BoatShoes;1378569 wrote:We essentially ran a balanced budget in December...The month when the spending cuts discussed in the articles took place...

You've been very helpful in proving my point while also showing that the increased deficits in Oct. and Nov. due to spending preparation for the fiscal cliff were also too small!

:thumbup:

So your response quoted a Q4 deficit of $292B and you blame the GDP number on December sequestration cuts that actually don't hit until Feb/March?

In other words, a deficit averaging $100B a month led to -0.1% GDP growth because we didn't add another $150B to the deficit in the month of December?

Sooner or later you will realize propping up the short-run with ever diminishing yield is costing us sustainable, long-run growth. It creates a spiral whereby you have to spend more and more just to offset the cumulative excess that is dragging down growth.

There is no model that says massive, sustained deficit spending (which is decidely NOT keynesian) is accretive to long-run growth.

BoatShoes;1378569 wrote:We essentially ran a balanced budget in December...The month when the spending cuts discussed in the articles took place...

You've been very helpful in proving my point while also showing that the increased deficits in Oct. and Nov. due to spending preparation for the fiscal cliff were also too small!

:thumbup:

Comical. Do you split a flat in Manhattan with Krugman?

BoatShoes;1378295 wrote:It will be fun when we get to see the reports about how there was a smaller deficit in the fourth quarter and that it caused gdp to shrink...just like we would expect.

It was fun - :laugh: - to get the report that says the deficit was LARGER than the prior two quarters, and yet we had economic contraction. My, my, my.

So let's see...the housing bubble destroyed like $8T in wealth...and in the past 4 years we've added some $6T to the debt (ignoring all the other fed stimulus). Where in hell is this multiplier effect we keep hearing about?

And the Fed told us in January 2010 that the growth rate in 2012 would be 3.5-4.5%, but it was 2.2% .... and rapidly deteriorating from there.

Oh the folly.

The bottom line is this: when you attack a capitalist economy with 4+ years of marxist policies, you get what we have.


And 60 million morons voted for more of it.

Good luck.


Change we can believe in ....

BoatShoes;1378574 wrote:No, not until the end of time, only until we return to full employment, run deficits that are large enough to do so and interest rates can rise off of the zero bound. You also have doctor evil syndrome.

With desired savings and desired exports where they are we probably need a deficit of about 10% of gdp and the simplest way to get there without a bunch of fancy programs would be a total repeal of the fica taxes and aid to the states until we reach full employment. Then we can all become deficit hawks.

Deficits have been more than 10% of GDP going back to Bush's last year. Where is the "full employment"?

Cleveland Buck;1378734 wrote:Deficits have been more than 10% of GDP going back to Bush's last year. Where is the "full employment"?

I think he meant 'full dependency'.

This is truly amazing. During the W years not having 3% GDP growth was the end of the world, now that we have another recession quarter:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-economy-shrinks-0-1-133115372.html

It's the best recession we ever had! Crazy times.

Cleveland Buck;1378734 wrote:Deficits have been more than 10% of GDP going back to Bush's last year. Where is the "full employment"?

You are wrong. Deficit last year was 1.1 trillion. GDP was 15 trillion. Deficit was 7.3% of gdp. Deficit was 8.7% of gdp year prior. The deficit has been shrinking every year and that is a mistake.

QuakerOats;1378708 wrote:It was fun - :laugh: - to get the report that says the deficit was LARGER than the prior two quarters, and yet we had economic contraction. My, my, my.

The near balanced budget in december due to the rapid decrease in defense spending elucidates the point, guy!

gut;1378586 wrote: There is no model that says massive, sustained deficit spending (which is decidely NOT keynesian) is accretive to long-run growth.

Massive deficit spending until full employment is achieved and interest rates feel pressure to rise is keynesianism. On the contrary, persistent, long-term unemployment is what is really accretive to long-run growth because it creates hysterisis in the labor market.

There was a 22.2% cut in defense expenditures in december.

BoatShoes;1378570 wrote:lol no. Deficit should probably be about 10% of gdp as opposed to 7% and getting smaller. You've got Dr. Evil syndrome. $1 Trillllliiiionnn Dollars!?!?!?!?

You've got ignoramus syndrome...$6 trillion and counting with nothing to show for it. Running deficits in excess of 7% of GDP is clearly too high and is a drag on the economy. There is plenty of proof all over of many countries failing to spend their way to prosperity - has that EVER worked? Yet you keep endorsing it.

BoatShoes;1379267 wrote:Massive deficit spending until full employment is achieved and interest rates feel pressure to rise is keynesianism.

Sounds like you believe the govt creates jobs. And that isn't keynesianism. And it isn't working, anyway.

BoatShoes;1379258 wrote:You are wrong. Deficit last year was 1.1 trillion. GDP was 15 trillion. Deficit was 7.3% of gdp. Deficit was 8.7% of gdp year prior. The deficit has been shrinking every year and that is a mistake.

What about the 2-3 years prior to that? Is it just coincidence that the unemployment rate didn't start falling until the deficit did? Even if all of these phony government numbers don't mean much in the real world, that alone should show you what a sham your theories are.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-cheapest-obamacare-plan-will-be-20000-family


Clusterf*cckkkkkkk


Change we can believe in ....

Quaker, I really enjoy all of the large print and crazy links you provide. You provide comic relief to this otherwise depressing forum. Keep up the good work. I figure you've got four more years at least, maybe a lot more if the R's don't get their act together and nominate someone with half a chance of winning.

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/02/02/White-House-Warns-Don-t-Photoshop-Obama-Gun-Pic

This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.

So let me get this straight. The White House, which serves and is funded by the American people, says that we cannot alter this image in any way.



Now correct me if I'm wrong, if the White House took this image with a taxpayer-funded camera, then this image would be public property (IE: We own it.) So if we own it, we'll do whatever we want with it.

The arrogance of this administration never ceases to amaze me. LMAO

http://m.quickmeme.com/Obamas-Got-A-Gun/?upcoming

Cleveland Buck;1380043 wrote:

haha Reps

Cleveland Buck;1380043 wrote:

I do love a good Fox [News] hunt.

Run, fat man [Rush Limbaugh], run.

Geez...he even shoots leftie.

I say the WH photoshopped that...in the original he was wolfin' down a 2-ft long sammich

[h=3]Source Says Obama Will Not Decide On Keystone XL Until June At Earliest.[/h]Reuters (2/1, Gardner) reported that an anonymous US official has said President Obama's Administration won't make a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline until at least June. There are still several steps the State Department has to take before final approval. Though the State Department made no comment for the article, Reuters noted that last week a spokeswoman had said the decision would not be likely before the end of March. According to ClearView Energy Partners analyst Kevin Book, the delays on a decision could indicate the Administration is hoping to get its story solid when its decision is announced so that it can please both sides of those involved in the debate.




he needs more time to dream up some new obstacles; the assault on capitalism continues.

Change we can believe in ....