More proof: Republicans are fiscal disasters

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

If you mean to say compared to Bush, or as part of GDP, you need to write that. Otherwise, it's just as false as Lucky claiming that inflation was low under Clinton and high under Bush.

Yes, I wrote it quickly and poorly.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Claiming that a political party controls the economy is not all that supportable. The economy functions largely independently, with very minor exceptions (like fiscal policy decisions.)

But all in all, claiming that a political party can control the economy is like claiming you can steer a cruise ship by having the waiters lean to one side.

You didn't reply to my other response, so I'll try another angle. If political parties can't control the economy then why are you so pro-tax cut? I hope we don't degenerate to the, "fair" argument. Taxes are the biggest arm the parties have to control the economy; do we let the gov redistribute or do we let the massively rich keep it and control the economy? Bizzare to see people ingone such a dominant 80-year trend with constant, repeatable results of cut taxes - things go to fuck //// raise taxes - things heal.

EDITED TO ADD: How about the interest rate, under Reagan the Fed Reserve cut the money supply to kill inflation, it also drove unemp from 8% to 10.8%. Presidents appoint these members and have huge influence on them as well, so political parties DO affect the economy, quite often immediately.

Isn't science about repeatability and large sample sizes?

[hwt 0]

GWB left = 10.7T

Now = 13.1T

diff 2.4T

The debt would have to be 16T in order for you to be right. Not to mention GWB gave Obama a record deficit that was climbing, unemp that was soaring (3.4% in the year preceeding) and a banking system on the verge of total collapse. Of course if we ignore that then all is well.

If we clamped down on the debt as you wish by cutting social programs, of course keep the military massive and growth to fight our imaginary enemy, we would enjoy the GD part II.
_________________________________________________
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/
here is proof that lucky is wrong again..

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

GWB left = 10.7T

Now = 13.1T

diff 2.4T

Yup - almost half (49%) of the total increase over the Bush years in just 18% of the time.

Scary thought, ain't it?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

GWB left = 10.7T

Now = 13.1T

diff 2.4T

The debt would have to be 16T in order for you to be right. Not to mention GWB gave Obama a record deficit that was climbing, unemp that was soaring (3.4% in the year preceeding) and a banking system on the verge of total collapse. Of course if we ignore that then all is well.

If we clamped down on the debt as you wish by cutting social programs, of course keep the military massive and growth to fight our imaginary enemy, we would enjoy the GD part II.
_________________________________________________
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/
here is proof that lucky is wrong again..


Why even look at Heritage? Are you not aware that taht's tehrag that Hannity, Limbaugh and the rest of the maggots turn to constantly? What would you do if I posted Moveon.org at all, but esp as some kind of reputable and objective source?

Go ahead and extrapolate what you want and make an argument OF YOUR OWN, but I won't address a partisan rag, nor would you.

Tellme why I'm wrong in your words, not a cut-n-paste from a partisan rag; you wouldn't participate in me doing the same.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

GWB left = 10.7T

Now = 13.1T

diff 2.4T

Yup - almost half (49%) of the total increase over the Bush years in just 18% of the time.

Scary thought, ain't it?

Yep, and GWB was handed teh tailend of the most robust, largest growth in history, Obama the 2nd worst economy in history and you call it a draw . Actually, at least Hoover raised taxes from 25% top brkt ro 63% top brkt 9 or so months before he left office, so he laid the framework. GWB just kept his thumb in his ass, shrugging his shoulders, so really Obama may have inherited the worst economy in some regards.

But hey, inheriting a 1 trillion dolalr + deficit is the same as inheriting a 236B surplus in Mikeeworld

[hwt 0]

Quote

But hey, inheriting a 1 trillion dolalr + deficit is the same as inheriting a 236B surplus in Mikeeworld

__________________________________________
the deficit that Obama inherited included the bank bailout of which most of it was paid back you and Obama forget to do the math .also here is the President's budget for 2010 totals ..which equals $3.55 trillion. nice try Lucky . now go ahead and make 20+ more posts in this thread but it will not change the numbers.

[airdvr 200]

Tax Cuts, Not the Clinton Tax Hike, Produced the 1990s Boom

Quote

Proponents of tax increases often reference the Clinton 1993 tax increase and the subsequent period of economic growth as evidence that deficit reduction through tax hikes is a pro-growth policy. What these proponents ignore, however, is that the tax increases occurred at a time when the economy was recovering from recession and strong growth was to be expected. They also ignore that the real acceleration in the economy began in 1997, when economic growth should have cooled. This acceleration in growth coincided with a powerful pro-growth tax cut.

The evidence is persuasive that the tax increase probably slowed the economy compared to the growth it would have achieved and that the subsequent tax cuts of 1997, not the tax increases, were the source of the acceleration in real growth in the latter half of the decade. Astaxes are now above their historical average as a share of the economy, and are rising, Congress should look to enact additional tax relief to keep the economy strong.

Now I'll sit back and marvel at how it is you Lucky, posting on DZ.com know more than J.D. Foster, Ph.D. Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy

.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[brettski74 0]

Whatever, mate. You clearly have a political agenda to advance here. For some reason you think I'm politically motivated. I'm guessing this is because you're not paying attention and just like shouting at people who disagree with you. My motivation here is your debasement of science. It only takes one climatologist to publish a bunk paper on climate change and the climate change deniers will use that for the next 20 years to claim that climate science is wrong using the logical fallacy of one scientist was wrong therefore all scientists are wrong. Fortunately, you're hardly anyone of importance in scientific debate nor is this forum.

As for your contention that Republicans are fiscal disasters, slice and dice the articles however you want. Both articles that you referenced include in their concluding remarks multiple statements that question the practical significance of the results. The Wolfram blog also includes two (not one) graphs which show the opposite result to the one you want and you've totally ignored them. The post 1933 graph shows greater than 2:1 Republican advantage. The graph where he includes inflation also shows a Republican advantage which visually looks to be somewhere in the 2:1 range. You've also gone on to make statements such as:

Quote

This one is more realistic, it has the Dems a 6:1 advantage, which is very generous, it's probably 10:1.

6:1 was based on hard data, but what have you got to support your 10:1 claim beside opinions and your political agenda? Good scientific research does not omit results because they don't support your hypothesis. You've referenced two articles and come to a very different conclusion than both of them without adding any new data or analysis. This is not good science. Science uses hard data to back up it's claims (eg. 10:1). Science doesn't omit data without any reason other than it conflicts with your hypothesis (eg. 2 Wolfram blog graphs). Science doesn't reference other articles and then come to a completely different conclusion without providing new analysis, data or both to support such a new conclusion.

I think Bill put it the best with his cruise ship analogy. There are a myriad of factors that can influence stock market performance. While there are some intriguing results here, we are a long way from proving that the existence of a causal relationship between presidential political affiliations and US stock market performance. To suggest otherwise based on the data put forward is not good science.

I'm done. Continue your shouting at people. It seems to make you happy.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

6:1 was based on hard data, but what have you got to support your 10:1 claim beside opinions and your political agenda?

That these were written in 2008, before the stock disaster. Tell ya what, let's go 6:1 which is very generous to you, ignores GWB's last year which was pure disaster; IS 6:1 A GOOD RATIO FOR REPUBLICANS? IS THAT YOUR ARGUMENT?

Quote

Good scientific research does not omit results because they don't support your hypothesis.

6:1 or 10:1 is fairly semantic esp when considering the 25:1 computer generated result. Again, the real number is difficult to establish, what we do know is that the disparity is gross and that R's are caustic to the market and the economy.

Quote

You've referenced two articles and come to a very different conclusion than both of them without adding any new data or analysis.

This is not a dissertation, just a review of the data when you submit 10k to teh market during opposing party's presidencies. Don't look for a peson to spend 1000 hours on a posting board. If youw ant to claim voctory because I haven't dedicated my life's work to this issue then you'll be using and expected escape. If you want to actually admit R's have been disasterous, I'll be surprised. I don't care what the actual ratio is, it isn't even close and R's do a great job smaching everything and parasitizing whatever is left. See, you can't control a free system, so you have to smash it into a corner and pick what wasn't destroyed.

Quote

Science uses hard data to back up it's claims (eg. 10:1). Science doesn't omit data without any reason other than it conflicts with your hypothesis (eg. 2 Wolfram blog graphs). Science doesn't reference other articles and then come to a completely different conclusion without providing new analysis, data or both to support such a new conclusion.

Right, since I didn't dedicate 10 years of my life to it, it's invalid. I get your redundant point. I, or anyone could take that approach to any issue; IT'S CALLED A COP OUT. And actully, political science and to a degree fiscal sciences are bastard sciences anyway as there is no way to run the tests over and over again, rendering a sample size of 1. But it's all we have so we review teh available data and here we have it; THE REPUBLICANS HAVE A POOR RECORD WITH THE DEBT AND WITH THE MARKET.

Quote

I think Bill put it the best with his cruise ship analogy.

And then he failed to respond to 2 of my posts; kind of a hit-n-run, I guess better than your approach that I won't spend 10 years dissecting every aspecct of it. As well, he illustrated in another thread that the gov of Cali has COMPLETE control of his/her economic legislation. And in federal finance the pres submits the budget, the house writes it, the senate passes it, the pres signs of vetoes. One of the worst economic times in US history was under the GWB presidency and they ran congress; GWB didn't veto 1 thing until 5.5 years later, so the R's completely ran that into the ground. The Clinton presidency enjoyed the 1st years with D's owning congress and most of the big taxing and spending bills came out of that, the last 6 years were full of stalemates. Either way, if teh pres signs it, he owns it. Even tho NAFTA was bipartisan, how many R's would say that Clinton is off the hook for sing it into law? IF YOU SIGN IT - YOU OWN IT.

Quote

There are a myriad of factors that can influence stock market performance. While there are some intriguing results here, we are a long way from proving that the existence of a causal relationship between presidential political affiliations and US stock market performance. To suggest otherwise based on the data put forward is not good science.

If you took 1 or presidencies, I see your point. We are talking 80 years of typical party politics, morons thnking tax cuts actually stimulate the economy and sensibility illustrating tax cuts stagnate the economy. Other than Eisenhower and to a small degree GHWB, Dems have raised taxes to needed levels and R's have chopped them to Great Depression levels every chance they've had. Tax policy is the biggest driver to the economy, the market is somewhat a byproduct to that.

Quote

I'm done. Continue your shouting at people. It seems to make you happy.

Of course you are, you've said nothing, provided no data. Hell, you didn't even address the issues I posed to you. Another one-hit wonder who's just fluffed us full of ambiguity and claimed victory. Run along now...

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Of course you are, you've said nothing, provided no data. Hell, you didn't even address the issues I posed to you. Another one-hit wonder who's just fluffed us full of ambiguity and claimed victory. Run along now...

You were presented with data on your false inflation claim - and have yet to explain yourself.

[billvon 2,471]

>If political parties can't control the economy then why are you so pro-tax cut?

?? I'm not. I think taxes should match expenditures, and that expenditures should be, in general, reduced. I'd be against a tax cut without a corresponding decrease in expenditures. That causes the sort of massive deficits we have now.

>Taxes are the biggest arm the parties have to control the economy . . .

I'd disagree there. Economic output does not track taxation rates. The biggest handle they have to control the economy is fiscal policy. Look at what the deregulation of credit default swaps did at the start of this recession; that had far more impact than tax rates did.

>Isn't science about repeatability and large sample sizes?

Yep. But you also have to factor in a time lag, and understand cause and effect.

As an example, if you were flying in a sightseeing aircraft, you might notice the pilot banking the plane so that people can more easily see what's below them (i.e. the Grand Canyon or whatever.) It would be inaccurate to deduce, however, that people leaning to see out the window is causing the plane to bank, even if that's what it looks like to an observer (and even though you could demonstrate this repeatably and with large sample sizes.)

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

>If political parties can't control the economy then why are you so pro-tax cut?

Quote

?? I'm not. I think taxes should match expenditures, and that expenditures should be, in general, reduced. I'd be against a tax cut without a corresponding decrease in expenditures. That causes the sort of massive deficits we have now.

With a growing 13T debt, don't you agree that taxes s/b raised above what it takes to balance the budget?

Where would you cut spending?

Quote

>Taxes are the biggest arm the parties have to control the economy . . .

Quote

I'd disagree there. Economic output does not track taxation rates. The biggest handle they have to control the economy is fiscal policy. Look at what the deregulation of credit default swaps did at the start of this recession; that had far more impact than tax rates did.

Economic output, meaning GDP??? Stcok market performance??? So you say regulation of int rates, etc is more impressive than actual income tax rates? They both control a lot, int rates motivate people to buy large durables or not, income taxation rates control where a massive amount of money goes and if the rich and corporations are allowed to hang on to most or some of their money. Also, the gov can force reinvesting rather than shelving money. I disagree, income taxation is far more infuential than other methods of economic control.

Quote

Isn't science about repeatability and large sample sizes?

Quote

Yep. But you also have to factor in a time lag, and understand cause and effect.

Of course there are otehr minor factors, but the 2 largeest factors are:

- Sample size

- randomness

Quote

As an example, if you were flying in a sightseeing aircraft, you might notice the pilot banking the plane so that people can more easily see what's below them (i.e. the Grand Canyon or whatever.) It would be inaccurate to deduce, however, that people leaning to see out the window is causing the plane to bank, even if that's what it looks like to an observer (and even though you could demonstrate this repeatably and with large sample sizes.)

To a person who lived in closet, perhaps, but cause and effect in this case is clear and almost condescending.

Bill, show me a major fed tax cut taht led to overall success with:

- Jobs

- Debt/deficit

- GDP

- Stock market

- inflation

Look at the major cuts and the effects:

- 1925 massive cut to 25% top brkt: 4 years later great depression

- Reagan in 1981 to 86 cut from 70% to 28%: Series of deep recessions, massive deficit / debt increases

- GWB cut taxes just 5% top brkt, but they were so low at 40% there was no lattitude: Massive debt accrual. Then the fed res cut int rates to spur the economy and that fueled the housing market mess.

[rushmc 18]

What fueled to housing market mess was gov policies that pushed banks to loan money to those who could not pay it back.

The banks then compensated with risky plans to try and cover thier asses


So, you would increase gov involvment when they caused the mess to start with

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Tax Cuts, Not the Clinton Tax Hike, Produced the 1990s Boom

Quote

Proponents of tax increases often reference the Clinton 1993 tax increase and the subsequent period of economic growth as evidence that deficit reduction through tax hikes is a pro-growth policy. What these proponents ignore, however, is that the tax increases occurred at a time when the economy was recovering from recession and strong growth was to be expected. They also ignore that the real acceleration in the economy began in 1997, when economic growth should have cooled. This acceleration in growth coincided with a powerful pro-growth tax cut.

The evidence is persuasive that the tax increase probably slowed the economy compared to the growth it would have achieved and that the subsequent tax cuts of 1997, not the tax increases, were the source of the acceleration in real growth in the latter half of the decade. Astaxes are now above their historical average as a share of the economy, and are rising, Congress should look to enact additional tax relief to keep the economy strong.

Now I'll sit back and marvel at how it is you Lucky, posting on DZ.com know more than J.D. Foster, Ph.D. Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy

.

I see, 80 years of repeated data means nothing to a PhD with an agenda. Nice . So if another quack came around and said smoking wasn't deadly, you would agree in spite of rooms full of data that smoking is fatal? I guess so.

SHOW ME A MOJOR FED TAX CUT THAT LED TO ECONOMIC IMPROVEMENT IN:

- unemp
- stock market
- deficit/debt
- etc

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

What fueled to housing market mess was gov policies that pushed banks to loan money to those who could not pay it back.

The banks then compensated with risky plans to try and cover thier asses


So, you would increase gov involvment when they caused the mess to start with

The houses only falsely appreciated due to puny int rates, the rest of the contributors expedited the mess, but w/o the low rates houses would not have hyperinflated.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

What fueled to housing market mess was gov policies that pushed banks to loan money to those who could not pay it back.

The banks then compensated with risky plans to try and cover thier asses


So, you would increase gov involvment when they caused the mess to start with

The houses only falsely appreciated due to puny int rates, the rest of the contributors expedited the mess, but w/o the low rates houses would not have hyperinflated.

You are the expert

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What fueled to housing market mess was gov policies that pushed banks to loan money to those who could not pay it back.

The banks then compensated with risky plans to try and cover thier asses


So, you would increase gov involvment when they caused the mess to start with

The houses only falsely appreciated due to puny int rates, the rest of the contributors expedited the mess, but w/o the low rates houses would not have hyperinflated.

You are the expert

In law, economics, politics, medicine...just ask him.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What fueled to housing market mess was gov policies that pushed banks to loan money to those who could not pay it back.

The banks then compensated with risky plans to try and cover thier asses


So, you would increase gov involvment when they caused the mess to start with

The houses only falsely appreciated due to puny int rates, the rest of the contributors expedited the mess, but w/o the low rates houses would not have hyperinflated.

You are the expert

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis

-- In the years leading up to the crisis, significant amounts of foreign money flowed into the U.S. from fast-growing economies in Asia and oil-producing countries. This inflow of funds combined with low U.S. interest rates from 2002-2004 contributed to easy credit conditions, which fueled both housing and credit bubbles.

-- However, once interest rates began to rise and housing prices started to drop moderately in 2006–2007 in many parts of the U.S., refinancing became more difficult. Defaults and foreclosure activity increased dramatically as easy initial terms expired, home prices failed to go up as anticipated, and ARM interest rates reset higher.

See, there is an inverse relationship between int rates and house costs / values. Int rates drop, teh same hosue goes for $XX,000 more, creating a frenzy amongst buyers, sellers, financers, etc.

Of all the variables, low int rates were both the catalyst and the cause. Other factors may have fueled and expedited it, but none of it was possible w/o low int rates held down so long. Why were rates cut? Economy sputtered, taxes cut, rich retained their cash vs reinvested. The only way you can cut taxes is when the economy is flying and receipts are high. To cut taxes to think you will incr receipts is retarded.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

What fueled to housing market mess was gov policies that pushed banks to loan money to those who could not pay it back.

The banks then compensated with risky plans to try and cover thier asses


So, you would increase gov involvment when they caused the mess to start with

The houses only falsely appreciated due to puny int rates, the rest of the contributors expedited the mess, but w/o the low rates houses would not have hyperinflated.

You are the expert

In law, economics, politics, medicine...just ask him.

I see you're done contributing anything....not that you ever did.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

What fueled to housing market mess was gov policies that pushed banks to loan money to those who could not pay it back.

The banks then compensated with risky plans to try and cover thier asses


So, you would increase gov involvment when they caused the mess to start with

The houses only falsely appreciated due to puny int rates, the rest of the contributors expedited the mess, but w/o the low rates houses would not have hyperinflated.

You are the expert

In law, economics, politics, medicine...just ask him.

No, not asking
I a afraid of what else he would list

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I see you're done contributing anything....not that you ever did.

More than you ever have.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 18]

wiki?

have fun

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,471]

>What fueled to housing market mess was gov policies that pushed
>banks to loan money to those who could not pay it back.

Agreed; that was part of it. But Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac losses amount to $160 billion and _might_ reach 1 trillion, worst case. The credit default swap market hit $54.6 trillion before it collapsed.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

>What fueled to housing market mess was gov policies that pushed
>banks to loan money to those who could not pay it back.

Agreed; that was part of it. But Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac losses amount to $160 billion and _might_ reach 1 trillion, worst case. The credit default swap market hit $54.6 trillion before it collapsed.

Ok, so if all that happened w/o the radical appreciation via low interest rates, the houses would default and be worth approximately what they sold for minus foreclosure costs. The real messis found in the hyperinflation.