patrick.net

HappyGilmore says

inGoran_K says

Democrats: This tax plan adds 1.5 trillion to the deficit over 10 years! This will kill the economy!!!!

Also Democrats: Obama adding $8.4 trillion in just 8 years is just good economic sense.

Democrats wouldn't have standards if it weren't for double standards.

Well, first of all--please don't compare deficit and debt as if they are the same. (hint, Obama didn't add 8.4T to the deficit)

Second--it's not hypocritical at all. Dems are consistent that governments should increase spending during downturns and reduce spending during good times. Republicans apparently believe the opposite.

Dems reduce spending? lol

errc says

Goran_K says

errc says

I thought you guys said 15$ an hour would bankrupt the entire planet

Really?

You can't tell the difference between a free market decision to pay people more money and the government artificially setting a wage floor?

Those are TWO different things you know.

I don’t see this as a Free Market decision, rather a political (government) effect on the marketplace.

Either way, to a man right wingers were whining about how 15$ an hour would crush the economy. Funny, all of a sudden now $15 is a good thing. At least yous are consistent

You don’t see a private company increasing their minimum wage outside of government intervention as a market decision?

Do you think the sky is blue or maybe some other color?

The 1.5 trillion added to the debt is on top of the debt that would be racked up without their tax plan. This is definitely not a prediction that we will only add 1.5 trillion to the debt over 10 yrs. That would be ridiculous without some serious disruptive technology/massive growth on the scale of the internet revolution.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

The 1.5 trillion added to the debt is on top of the debt that would be racked up without their tax plan.

Spending cuts are coming next. Don't worry.

It's funny how leftist Democrats are suddenly worried about fiscal conservatism after ignoring it for 8 years under Obama...

Goran_K says

It's funny how leftist Democrats are suddenly worried about fiscal conservatism after ignoring it for 8 years under Obama...

Not just ignoring it, airily dismissing the doubling of the debt.

It's $1.5T over 10 years IF the models are correct. Not in 18 months like Obama.

Plus in a hot economy, natural inflation (not the leftist kind seen in Venezuela) tends to wipe debt out pretty good.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

t's $1.5T over 10 years IF the models are correct. Not in 18 months like Obama.

LInks? Please show when Obama took office, which budgets and bills he signed that increased the deficit by $1.5T over 18 months.

But MUH DEBT!!!

Wait, what did the Liberal Econ Icon say when Obama was President?

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/opinion/paul-krugman-debt-is-good-for-the-economy.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=C83651EC30D222F1C2C69463AF9B04EC&gwt=pay&assetType=opinion
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/opinion/paul-krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=78375ECCD3836D223C309DB39E507919&gwt=pay&assetType=opinion
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/10/22/debt-diversion-distraction/?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=8D91416A37A1070F64184152C80DBA30&gwt=pay&assetType=opinion

Obama's Administration: Student Debt is Great!

on student debt load is helping the economy.

“Investing in Higher Education: Benefits, Challenges, and the State of Student Debt” is the work of the White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA). The 78-page report argues that, despite the widespread belief student loans are dragging down young U.S. workers, the surge in debt has actually been a boon for the United States.

“Federal student loan programs help expand access to high-quality education, which has long-lasting benefits to individuals as well as the overall macroeconomy through higher labor productivity and faster GDP growth,” the report says.

Student debt has nearly doubled during President Barack Obama’s tenure, surpassing credit card debt as the second-largest source of debt in the U.S., behind home mortgages. Polls and other measures of economic activity indicate that many millennials have delayed marrying, buying a home, or starting a family because of their student loan burdens.

Such analyses have it all wrong, the new report says. In fact, people with student debt are far better off than those going without it, and on balance the debt is boosting the American economy.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/19/obama-admin-1-3-trillion-in-student-debt-is-good-for-the-economy/

For the last three decades, anti-debt polemics have been the cause célèbre of self-styled “fiscal conservatives.” Over the course of their crusade, deficit hawks have cultivated several strategies to reduce government borrowing and spending. They have tried everything from emotional appeals that invoke scary, big-sounding factoids to more serious econometric studies. Yet all of these approaches fall short upon closer examination. Contrary to the doomsayers, the national debt is not a national emergency—at least, there’s no reason to see it as such in the near or even intermediate future. In fact, austerity is probably the most ‘fiscally irresponsible’ move for the US at present.

It’s quite clear that cutting the national debt has become an article of faith for conservatives. Consider the words of Stephen Moore, the former chief economist at the Heritage Foundation: “In 2015 the US government ran up one of the largest budget deficits in history — borrowing more than $1 billion a day seven days a week and twice on Sunday.” With this folksy statistic as his only evidence, Moore proceeds to advocate for a decades-long regimen of budget-cutting. In his view, the goal of fiscal policy should be to aggressively reduce the national debt over the next two and a half decades until the “debt burden [is] down to … a safe zone.”

Here the intelligent reader should pause and demand elaboration. Why is $8 billion per week too much? It sounds big to the layman’s ears, but government spending always “sounds big.” Furthermore, even if this $8 billion figure does need to be trimmed, how do we go about identifying and justifying a “safe zone” for national borrowing? At no point are either of these claims fully explored as yardsticks for America’s carrying capacity for debt, and yet they are some of the most commonplace fiscal fallacies. The former — framing the debt in terrifying but irrelevant terms—comes in several forms: towering visuals of stacked dollar bills, evocative memes, and analogies that put the national debt in personal terms. These tactics are certainly riveting, but only because they provoke anxiety rather than sober-minded analysis. Unfortunately, such misleading devices are the most frequent and widely-believed ways of talking about the national debt.

http://www.brownpoliticalreview.org/2016/01/three-cheers-for-the-national-debt-why-america-does-not-need-to-cut-back/

TwoScoopsMcGee says

For the last three decades, anti-debt polemics have been the cause célèbre of self-styled “fiscal conservatives.” Over the course of their crusade, deficit hawks have cultivated several strategies to reduce government borrowing and spending. They have tried everything from emotional appeals that invoke scary, big-sounding factoids to more serious econometric studies. Yet all of these approaches fall short upon closer examination. Contrary to the doomsayers, the national debt is not a national emergency—at least, there’s no reason to see it as such in the near or even intermediate future. In fact, austerity is probably the most ‘fiscally irresponsible’ move for the US at present.

It’s quite clear that cutting the national debt has become an article of faith for conservatives. Consider the words of Stephen Moore, the former chief economist at the Heritage Foundation: “In 2015 the US government ran up one of the largest budget deficits in history — borrowing more...

I disagree with the austerity assertion, but I've always been more conservative on debt. Of course eventually I took advantage of good credit and borrowed quite a rolling amount for constant low apr which basically only consists of fees (with ZIRP there was no pother game in town), but as rates are rising that rolling over may come to an end and leverage may decline. The reason austerity is perceived as irresponsible is simple, nobody wants to cut on their end, so from that angle one can understand that assertion. We have long entered into an era where cutbacks on any spending is unthinkable, including politicians salaries. We could do away with most government salaries and welfare, corporate subsidies and what not and be fine, but nobody wants to pull the rug. It's better to live in an illusion of perpetual spending increases. Look at the everyday consumer. Aside from the essentials which can be daunting due to inflation and easily account for 30%-50% of spending, the other 50% are spent on mostly unnecessary items. Iphones, dining out, spa treatments, massages, delivery services (instead of exercising and picking up stuff), gym fads (all you need is run 5 miles per day and do 100-200 push-ups or other strength work/sports), netflix and co. etc. I'd wager that, going back to the essentials, everybody could cut their expenses by 40% without incurring a health or lifestyle disadvantage. The Fed though realized that this is a world-wide phenomenon and that in a globalized world most are somehow connected to the reserve currency leader, and politicians are mostly spineless lackeys, so they would copy any QE moves and with debt being relative to other debt their plan seems to have succeeded for now, gotta hand it to them. Well played. However tax cuts are always preferable to QE as the resulting economic boost is organic and will often make up for the reduced tax income. So while I wish Trump would cut far more unnecessary government and corporate subsidies and spending, I am on board with generally low taxes.

bob2356 says

You meant bush bail out money.

Having trouble with recall and history? Was Bush President in 2009?

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) (Pub.L. 111–5), nicknamed the Recovery Act, was a stimulus package enacted by the 111th U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama in February 2009.
The approximate cost of the economic stimulus package was estimated to be $787 billion at the time of passage, later revised to $831 billion between 2009 and 2019.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009

TwoScoopsMcGee says

But MUH DEBT!!!

Wait, what did the Liberal Econ Icon say when Obama was President?

What's your point? He wasn't one of those people attacking Obama 24/7 about the debt levels, so let's use him as an example of how it's alright to have huge debt despite the fact we spent the last 8 years saying exactly the opposite. Is that your argument?

anon_6ae12 says

What's your point? He wasn't one of those people attacking Obama 24/7 about the debt levels, so let's use him as an example of how it's alright to have huge debt despite the fact we spent the last 8 years saying exactly the opposite. Is that your argument?

My point is that the beloved Economic Icon of Liberals, Paul Krugman, has been blowing off massive debt increases for years and years. He's not the only one. Most of the Liberal-Left was blowing off massively increased debt.

Which is why THEY have to explain why a tax cut that may, IF the model is right, result in a piddling $1.5T debt increase, compared to the double of debt in the last decade to the tune of what, $10T I think, is such a Major Big Deal, So Irresponsible(tm)

Of course, everybody knows why Liberals have suddenly been concerned about increasing the Debt. #TDS.

Edit: I forgot to add, that's $1.5T over a decade, or about $150B a year for 10 years. Compare that to the ~$10T increase over the previous 8 years.

This is WINNING!
Getting all the Trump/Rep/Cons off the govt. dole.
Hopefully to be followed by elimination of subsidies to all Republican businesses.
Eliminating the ACA mandate to force Rep/Con to take financial responsibility was a great MAGA start.
It would have been more MAGA if Rep/Con names,that will lose ACA,could have been legally posted.
Wingnuts are great but they can't do everything.

Taking away from Republican voters is the best way to 'Win friends & influence people.'

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-21/trump-pushed-by-ryan-to-follow-tax-win-with-u-s-welfare-revamp

anonymous says

Justice Gorsuch
Tax cuts
Repeal of Obamacare mandate
Big hike in DOD spending
12 Federal appeals court judges
Withdrawal from Paris Accord
Repeal of “net neutrality” Google/Netflix Wealth Transfer
Passage of VA reform
Jerusalem Embassy in the Capital of Israel
No Hillary the Hostile
Hollywood Hypocrisy Exposed
ISIS all but eliminated
Soaring Home Sales
17-year low in Unemployment
Vibrant Economy with massive GDP gains
...that the Very Serious People said was "no longer possible" of 3%+
Saudi Arabian Reforms

Who needs losing if "winning" looks like this.

anon_08dee says

Who needs losing if "winning" looks like this

If that’s the way you feel, you must be a Leftist (starts with L and so does LOSER)

TwoScoopsPlissken says

anon_6ae12 says

What's your point? He wasn't one of those people attacking Obama 24/7 about the debt levels, so let's use him as an example of how it's alright to have huge debt despite the fact we spent the last 8 years saying exactly the opposite. Is that your argument?

My point is that the beloved Economic Icon of Liberals, Paul Krugman, has been blowing off massive debt increases for years and years. He's not the only one. Most of the Liberal-Left was blowing off massively increased debt.

Which is why THEY have to explain why a tax cut that may, IF the model is right, result in a piddling $1.5T debt increase, compared to the double of debt in the last decade to the tune of what, $10T I think, is such a Major Big Deal, So Irresponsible(tm)

Of course, everybody knows why Liberals have suddenly been concerned about increasing the Debt. #TDS.

Edit: I...

According to The Bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, it will add $2.2trillion to the DEFICIT over the next decade. The 2017 budget deficit was already around $666bn. Would you like to explain to everyone what that means for the national debt over a decade? And this is without any major financial crisis occurring.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

anon_6ae12 says

What's your point? He wasn't one of those people attacking Obama 24/7 about the debt levels, so let's use him as an example of how it's alright to have huge debt despite the fact we spent the last 8 years saying exactly the opposite. Is that your argument?

My point is that the beloved Economic Icon of Liberals, Paul Krugman, has been blowing off massive debt increases for years and years. He's not the only one. Most of the Liberal-Left was blowing off massively increased debt.

Which is why THEY have to explain why a tax cut that may, IF the model is right, result in a piddling $1.5T debt increase, compared to the double of debt in the last decade to the tune of what, $10T I think, is such a Major Big Deal, So Irresponsible(tm)

Of course, everybody knows why Liberals have suddenly been concerned about increasing the Debt. #TDS.

Edit: I...

According to The Bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, it will add $2.2trillion to the DEFICIT over the next decade. The 2017 budget deficit was already around $666bn. Would you like to explain to everyone what that means for the national debt over a decade? And this is without any major financial crisis occurring.

anon_b8f55 says

aul Krugman, has been blowing off massive debt increases for years and years. He's not the only one. Most of the Liberal-Left was blowing off massively increased debt.

BS. They supported the Keynesian view that taking on debt is worth it, in recessionary or severe recessionary times (for many reasons).

But here we are 8 years in to a recovery, about to undertake the worst deficit and debt increase ever, after recent nearly yearly republican tantrums when they threatened to blow up the world over out of control deficit spending .

Sniper says

So you're saying Obama tacking on $10 TRILLION of debt in 8 years was no big thing?

First off, we know that a huge part of that had to do with a depression level drop in economic activity (and tax revenues) while Bush era spending levels (and yes Bush budget) went forward. The other big factor was necessary stimulus to get us out of the rut cause by a bunch of factors (OBama didn't cause the crash). And a lot of that spending was initiated by the previous admin. Does the name Paulson mean anything to you ?

And yes, I think this debt increase will be at least as great and it will have been initiated now, a time when the economy is good, and they should be doing what happened in the late 90s, moving towards surpluses maybe even god forbid paying down some debt.

anon_b8f55 says

According to The Bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, it will add $2.2trillion to the DEFICIT over the next decade. The 2017 budget deficit was already around $666bn. Would you like to explain to everyone what that means for the national debt over a decade? And this is without any major financial crisis occurring.

In July 2015, CRFB announced Mitch Daniels, Leon Panetta and Timothy Penny as the new co-chairs of its board.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_a_Responsible_Federal_Budget#Based_at_the_New_America_Foundation
Hahaha, i don't remember who Penny is, but Mitch Daniels was is a GOPe who hates Trump, and Panetta is well, a Panetta, whose brother works on Dem Campaigns. There's the Board Co-Chairs folks. Both are neoliberal Globalists who love unlimited refugees and endless wars, which is kind of at odds with their discovery of Debt.

I'll pass on their estimate, which I would love a link to in order to mock it further.

And any estimate is just that. If we get 3% growth for the next few quarters and start to get some non-anemic inflation, beautiful cheap money takes a bite outta the debt. Excuse me if I don't believe a field where 98% of the profession was completely surprised and gobsmacked by the worst Global recession since the Great Depression, and most of the 2% dissenting were permabears who were predicting collapse since 1980.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

And any estimate is just that. If we get 3% growth for the next few quarters and start to get some non-anemic inflation, beautiful cheap money takes a bite outta the debt. Excuse me if I don't believe a field where 98% of the profession was completely surprised and gobsmacked by the worst Global recession since the Great Depression, and most of the 2% dissenting were permabears who were predicting collapse since 1980.

That seems to be the default position for all Trumpcucks. When an objective analysis comes out that says things you don't like--attack the source. There's a reason Trump has conditioned all his cucks to disbelieve all media and distrust the educated and knowledgeable. It makes it much easier for him to pull the wool over your eyes and rob you blind.

It's really sad that some smart people on here fall for this.

Of course there is...when 47% of statements by media go from "half true" to "pants on fire", what else would one expect?

Statements made on CNN
Click on the ruling to see all of the statements made on CNN.

True13 (16%)(13)
Mostly True29 (37%)(29)
Half True16 (20%)(16)
Mostly False7 (9%)(7)
False11 (14%)(11)
Pants on Fire3 (4%)
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/cnn/

HappyGilmore says

There's a reason Trump has conditioned all his cucks to disbelieve all media and distrust the educated and knowledgeable.

BlueSardine says

Of course there is...when 47% of statements by media go from "half true" to "pants on fire", what else would one expect?

Statements made on CNN
Click on the ruling to see all of the statements made on CNN.

True13 (16%)(13)
Mostly True29 (37%)(29)
Half True16 (20%)(16)
Mostly False7 (9%)(7)
False11 (14%)(11)
Pants on Fire3 (4%)
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/cnn/

lol--did you see which pundits are lying?

Jack Kingston (Republican politician)
Sarah Palin (Republican politician)
Mike Rogers (Republican politician)
Michelle Bachmann (Republican politician)
Jan Brewer (Republican politician)

Notice a trend here?

Again--it's not the media that's lying. It's the Republican politicians. They just happen to have been given an outlet on TV to do it.

Irrelevant.
The subject was about "the media lying".
If CNN allows liars to lie on their shows, they are as guilty ( by association )...

HappyGilmore says

lol--did you see which pundits are lying?

Jack Kingston (Republican politician)
Sarah Palin (Republican politician)
Mike Rogers (Republican politician)
Michelle Bachmann (Republican politician)
Jan Brewer (Republican politician)

Notice a trend here?

BlueSardine says

Irrelevant.
The subject was about "the media lying".
If CNN allows liars to lie on their shows, they are as guilty ( by association )...

No, it's pretty relevant. One party and it's President are habitual liars. That is absolutely relevant.

And they are waging a propaganda war to discredit people who try to call them out on their lies. Like I said--by getting people to distrust the media, it makes it much easier for them to rob you blind.

Congrats--you are complicit in the plan. I think all the Trumpcucks on here have Stockholm syndrome.

yes. definitely trendy...

Sally Kohn ( liberal columnist )
Michael Skolnik ( libbie businessman )
Maria Cardona ( libbie strategist )
Donna Brazile ( libbie Clintonite, self-admitted cheater )
Marc Lamont Hill ( libbie professor of something )
Don Lemon ( libbie tv host, named correctly at birth )
Van Jones ( libbie tv host, has overactive tear glands )
Bill Maher ( libbie comedian wannabe )


HappyGilmore says

Notice a trend here?

TwoScoopsPlissken says

And any estimate is just that. If we get 3% growth for the next few quarters and start to get some non-anemic inflation, beautiful cheap money takes a bite outta the debt. Excuse me if I don't believe a field where 98% of the profession was completely surprised and gobsmacked by the worst Global recession since the Great Depression, and most of the 2% dissenting were permabears who were predicting collapse since 1980.

3% growth over an extended period is what is needed so that the increased deficit isnt higher. When has there been a prolonged period of 3% growth?
And I notice you attacking the people rather than the figures. All figures point to a substantial increase in the deficit. Your post clearly conflated deficit and debt. Was that to deliberately mislead or were you just mixing the two? The fact that you keep pointing out the debt rise under Obama (with clear mitigating circumstances for a large part of that) whilst completely ignoring the fact that debt is projected to rise by a similar amount under Trump if there ISN'T any financial crisis seems a rather strange argument.

No, not relevant.
One president and 1% of a party lying do not make the whole party complicit.

HappyGilmore says

No, it's pretty relevant. One party and it's President are habitual liars

BlueSardine says

yes. definitely trendy...

Sally Kohn ( liberal columnist )
Michael Skolnik ( libbie businessman )
Maria Cardona ( libbie strategist )
Donna Brazile ( libbie Clintonite, self-admitted cheater )
Marc Lamont Hill ( libbie professor of something )
Don Lemon ( libbie tv host, named correctly at birth )
Van Jones ( libbie tv host, has overactive tear glands )
Bill Maher ( libbie comedian wannabe )

Yep--those folks didn't lie. The ones I listed did.

That's a trend alright.

BlueSardine says

No, not relevant.
One president and 1% of a party lying do not make the whole party complicit.

What's relevant is a systematic process by which the Republican party is overtly lying and then purposely sowing distrust in the institution that is calling them on their lies.

And, like I said, you, like all Trumpcucks, are complicit in this process.

What you see as "purposely sowing distrust" can also be viewed as "outing the liars".
Politicians in the past rarely called MSM on it as they needed the coverage to be elected.
In the age of social media, MSM has been effectively neutered, as witnessed by the election of Trump.
Politicofact, a proven non-biased source, has already outed the media as liars, so your "sowing distrust" is nothing more than exposing a biased source of information.
Of course, you hate it as it confirms the loss of influence by the MSM, one of the democratic party's big cannons...

HappyGilmore says

What's relevant is a systematic process by which the Republican party is overtly lying and then purposely sowing distrust in the institution that is calling them on their lies.

BlueSardine says

What you see as "purposely sowing distrust" can also be viewed as "outing the liars".

Did I miss Trump outing himself? If so, please point me to the links on that.


BlueSardine says

Politicians in the past rarely called MSM on it as they needed the coverage to be elected

No--it's because the MSM wasn't lying.

BlueSardine says

Politicofact, a proven non-biased source, has already outed the media as liars, so your "sowing distrust" is nothing more than exposing a biased source of information.

Politofact outed Republican talking heads as liars proving my point. Retired politicians aren't the media--they are retired politicians.

BlueSardine says

Of course, you hate it as it confirms the loss of influence by the MSM, one of the democratic party's big cannons...

No I hate it because it's impossible for people to make good decisions when they are constantly being lied to and cannot tell truth from fiction.

Trump outs himself as a liar with every spoken breath.
This does not disqualify trump from outing the lying media, as long as proven sources back up his 'outings' ( politicofact)

HappyGilmore says

BlueSardine says

What you see as "purposely sowing distrust" can also be viewed as "outing the liars".

Did I miss Trump outing himself? If so, please point me to the links on that.

Politicofact disagrees with you as well as the vast majority of americans who back politicofact.
http://patrick.net/post/1312576?offset=40#comment-1469931
HappyGilmore says

BlueSardine says

Politicians in the past rarely called MSM on it as they needed the coverage to be elected

No--it's because the MSM wasn't lying.

Politicofact outed all MSM and political liars,which proves my point.
I don't give a fuck if they are media or politicians, liars are liars.
HappyGilmore says

BlueSardine says

Politicofact, a proven non-biased source, has already outed the media as liars, so your "sowing distrust" is nothing more than exposing a biased source of information.

Politofact outed Republican talking heads as liars proving my point. Retired politicians aren't the media--they are retired politicians.

BlueSardine says

Politicofact disagrees with you as well as the vast majority of americans who back politicofact.

Nope--politicofact agrees with me. They detail all the Republican politicians that go on CNN to spread their lies.