded that it's early, we have to wait until January 16th to find out what December was. I'm going to guess in the -.5 range."

Once one factors out food (an extreme driver up) and energy (an extreme driver down), neither of these conclusions looks all that solid. We see a run-up in food prices (thanks ethanol!) followed by a cratering in energy prices (i.e., slowdown in global demand and overcapacity by OPEC).

Again: if one factors out food and energy, there is only one month of negative price growth. - and it's not even the most recent month (November). You can try and argue the BLS historically underestimates inflation, and therefore is masking a negative price growth trend, but until we have something other than say, your good word to back this assertion up, the numbers are there for everyone to see.

We do see depressed price growth overall, which is indicative of an economic slowdown - I don't think anyone has denied the existence of that. More importantly, even I am not arguing against the possibility of deflation on the horizon - I have simply contended that your assertion that, "Deflation is here" is not currently supported by the data. Which, I notice, you now back off of your earlier, stronger declaration.

Quote :

"What? No really, what? Deflation does not imply widespread panic."

It would imply a more broad trend of decline in consumer prices. Which, as we see, is just not being borne out in the data.

What's been decreasing? For the most part: housing, transport, and energy. Hmmm - I wonder if there is any identifiable proximate causes for these sectors which would result in anomalously negative price changes while other sectors do not act in concert?

Quote :

"Preventing individual companies from failing disastrously doesn't sit on the other side of the fence from what you just describe. You'll find no argument from me that TARP was a knee jerk and hasty reaction, but that doesn't mean some of these firms shouldn't have been handled in a way that wouldn't grind the world financial system to a complete and disastrous halt."

The fact remains, however, that the mindset of this administration has in fact been, "Everybody panic!" As in, "We must pass a bank bailout, right now! No time for questions!" Then, "We must pass an auto bailout right now! No time for questions!"

I mean, does this at all sound familiar to you? Anyone? Bueller?

1/7/2009 6:39:53 PM

story was only like 10 hours old when this thread was made...not bad...personally i love the 300 billion tax cut idea

1/7/2009 8:46:14 PM

Quote :

"Blame Bush's bullshit wars for most of this. He had no fiscal responsibility so here we are."

Right. A 40billion/year war is really bankrupting the nation when put into comparison with almost a trillion/year in entitlements

Gotta love that deficits graph, though. What the graph fails to tell you is that Clinton slashed funding for necessary things like, you know, the MILITARY, in order to get that surplus, as well getting a golden goose in the .com boom through no action of his own. Way to be a partisan douche-bag, though. Oh, and how is that military defenestration working out right now? oh, right, we are stretched asininely thin, to the point where placing several hundred thousand troops in another country is detrimental to our security. Thanks, bubba!

1/8/2009 8:34:59 AM

Quote :

"Way to be a partisan douche-bag, though."

where did i say anything partisan in my post with the graph? As pointed out two times prior to this I said the graph demonstrates equal culpability. You seem like the kind of guy who would even argue with himself in the mirror while he brushes his teeth.

Quote :

"I thought the implication was going to be that Obama would be good for the deficit... considering that this thread is about him."

Actually i'm pretty sure this thread was about expressing how he isn't a socialist based on the inclusions in his plan to provide tax cuts to businesses.

1/8/2009 9:36:16 AM

Quote :

"Oh, and how is that military defenestration working out right now? oh, right, we are stretched asininely thin"

Clinton may have thrown some cold war type parts of the war machine out of the window, but we continued to build smart bombs and hi-tech warfare - just ask Lockeed and Northrop.

And if Genius Walker Bush had the right prescience, he would've followed the Powell doctrine instead of the Rumsfeld doctrine -- i will say this: the surge worked. I just wish there was a "surge" at the start of the war.

Also, i doubt most of you keep up with the commodity markets, but ever since the world realised that the free world will be led for 4 or 8 years by someone who atleast on the surface seems non-imperialist, there has been ZERO backwardation (i apologise for the jargon, but you should look it up, its quite interesting) -- to the point of most opec countries cheating on their quotas.

We may know a decade or two from now what how all this unfolds, and in the meantime all we can do is argue on the intarnets.

1/8/2009 4:12:44 PM

and this:

Quote :

"trillion/year in entitlements "

is a real concern.

Mitt Romney understood this, but we know how that turned out.

1/8/2009 4:14:43 PM

Quote :

"Way to be a partisan douche-bag"

aaronburro you do not have any room to talk about someone being a partisan douche-bag.

No matter the problem or the issue if it is someone from the GOP than his shit smells like roses

If the problem/issue is from the democrats than its rawr rawr rawr liberal hippy douche hates america and wants to hand over your money to welfare recepients, beat the turrists with hugs and kisses, and has no clue what they are doing.

Quote :

"Clinton may have thrown some cold war type parts of the war machine out of the window, but we continued to build smart bombs and hi-tech warfare - just ask Lockeed and Northrop. "

Exactly given the world situation at the time why would Clinton keep the armed forces at Cold War levels following the fall of the USSR. Hindsight 20/20 is great in predicting the acceleration of radical islamism and the need to enter the middle east following 9/11.

Had clinton not reduced the armed forces and 9/11 not have happened than people would be bitching about how we waste XY% of the budget on the military and how its not needed with the collapse of the bErlin wall

[Edited on January 8, 2009 at 4:21 PM. Reason : a]

1/8/2009 4:18:39 PM