Tuesday, May 01, 2012

Smackdown: Ron Paul vs. Paul Krugman


HT: Reason

134 Comments:

At 5/01/2012 8:53 AM, Blogger Ed R said...

So we should think Ron Paul is a better economist than Paul Krugman??

 
At 5/01/2012 8:58 AM, Blogger Methinks said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 5/01/2012 9:00 AM, Blogger Methinks said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 5/01/2012 9:02 AM, Blogger Methinks said...

Right, Paul Krugnuts. The market can't always allocate resources properly, but a few guys in government can fix that. Begs the question: if a few guys in government are so smart that they can fix a depression, why not let them plan all resource allocation all the time? Why not let them plan always so that we can avoid any misallocations in the first place? Why the lip service to free markets?

I've always loved Paul's romance with his childhood. You know, the America where blacks couldn't drink from the same fountains as whites.

 
At 5/01/2012 9:18 AM, Blogger Pulverized Concepts said...

Yeah, Herr Krugman waxes nostalgic for an era that featured a polio epidemic, conscription and cross-country travel by rail. It wasn't all bad, though. Paul himself didn't have the NYT podium to spread his statist economics.

 
At 5/01/2012 9:31 AM, Blogger The High Priest said...

I love the tired ad hominem of suggesting that being against a centrally planned monetary system is akin to wanting to bring the country back 150 years. Cracks me up every time. Never mind that was the period where this country saw its fastest increase in growth.

 
At 5/01/2012 9:32 AM, Blogger juandos said...

Saw this when it was live streaming yesterday...

It was you basic WWF like cage match of moonbat vs moonbat...

BTW is this the sort of government guided economy we really need?

 
At 5/01/2012 9:34 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

... why this persistent harking back to the Great Depression? It is one cyclical episode, but there are many others. I myself draw more instruction from the depression of 1920-21, a slump as ugly and steep in its way as that of 1929-33, but with the simple and interesting difference that it ended. Top to bottom, spring 1920 to summer 1921, nominal GDP fell by 23.9%, wholesale prices by 40.8% and the CPI by 8.3%. Unemployment, as it was inexactly measured, topped out at about 14% from a pre-bust low of as little as 2%. And how did the administration of Warren G. Harding meet this macroeconomic calamity? Why, it balanced the budget, the president declaring in 1921, as the economy seemed to be falling apart, "There is not a menace in the world today like that of growing public indebtedness and mounting public expenditures." And the fledgling Fed, face to face with its first big slump, what did it do? Why, it tightened, pushing up short rates in mid-depression to as high as 8.13% from a business cycle peak of 6%. It was the one and only time in the history of this institution that money rates at the trough of a cycle were higher than rates at the peak, according to Allan Meltzer.

But then something wonderful happened: Markets cleared, and a vibrant recovery began. There were plenty of bankruptcies and no few brickbats launched in the direction of the governor of the New York Fed, Benjamin Strong, for the deflation that cut an especially wide and devastating swath through the American farm economy. But in 1922, the first full year of recovery, the Fed's index of industrial production leapt by 27.3%. By 1923, the unemployment rate was back to 3.2%. The 1920s began to roar.

And do you know that the biggest nationally chartered bank to fail during this deflationary collapse was the First National Bank of Cleburne, Texas, with not quite $2.8 million of deposits? Even the forerunner to today's Citigroup remained solvent (though for Citi, even then it was a close-run thing, on account of an oversize exposure to deflating Cuban sugar values). No TARP, no starving the savers with zero-percent interest rates, no QE, no jimmying up the stock market, no federal "stimulus" of any kind. Yet—I repeat—the depression ended. To those today who demand ever more intervention to cure what ails us, I ask: Why did the depression of 1920-21 ever end? Given the policies with which the authorities treated it, why are we still not ensnared?

If you object to using the template of 1920-21 as a guide to 21st-century policy because, well, 1920 was a long time ago, I reply that 1929 was a long time ago, too. And if you persist in objecting because the lessons to be derived from the Harding depression are unthinkably at odds with the lessons so familiarly mined from the Hoover and Roosevelt depression, I reply that Harding's approach worked. The price mechanism is truer and enterprise hardier than the promoters of radical 21st-century intervention seem prepared to acknowledge.

-- Jim Grant

 
At 5/01/2012 9:44 AM, Blogger Kevin said...

After Krugman made the jab at Friedman's "popular" works, I would have loved it if Ron Paul had made some remark about Krugman's popular writings that contradict his own academic work.

 
At 5/01/2012 10:06 AM, Blogger AIG said...

Ugh...Paul Krugman is a joke today, but then again so is Ron Paul. One joke vs another joke, makes for total waste of 13 minutes.

 
At 5/01/2012 10:20 AM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

Poor Ron Paul. Can't get no lovin'

 
At 5/01/2012 10:36 AM, Blogger Its GSATT said...

Thanks for the advice Krugman. I'm going to apply for every credit card I can find and pay off my student loans. Sounds weird, but I'm sure it will work. If not, ill just get more cards to pay off those cards. Whats cash right? F'ing Dalt.

Thank god my credit score sucks and I might not be able to pull that off. I wonder how shitty the Feds score would be. Can it go negative?

 
At 5/01/2012 10:47 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

Paul has the only plan that balances the budget in 5 years.

7 Republicans voted for it.

Ron Paul ran for President in the GOP Primaries. He was lucky to get 10% of the vote.

It appears to me even Republicans are not on board with Ron Paul's proposals.

I actually had high hopes for Paul. I thought he'd do much better in a Republican primary but most people simply do not take him seriously,

 
At 5/01/2012 12:17 PM, Blogger spotteddog said...

Larry G
"It appears to me even Republicans are not on board with Ron Paul's proposals."

I'd bet that most conservatives and Rebulicans very much like Mr. Paul's fiscal and monetary positions. But his foreign policy positions are not supported by the same.

 
At 5/01/2012 12:42 PM, Blogger AIG said...

Well, its VERY easy to say you're going to cut this and cut that. Saying it isn't the hard part. Ron Paul's problem is that he is a loon, not that he says things people don't like to hear.

No one takes him seriously, because no one seriously believes we can tackle this problem in the next 5 years. And no one should seriously think that we can.

 
At 5/01/2012 1:05 PM, Blogger Abir Mandal said...

How can a nobel prize winner be such a moron? Oh wait...

 
At 5/01/2012 1:05 PM, Blogger Abir Mandal said...

How can a nobel prize winner be such a moron? Oh wait...

 
At 5/01/2012 1:15 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Obama won't even agree to the House GOP's proposal to cut this year's bloated budget by $28 billion. So why would they vote for Paul's plan that has zero chance of approval, guts the military, and also hands Obama another club to hit them over the head with during the campaign? Paul Ryan's plan, weak tea that it is, is still pushing the limits of what much of the clueless voting public finds fiscally acceptable.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=150854938

 
At 5/01/2012 1:38 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

Yeah, Paul. And this is yet another moment where I'm going to take the opportunity to remind us that this new budge includes what was supposed to be a temporary Keynesian stimulus.

Temporary

It is so temporary that it has yet to be recalled as Lord Barry is taking credit for everything from personally whacking bin Laden to an economic recovery.

The Keynesians can't even get Keynes right.

 
At 5/01/2012 2:01 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

geeze, how long does it take Ryans budget to balance?

You can't balance the budge without cuts to everything including DOD as Paul says.

re: - the stimulus

check out this chart to see how we got here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CBO_Forecast_Changes_for_2009-2012.png

 
At 5/01/2012 2:09 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Methinks,

Yep, though I seriously doubt Obama's expanded handouts to freeloaders was really ever meant to be temporary. Alot of critics correctly warned at the time that this supposed "one shot" deal would be largely built into the baseline from then on. This is what he meant when he said he wanted to "fundamentally transform" America.

 
At 5/01/2012 2:14 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

I do not think Obama can spend any money not appropriated by Congress if not mistaken...

right?

 
At 5/01/2012 2:18 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Larry,

"geeze, how long does it take Ryans budget to balance?"

Alot less time than it takes Obama's plan, considering Obama doesn't have one, as Tim Geithner readily admitted to Ryan himself.

"check out this chart to see how we got here:"


And then, like any Bush blaming Obamabot, you link the famous "CBO Forecast" that didn't foresee the Clinton recession, 9/11, and a multitude of other events.

 
At 5/01/2012 2:22 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"I do not think Obama can spend any money not appropriated by Congress if not mistaken..."

That's how it is supposed to work. Not so with President "We Can't Wait" Obama.

What feeble excuses are you trying to make for him this time?

 
At 5/01/2012 2:29 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

I'm pretty sure that CBO chart is largely correct.

It shows clearly the things that have added multi-year to the deficit verses the things that added once.

and as far as I know everything on there was appropriated by Congress not Obama...

I fully agree Obama has not done much... I do not think you can when the economy has cratered,

England tried an austerity budget and drove themselves back into recession.

Ditto Spain.

 
At 5/01/2012 2:34 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

Bang on correct, Paul. 'Tis one of the many pitfalls of Keynesianism. It just provides such a convenient excuse for politicians.

 
At 5/01/2012 2:38 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

"American Vision News" ???

really?

got a credible source?

 
At 5/01/2012 2:46 PM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

It's amazing how much vitriol Ron Paul and Paul Krugman can produce. I know they are two polarizing figures, but geez, this thread got nasty quick.

 
At 5/01/2012 2:48 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"I'm pretty sure that CBO chart is largely correct."

It's utter liberal crap. It begins with a fantasy CBO forecast, and then singles out 3 items that can be "blamed" on Bush for the debt. I can play that same game with billions and trillions of failed liberal programs that were built into the budget when Bush took office.

Moreover, this chart shows nothing about Obama's documented future plans to spend us into oblivion to the point where the economy "ceases to exist" in 2027.

 
At 5/01/2012 2:54 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" this thread got nasty quick"

no ad hominems yet..

re: "spending"

I still say that it has to be approved by Congress first.

and what the CBO chart does show is spending that was approved by congress.

do you disagree with the numbers?

or did they leave things out?

what is incorrect?

the "Beacon" ? Aren't THEY using CBO data also?

 
At 5/01/2012 2:56 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Larry,

"got a credible source?"

What, like Media Matters? This news has hardly been a secret this past month, but we know how much you pay attention to current events. I guarantee you've never heard of "American Vision News" so I doubt your ability to gauge "credibility." However, all you need to do is click on the links in the article that refer back to the Washington Post, hardly a right-wing rag.

 
At 5/01/2012 3:06 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

no..no... just any source that is fairly unbiased.

it does refer back to WaPo but if you search the terms.. it also is in a number of other publications and when Congress appropriated the money they also appropriated the authority to decide to fund to the Dept of State and they point out that the money is actually spent in American plants making arms...

it's a drop in the bucket anyhow but the bigger point is that Obama does not decide what he is going to spend - Congress does.

A small portion of it he has some discretion on whether to spend or not but he cannot exceed the amounts they appropriate.

agree?

 
At 5/01/2012 3:08 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

It's amazing how much vitriol Ron Paul and Paul Krugman can produce. I know they are two polarizing figures, but geez, this thread got nasty quick.

shut the hell up you, SOB! Who the hell asked you anyway?! Huh? huh?

:) :)

Frankly, I thought interview got pretty nasty. Krugman is a pretty nasty person.

 
At 5/01/2012 3:11 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"re: "spending"

I still say that it has to be approved by Congress first."

That's such a generic statement I don't really know how to respond. The White House is obviously an extremely important player in the budget/governing process. Nary a week goes by without a veto threat from Obama if the House GOP manages to push some job creating, or spending cut bill through Harry Reid's do-nothing Senate.

"do you disagree with the numbers?"

Yes, I disagree with the CBO's fantasy 2001 forecast. I disagree with singling out $673 billion of items it blames on Bush, but ignores the billions and trillions of failed liberal programs elsewhere in the budget. And where is the 2009 $410 billion pork-ridden omnibus spending bill Obama signed into law? Where is the accounting for the approximately 160,000 new useless federal employees since Obama took office? That's off the top of my head.

Your chart is a joke.

 
At 5/01/2012 3:11 PM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

Frankly, I thought interview got pretty nasty. Krugman is a pretty nasty person.

It did, although it was more a clash of personalities than anything else.

All due respect to Dr. Krugman, he has a huge ego.

All due respect to Dr. Paul, he, too, has a huge ego.

All things considered, that interview was probably more tame then people may have thought.

 
At 5/01/2012 3:14 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

Paul do you disagree that Congress has to approve anything that Obama spends?

The chart was a forecast.. it may have 2013 budget stuff on it....
but anything that appears in that chart now or in the future has to be approved by Congress, not the President.

 
At 5/01/2012 3:16 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

Both Krugman and Paul are reactive personalities as are a few others!

As long as the two can argue on principles and make their points without calling each other names..it's a good thing IMHO of course.

I admire Paul for sticking to his principles... but people are not buying what he is selling.. not even his own party.

 
At 5/01/2012 3:18 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"A small portion of it he has some discretion on whether to spend or not but he cannot exceed the amounts they appropriate.

agree?"

Sure, Pelosi/Reid and Obama were like 3 peas in a pod burying us in unprecedented debt for 2 years. He rubber stamped whatever crap they sent up, and they offered up whatever garbage he requested.

 
At 5/01/2012 3:20 PM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

I admire Paul for sticking to his principles... but people are not buying what he is selling.. not even his own party.

I'm not sure he's trying to get elected. I think he's just trying to get his message out there.

I am a Ron Paul supporter, so take what I am about to say for what it's worth.

I'd bet Ron Paul is getting his message out there now, so in 4 years, it's not seen as the radical agenda it's seen as now. He wants his son, Rand, to run and win. What Ron is doing is sacrificing himself and his money for the message.

 
At 5/01/2012 3:20 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

""American Vision News" ???

really?

got a credible source?
"

This is all over, you can find sources for yourself if you're interested. What don't you find credible about it?

If you read carefully, you will see that aid to Egypt is an ongoing expense, long ago authorized by Congress.

"For the past three decades, Egypt has received an average of $2 billion a year from the United States, making it the biggest recipient of American foreign aid besides Israel."

At issue is a recent Congressional requirement that the previously scheduled aid payments be conditional on verification of improved human rights conditions in Egypt.

The problem seems to be:

"...But a senior Obama administration official, who was not authorized to speak by name, said there is currently no way to certify that all conditions are being met."

If the Obama administration makes the scheduled aid payment, and if the Egyptian government is now controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, then one could say that Obama is giving $1.5 bn in US taxpayer's money to the Muslim Brotherhood.

 
At 5/01/2012 3:22 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Larry,

"but anything that appears in that chart now or in the future has to be approved by Congress, not the President."


Ah, so he might as well continue to golf, fundraise, and go on vacation. No need for him to lead with a plan, he'll still get Larry's eager vote.

 
At 5/01/2012 3:25 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" Sure, Pelosi/Reid and Obama were like 3 peas in a pod burying us in unprecedented debt for 2 years. He rubber stamped whatever crap they sent up, and they offered up whatever garbage he requested. "

they certainly helped... but a lot of other spending was done by others and the chart shows what the spending was for...

I'm trying to find another source that shows the same thing... if you find a timeline history...share it.

 
At 5/01/2012 3:33 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Larry,

Also missing from the chart are the 2 years of filibuster proof Democrat rule Obama could have used to actually fix the problem instead of burying us far deeper.

 
At 5/01/2012 3:41 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

Paul -

it's important to recognize what is permanent in the deficit and goes on year after year and what was a one shot deal.

Things that were appropriated by Congress that go are year after year expanded the permanent deficit.

things that went in for one or two years disappear after that.

that's why you see the deficit reducing slightly....

here's another chart that shows the same thing:

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/jamesfallows/assets_c/2011/07/24editorial_graph2-popup-58477.php

I DID check the 2008 stimulus credited to Bush...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Stimulus_Act_of_2008

" It was signed into law on February 13, 2008 by President Bush with the support of both Democratic and Republican lawmakers."

that is an example of an expenditure that was temporary and did not add multi-year to the deficit.

Much of the permanent stuff in the budge was approved before 2007.

it includes the DOD budget which doubled, Homeland Security, Medicare Part D, .

None of these things did Obama put in the budget and all of them are now part of the structural deficit, year after year,

 
At 5/01/2012 3:50 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Jon M: "All due respect to Dr. Krugman, he has a huge ego."

Do you mean the former Nobel Prize winning economist Dr. Paul Krugman, or the current liberal rag columnist and political hack Mr. Krugman?

Nice avatar, by the way.

"Live Free or Die Hard With a Vengeance" - or whatever that motto is. :)

 
At 5/01/2012 3:52 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Larry,

"Much of the permanent stuff in the budge was approved before 2007"

Overall federal spending has increased by about a trillion dollars since 2007. Hmm, what significant political event happened in 2007?

"None of these things did Obama put in the budget and all of them are now part of the structural deficit, year after year."

Again with your "structural deficit" gibberish. How is it that you know about this impenetrable budget gap, but Obama knew absolutely nothing about it back in 2009 when he promised over and over to cut the deficit in half(to around $650 billion) by this year? What happened to his "net spending cut" he campaigned on? Or his vow to go "line by line" throughout the budget to root out wasteful spending? He called Bush "unpatriotic" for adding $4 billion to the debt in 8 yrs. Here we are 3 yrs and $5 trillion deeper.

Is it really your contention that we are helpless against this almighty "structural deficit" despite Obama's huge majorities in the Congress until 2010?

 
At 5/01/2012 3:54 PM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

Do you mean the former Nobel Prize winning economist Dr. Paul Krugman, or the current liberal rag columnist and political hack Mr. Krugman?

Both. The difference is the former had the understanding to know, although the data he saw said one thing, he could be wrong.

Nice avatar, by the way.

Thank you. It's the logo for the New Hampshire Fisher Cats, the AA-affiliate of the Toronto Blue Jays. I became a season ticket holder this year :)

"Live Free or Die Hard With a Vengeance" - or whatever that motto is. :)

"Live Free or Die" isn't a motto...It's a challenge :)

 
At 5/01/2012 3:59 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"I'd bet Ron Paul is getting his message out there now, so in 4 years, it's not seen as the radical agenda it's seen as now. He wants his son, Rand, to run and win. What Ron is doing is sacrificing himself and his money for the message."

Interesting. You may be right. The message is certainly louder than it was 4 years ago, and doesn't seem as radical as it did then. Many young people support Paul, and they will be much more influencial in 4 years.

 
At 5/01/2012 4:05 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

Congress approves all budgets and the President signs them.

No spending is done without approval by Congress.

The "structural" deficit is the things that Congress approved that are permanent - like Medicare Part D that are over and above our tax revenues

no matter who is President after they approve it ..it will remain as part of the deficit until removed by Congress.

Things that are approved for one or two years but then stop - like stimulus DO ADD to the debt but do not become part of the permanent deficit.

Obama did add to the debt with stimulus and tarp (but so did Bush) but neither of these are structural.

There is nothing that Obama can do about the structural deficit unless he submits a budget that cuts the permanent items.

that's what the argument is about.

what are the things we can cut - permanently?

Ron Paul said to cut DOD and shut 4 cabinets.. and across the board cuts to the remaining cabinets.

it balances the budget in 5 years..yes...but in the meantime the debt will still be growing in the years before year 5 while there is still a deficit.

Even at the end of the 5 years, we will be 20+ trillion in debt.

Ryan's plan does not reach balance until 2037 and by that time the debt will be.. some say 30-40 trillion.

We can cut the deficit but there is no way to really cut it without (as Ron Paul says) also cutting DOD.

Medicare is 210 billion
MedicAid is about 250 billion.

the deficit is 1.4 trillion.

the numbers simply don't work without more cuts...and that presumes that you'd zero-fund Medicare/MedicAid and that won't happen.

the bigger problem is that we cannot seriously cut the deficit right now without risking the economy falling back into recession. Romney is going to have the same exact problem if he wins.

My only interest is .. is to better understand the budget the deficit and the debt and I welcome corrections to numbers I've used and other observations.

 
At 5/01/2012 4:33 PM, Blogger AIG said...

For the past three decades, Egypt has received an average of $2 billion a year from the United States, making it the biggest recipient of American foreign aid besides Israel.

YES!..you finally gave me an opening. We can't have a proper discussion here without getting into some good ol' conspiracy theories. I can't wait for VangeIV to get in on some of this. Hey Vange...what's your opinion on this? :P

-----------

Ron Paul said to cut DOD and shut 4 cabinets.. and across the board cuts to the remaining cabinets.

It's very easy to SAY things. Why are we comparing alternatives here with things Ron Paul, says? Ron Paul has said a lot of things, like replacing aircraft carriers with submarines, or fishing boats, or maybe those little paper boats we used to make as kids.

But the things someone says, aren't the measuring stick with which real alternatives ought to be compared.

This is the problem with Ron Paul, no one has any faith that he is capable of comprehending what to do, or capable of doing anything he says he will do. Listening to him speak is like being the designated driver in a car full of drunk people.

Believe it or not, there are BAD ways of cutting spending.

 
At 5/01/2012 4:34 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"The "structural" deficit is the things that Congress approved that are permanent - like Medicare Part D that are over and above our tax revenues"

There's no need to add the "structural" other than to excuse Obama. We have a monstrous deficit,but your hero won't even agree to the $28 billion in cuts the GOP Congress wanted to enact this yr.

"There is nothing that Obama can do about the structural deficit unless he submits a budget that cuts the permanent items."

Yes, he can submit budget cuts like he promised in 2008. So, what's new about that? He can also add to the revenue side via low hanging fruit like the FTA's he ignored for 3 yrs, the Keystone pipeline, offshore drilling, and ending the Democrat created dustbowl in central Calif. Obamacare alone has created a hesitancy among employers to add new taxpaying jobs.

"no matter who is President after they approve it ..it will remain as part of the deficit until removed by Congress."

No matter what budget cuts Congress enacts, they will remain part of the deficit until signed into law by the President.

"..the bigger problem is that we cannot seriously cut the deficit right now without risking the economy falling back into recession."

Nonsense. Government spending sucks resources straight out of the private sector. Compare the results of the recession of 1920-21 vs. the FDR/Obama model of firehosing money at special interest groups and a war on capitalism.

"My only interest is .. is "

To try and whitewash Obama's disastrous reign of the past 3 yrs.

 
At 5/01/2012 4:38 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

re: Egypt... okay.. but Congress sets the limits of what can be spent and only gives the authority to deny the aid not spend more than appropriated.

And as is pointed out in several publications, the "aid" is often and largely American-manufactured arms not money.

re: Ron Paul and bad ways of cutting.

I agree... but with a 15 trillion debt headed to 20+, we'll have to cut... or the economy will have to generate a crap-load more revenue.

 
At 5/01/2012 4:48 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

basically in order to cut the structural deficit - the 1.5T deficit - Obama would have to propose to cut the things that caused it in the first place.

the stimulus and tarp are not part of the structural deficit. They DID ...ADD to the debt..no question.. but they do not go on year after year

The things that go on year after year are primarily the appropriated entitlements - Medicare Part B,C,D, MedicAid and the National Defense budget which includes DOD but is more than that to include Homeland Security, NSA, NASA, etc.

the 28 billion is a gnat on a dogs butt and basically theatrical symbolism... not a principled budget proposal that would actually cut the deficit.

The only principled efforts to date have come from the two deficit commissions, Ron Paul, and Paul Ryan.

Everyone else - both Dem and GOP are posturing.

I do not think either side is actually going to submit an austerity budget right now because they both fear that it will cause us to slide back into recession like just what happened to the UK who passed an austerity budget and the went back into recession.

so both Obama and the GOP are playing politics on the budget while they tread water....waiting for the economy to get stronger before they get serious about cuts.

 
At 5/01/2012 5:23 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"the bigger problem is that we cannot seriously cut the deficit right now without risking the economy falling back into recession. Romney is going to have the same exact problem if he wins."

What gives you the odd notion that if government doesn't spend money, the economy will collapse?

Are politicians telling you that? Consider the source. And, of course, there's that political hack Krugman.

 
At 5/01/2012 5:28 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" What gives you the odd notion that if government doesn't spend money, the economy will collapse?"

it won't necessarily collapse but it will likely go back into recession like the UK did.

when you cut govt - you cut jobs and when you cut jobs you cut consumer spending and you add to entitlements like unemployment.

One of your biggest problems is going to be all these soldiers coming home to an economy that is already at 8% unemployment, which some think is grossly underestimated.

Many, many soldiers when they come home go into law enforcement, fire/ems, security, etc - govt jobs.... which are now also being cut not expanded.

Besides, if the GOP did not believe this - they put a cut-budget on the table, right?

 
At 5/01/2012 5:38 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"basically in order to cut the structural deficit - the 1.5T deficit - Obama would have to propose to cut the things that caused it in the first place."

Yes, he could live up to his multiple promises to that effect. he could start with the GOP budget cuts, but he won't even do that. Or he could submit a plan to balance the budget at some point in the future. Or, he could just work to implement the Bowles-Simpson recommendations he completely blew off.

"the 28 billion is a gnat on a dogs butt and basically theatrical symbolism... not a principled budget proposal that would actually cut the deficit."

And yet he won't even agree to the gnat. $28 billion would by definition "cut the deficit." And your hero calls Paul Ryan's plan the GOP House passed "social darwinism."

"The only principled efforts to date have come from the two deficit commissions, Ron Paul, and Paul Ryan."

Obama ignored the 2 deficit commissions and the GOP HOuse passed the Ryan plan 2 yrs in a row. Meanwhile, Harry Reid's Senate hasn't produced a budget in 3 yrs, in violation of federal law.

"..just what happened to the UK who passed an austerity budget and the went back into recession."

The myth of austerity.

"..waiting for the economy to get stronger before they get serious about cuts."

You're on crack if you think Obama is ever going to be serious about non DOD cuts. That's not how radicals operate. Witness the Greeks rioting in the streets rather than face the fact that they've run out of other peoples' money. Many of his radical pals don't even believe there is much of a debt problem.

 
At 5/01/2012 5:43 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"when you cut govt - you cut jobs and when you cut jobs you cut consumer spending and you add to entitlements like unemployment."

When you cut government, you cut government spending. When you cut government spending, you leave more money in the vastly more efficient private sector. Obama's stimulus cost the taxpayers about $235 k per job in the best case scenario, a number even Tim Geithner doesn't dispute.

 
At 5/01/2012 5:54 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

Did somebody say EGYPT?

Most of that aid is in the form of military training for the Egyption officers, not in cash.

Also, that $2 Billion is part of that peace treaty Carter brokered between Israel and Egypt to end the 1973 war.

Once you entangle yourself in a peace treaty, it's pretty hard to untangle.

 
At 5/01/2012 5:55 PM, Blogger Abir Mandal said...

Larry, read Roger Farmer's recent paper on the 2008 recession. He does econometrics to prove beyond doubt that all public spending does is crowd out private investment. And unlike Krugtard, he is an actual macro-economist. And he has some modicum of logic. I daresay the economy would do better if government stopped spending.

 
At 5/01/2012 5:56 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

Paul, don't you know? If government didn't spend, we'd all be living in caves again because of underconsumption. And as you surely know, not wanting to consume is the natural state of man. We strive for less, not more.

 
At 5/01/2012 6:02 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

Abir, you strike me as a man who has seen the inside of an econometrics class, yes? You know better than to use phrases like "without a doubt" in connection with econometric models - especially in macro.

But, theoretically, how could government not crowd out the private sector for both credit and resources? The argument that interest rates are low, proving that there's no crowding out is BS. If you compete for something, you're crowding out your competitors. That's the point. Even low interest rates are higher than the otherwise would be if government weren't spending like an upper east side social climber.

 
At 5/01/2012 6:09 PM, Blogger Abir Mandal said...

Methinks: I stand corrected. With 95% of doubt removed.. :D

 
At 5/01/2012 6:12 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Ron H: "For the past three decades, Egypt has received an average of $2 billion a year from the United States, making it the biggest recipient of American foreign aid besides Israel."

AIG: "YES!..you finally gave me an opening. We can't have a proper discussion here without getting into some good ol' conspiracy theories. I can't wait for VangeIV to get in on some of this. Hey Vange...what's your opinion on this? :P"

Sorry, I didn't provide a link.

I didn't know anyone but Larry was confused by this issue.

What suggestion of conspiracy do you get from that?

"It's very easy to SAY things. Why are we comparing alternatives here with things Ron Paul, says? Ron Paul has said a lot of things, like replacing aircraft carriers with submarines, or fishing boats, or maybe those little paper boats we used to make as kids."

Got hyperbole?

All we have is politicians "saying things". There's no indication of anyone "doing things".

What's wrong with cutting DOD? Or USDA or DOE or DofEd Or entitlement programs or... or dozens of other things we don't need, or need less of?

Surely you don't believe spending can continue at its present level.

What would you cut?

 
At 5/01/2012 6:17 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

Isn't the President in favor of the Sequester budget?

re: crowding out.

money is already on the sidelines, right?

what is better a soldier who gets a paycheck and his family spends it or a soldier getting an unemployment check?

The VAST amount of govt spending these days is on DOD/National Security employees.

but the GOP will not agree to cut DOD so where does that leave you?

You have a 1.5T deficit and of that deficit 210 billion is Medicare and 250 billion is MedicAid.

Even if you zero-funded both, you'd still be a trillion in the hole.

The GOP has yet to submit a budget that balances.

They strut around with symbolic cuts like the 28 billion but they will not put together a budget like Ron Paul did and they're crying like babies over the President supporting the sequester cuts...

re: Egypt foreign aid.

the total amount approved by Congress - with restrictions -

here's an FAQ:

http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/f.a.q.-on-u.s.-aid-to-egypt-where-does-the-money-go-who-decides-how-spent

 
At 5/01/2012 6:25 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

re: what would I cut?

I think the sequester is a good start.

I support the two budget commissions approaches.

We must cut or we face disaster.

DOD has to be part of it.

We have to recognize that since 911, we are spending huge amounts of money on "national defense" and it's killing us financially.

I'm reminded of how Ronald Reagan killed the USSR - by getting them to spend more on defense than was sustainable.

We are now doing the same thing to ourselves.

We take in about 1.3 trillion in individual/corporate income taxes.

We spend about 1.3 trillion on DOD/National Security.

then we add another 1.4 trillion in spending... on top of that.

the numbers don't work and we'll not fix it over night.

It took 10 years to get here and it's going to take at least 10 to get out of it.

 
At 5/01/2012 6:26 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"And as is pointed out in several publications, the "aid" is often and largely American-manufactured arms not money."

The form of the aid doesn't matter, except that F16s aren't much used directly by the Egyptian people. $1.5 bn of your money is going directly to a foreign government, which until recently was a repressive and unpopular dictator, then the Egyptian military, and now perhaps the Muslim Brotherhood.

 
At 5/01/2012 6:27 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

all true...and approved by Congress.

 
At 5/01/2012 7:10 PM, Blogger AIG said...

Yes guys, keep it up on the Egypt thing. Soon the stench will reach VangeIV, and he will come buzzing in. Can't wait!

What's wrong with cutting DOD? Or USDA or DOE or DofEd Or entitlement programs or... or dozens of other things we don't need, or need less of?

Surely you don't believe spending can continue at its present level.


No need to raise straw-man arguments here. What I said cannot be addressed with "surely you don't believe we shouldn't cut".

What I said is that there are right ways, and wrong ways, of cutting. Simply put, the situation is such that the only practical way of cutting anything from government, is to do it slowly and piecemeal, or to wait until the crises is deeper. At that point, even the pinkest of Socialists, will turn into a capitalist (because socialists love money too, and when it runs out for us, it runs out for them too)

This is the reality of a Republican form of government. You have to compromise to get things done. Ron Paul barging in like Don Quixote, is simply not going to be successful.

In an IDEAL world, where no one had to worry about getting elected, about passing things through a vote, about the media and the Unions paralyzing entire states for weeks over the slightest of cuts, sure that would be a relatively imaginable way of cutting spending.

But it just doesn't work that way, for the same reason that the opposite just doesn't happen that way either. It took decades of erosion to reach the levels of flooding of today, and it will take decades to bring it back.

Look, its human nature to gradually move in one direction, and to resist movement in another until a crises occurs. That's just the way it always happens. This crises is simply not big enough to lead to any shift in direction

Second, Ron Paul is certainly not the one to get it done, because Ron Paul is a joke. He has never gotten anything done in his career, and there comes a time in a person's life, when they need to retire. He spends his energy on pointless and frankly ridiculous targets...like the military.

 
At 5/01/2012 7:52 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"What I said is that there are right ways, and wrong ways, of cutting. Simply put, the situation is such that the only practical way of cutting anything from government, is to do it slowly and piecemeal, or to wait until the crises is deeper. At that point, even the pinkest of Socialists, will turn into a capitalist (because socialists love money too, and when it runs out for us, it runs out for them too)"

But the Fed has shown that the money doesn't ever need to run out. Just print more, so to speak.

What exactly would you cut?

As for Ron Paul, you seem to suggest that not getting anything done is a bad thing. Frankly I don't want anything done, I want lots of things undone.

I may not be able to vote for President in the November election, as I don't see any candidate or likely candidate I can support. I'm done with trying to determine which is the least bad candidate.

"In an IDEAL world, where no one had to worry about getting elected, about passing things through a vote, about the media and the Unions paralyzing entire states for weeks over the slightest of cuts, sure that would be a relatively imaginable way of cutting spending."

In an ideal world, there would be no government spending to cut.

[Ron Paul] "He spends his energy on pointless and frankly ridiculous targets...like the military."

Boy, the military seems like a pretty good place to start cutting to me. You probably can explain the need for hundreds of thousands of US troops around the world in 900 places, or whatever the number is, but not everybody is buying it.

 
At 5/01/2012 8:08 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

Ron H., while technically true that government can just keep printing, it's not politically realistic. There's a limit to how much they can inflate and stay in office.

Politicians will have a hard time getting re-elected in the presence of raging inflation. Only dictators can "successfully" pull that off.

So, the Fed is hoping to rob you every year, but not too much. So long as the rate of inflation (the second derivative) doesn't increase, they'll be okay. But, the Fed doesn't have as much control of that as people think.

 
At 5/01/2012 8:21 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"all true...and approved by Congress."

Except now conditional on improving "human rights" in Egypt. That is Congress's way of showing they are "doing something" after much alarm over the potential recipients of US aid.

 
At 5/01/2012 8:26 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" Does this aid require Egypt to meet any specific conditions regarding human rights?

No. Defense Secretary Gates stated in 2009 that foreign military financing “should be without conditions.”

http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/f.a.q.-on-u.s.-aid-to-egypt-where-does-the-money-go-who-decides-how-spent

if Congress REALLY wanted to stipulate it to their satisfaction, they would have made that the law, right?

instead, this is just more theatrics...for political effect.

 
At 5/01/2012 8:35 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Methinks: "Ron H., while technically true that government can just keep printing, it's not politically realistic. There's a limit to how much they can inflate and stay in office."

I'm sorry, It was probably hard to see my tongue in my cheek from that angle. :)

"So, the Fed is hoping to rob you every year, but not too much. So long as the rate of inflation (the second derivative) doesn't increase, they'll be okay. But, the Fed doesn't have as much control of that as people think."

Isn't inflation "always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon"?

 
At 5/01/2012 8:48 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"instead, this is just more theatrics...for political effect."

Here's a news story on the subject. You can probably follow additional links from there if you are interested.

 
At 5/01/2012 8:57 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

looks like there are theatrics on both sides of the aisle.

I still say that Congress can set the conditions instead of delegating them - if that's what they want to do but they know if they did that..that there would be yet another gridlock issue....

so they delegate it ...not to Obama but to the Sec of State...

this human rights stuff comes up all the time in a number of different ways besides foreign aid.

We give this money to serve our strategic interests.

A country that kidnaps people and holds them incognito without charges and uses "enhanced" interrogation techniques OR turns the over to other countries LIKE we did to Egypt doesn't have a whole lot to stand on anyhow on the human rights issue IMHO.

If Congress really wants to call the shots.. they should do it and stop fooling around with theatrics.

 
At 5/01/2012 9:04 PM, Blogger Pulverized Concepts said...

"I'd bet Ron Paul is getting his message out there now, so in 4 years, it's not seen as the radical agenda it's seen as now.

The establishment of a Federal Reserve Bank was seen as a pretty radical move prior to 1913.

 
At 5/01/2012 9:18 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

If Ron Paul is the face of libertarianism... the vast majority of Americans are not buying it.

But apparently the people in his district that elect him do.

but Paul tells the truth about the budget.

You cannot come close to balancing it without cuts to DOD no matter how one feels about our worldwide deployment.

 
At 5/01/2012 9:45 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Pulv: "
The establishment of a Federal Reserve Bank was seen as a pretty radical move prior to 1913.
"

Central banks have been a feature of civilizations throughout history. There is nothing recent about them.

Nor is the Federal Reserve the first central banking sustem in the US.

 
At 5/01/2012 10:00 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"when you cut govt - you cut jobs and when you cut jobs you cut consumer spending and you add to entitlements like unemployment."

I see you have this all figured out.

Is it your contention, then, that government can't be cut, because government spending, which equals jobs, is a better use of the money earned by present and future taxpayers, than private individuals spending it as they see fit, and thereby creating jobs in the private sector?

 
At 5/01/2012 10:07 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"so they delegate it ...not to Obama but to the Sec of State..."

You are missing an important concept here. The Secretary of State works for the President, not Congress. Congress doesn't order her about like that, or delegate jobs to her. There's a supposed separation of powers, remember?

It's actually possible, that in this instance the President works for her. After all, she has the bigger cojones.

 
At 5/01/2012 10:20 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

Yes, Ron H., I did miss that.

 
At 5/01/2012 10:53 PM, Blogger Dan Ferris said...

It's hilarious anyone pretends there's anything to debate here.

 
At 5/02/2012 4:48 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

" Is it your contention, then, that government can't be cut, because government spending, which equals jobs, is a better use of the money earned by present and future taxpayers, than private individuals spending it as they see fit, and thereby creating jobs in the private sector? "

no. It must be cut. The question is can you cut it when the economy is fragile without driving it back into recession.

I've pointed out previously that money that the govt receives and spends actually does pay for employees and goods and services and that when you do this, you're choosing to buy a soldier verses a private sector worker.

I do not advocate it - I'm recognizing what it is.

re: "delegating to the Sec State".

If not mistaken ...and correct me otherwise, the law says the Sec of State must certify and that's why it falls to Clinton.

The Law could have said the POTUS or it could even have said..Congress, right?

In all of these issues - it is Congress that establishes what we spend and the rules associated with it not the POTUS.

 
At 5/02/2012 8:53 AM, Blogger Paul said...

Larry,

"...the law says the Sec of State must certify and that's why it falls to Clinton."

So the President has nothing to say about it? Are you serious?

"In all of these issues - it is Congress that establishes what we spend and the rules associated with it not the POTUS."

God, you will bend over backwards to excuse your idiot President, won't you? Do you remember the budget showdown last year? I seem to recall it involved the House GOP vs. the White House. The President has enormous power to effect the legislation that lands on his desk. If he didn't, he wouldn't be issuing threats pretty much every week to veto whatever growth oriented legislation the House GOP is working on at the time.

 
At 5/02/2012 9:12 AM, Blogger Pulverized Concepts said...

Ron H., you're like my children, who assume that life on earth began with their birth. "Throughout history", in the case of central banking, begins in the late seventeenth century, a relatively short time ago, all things considered. Then, as now, the creation of a central bank was seen by private bankers as insurance against default by governments engaged in financing wars and projects meant to pacify their subjects and guarantee their own survival. Andrew Jackson's campaign against central banking didn't stop or even slow down the incredible growth of the US economy in the 19th century, despite a civil war that reduced much of the country literally to ashes.

 
At 5/02/2012 9:14 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

bend over backwards for THIS POTUS?

no ... I am pointing out the facts and the realities with regard to ANY POTUS.

The POTUS can, and is, restricted to what he can do with funding, according to what strictures Congress puts on it.

What this Prez is doing or not is no different than any of his predecessors....

he's exercising his authority within the constraints of Congress and the SCOTUS.

for instance, he's NOT telling the SCOTUS that Gitmo are outside their purview...like his predecessor did.

 
At 5/02/2012 9:30 AM, Blogger Paul said...

". I am pointing out the facts and the realities with regard to ANY POTUS."

Rubbish. All you do here is cover for your boy. You will link to Media Matters, play the race card, or scream "Koch Brothers!" whenever you deem necessary. It's completely obvious, the only person you are fooling here is maybe yourself.

"What this Prez is doing or not is no different than any of his predecessors...."

Another example.

"he's NOT telling the SCOTUS that Gitmo are outside their purview...like his predecessor did."

At least that's arguable. Your hero believes US military action permission comes from the UN, not the Congress. His CIA flunkie Panetta testified to that very belief, and Obama waved off Boehner 's demands for Congressional authorization in Libya by declaring the mission was "authorized by the UN", so not necessary.

 
At 5/02/2012 9:36 AM, Blogger AIG said...

As for Ron Paul, you seem to suggest that not getting anything done is a bad thing. Frankly I don't want anything done, I want lots of things undone.

I never mentioned anything about "getting anything done". I'm talking about cuts, just as you.

I may not be able to vote for President in the November election, as I don't see any candidate or likely candidate I can support. I'm done with trying to determine which is the least bad candidate.

Least bad is always the ONLY choice you ever get in life.

Boy, the military seems like a pretty good place to start cutting to me. You probably can explain the need for hundreds of thousands of US troops around the world in 900 places, or whatever the number is, but not everybody is buying it.

Well that's precisely the sort of lying BS that Ron Paul keeps repeating, which just also happens to be completely...not true. A lying loser, isn't my idea of a "libertarian" candidate.

The military is a ridiculous target, because the military is incredibly EASY to control, in terms of spending. It's the programs that are on autopilot and on planned growth trajectories, that are the problem.

Plus, the problem with Ron Paul and the military, is that Ron Paul is Ron Paul. He doesn't come in and say, we need to let the military EXPERTS figure out how to consolidate the forces and increase the efficiency of our military, so we can spend less on it. No...he comes in and says "you know we should replace those aircraft carriers with submarines, and fishing boats armed with missiles".

 
At 5/02/2012 9:38 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

" Rubbish. All you do here is cover for your boy. You will link to Media Matters, play the race card, or scream "Koch Brothers!" whenever you deem necessary. It's completely obvious, the only person you are fooling here is maybe yourself."

Geeze Paul...


"What this Prez is doing or not is no different than any of his predecessors...."

Another example.


"he's NOT telling the SCOTUS that Gitmo are outside their purview...like his predecessor did."

At least that's arguable. Your hero believes US military action permission comes from the UN, not the Congress. His CIA flunkie Panetta testified to that very belief, and Obama waved off Boehner 's demands for Congressional authorization in Libya by declaring the mission was "authorized by the UN", so not necessary. "

Did he get permission to knock off OBL or fly drones to knock off other OBL wannie-be's?

Personally, I thank GOD that this Prez does not think like Cheney and the other neocons. We'd have boots on the ground in 3 or 4 more countries by now if those guys were in charge.

 
At 5/02/2012 9:41 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

re: balancing the budget without cutting DOD.

can't be done.

if someone is really serious about balancing the budget.. you gotta look at the numbers and the numbers show that it's impossible to balance the budget without cuts to DOD.

This is why you do not see any cuts-only balanced budget that does not cut DOD from anyone including the GOP.

 
At 5/02/2012 10:20 AM, Blogger Paul said...

"Did he get permission to knock off OBL or fly drones to knock off other OBL wannie-be's?"

He continued with the Bush policy in Pakistan. So? How does that contradict his administration's belief in UN supremacy? Do you realize you are once again just trying to cover his ass? It's reflexive, isn't Larry? You have no control over it.

"Personally, I thank GOD that this Prez does not think like Cheney and the other neocons. We'd have boots on the ground in 3 or 4 more countries by now if those guys were in charge."

That's just stupid hyperbole. No evidence is required on your behalf. Perhaps we'd also have boots on the ground on Mars if the "neocons" (more Media Matters inspired rhetoric" were still running the show.

"This is why you do not see any cuts-only balanced budget that does not cut DOD from anyone including the GOP."

DOD is already being cut, and will likely be cut some more.

Besides, you keep ignoring the other side of the ledger. Your hero's war on capitalism has depressed revenues substantially. Okun's law states every for every 1% increase in the unemployment rate, a country's GDP will be at an additional roughly 2% lower than its potential GDP. If you consider our real unemployment rate factoring in the decline in the labor force participation rate, we are talking about substantial revenues sacrificed at the altar of "fundamentally transforming the American economy."

 
At 5/02/2012 10:50 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

Paul.. I have this funny little feeling that you're not going to vote for Obama....

:-)

 
At 5/02/2012 12:02 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

Right, Paul Krugnuts. The market can't always allocate resources properly, but a few guys in government can fix that. Begs the question: if a few guys in government are so smart that they can fix a depression, why not let them plan all resource allocation all the time? Why not let them plan always so that we can avoid any misallocations in the first place? Why the lip service to free markets?

That is what Krugman wants, an oligarchy that runs the economy.

I've always loved Paul's romance with his childhood. You know, the America where blacks couldn't drink from the same fountains as whites.

As someone who has always opposed restrictions placed by government Dr. Paul opposed the laws that encouraged discrimination. Businesses did not want blacks to have restricted access to their establishment because they wanted access to black spending power. The mostly private bus lines depended on black riders for their survival, not whites.

 
At 5/02/2012 12:02 PM, Blogger DrSandman said...

I was rooting for the referee

 
At 5/02/2012 12:03 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

So we should think Ron Paul is a better economist than Paul Krugman??

Yes. Dr. Pal predicted what the GSEs ad the Fed would do to housing and the economy. Krugman was calling for an even bigger bubble in housing.

 
At 5/02/2012 12:04 PM, Blogger DrSandman said...

I was rooting for the referee

 
At 5/02/2012 12:39 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Ron H,

"I may not be able to vote for President in the November election, as I don't see any candidate or likely candidate I can support. I'm done with trying to determine which is the least bad candidate."

Man, I respect your opinion immensely, but I beg you to consider what a 2nd term of Obama would do to this nation. I'm no fan of Romney, but at least he would (probably)slam on the brakes. Give Obama another 4 years of wrecking ball "flexibility" and this country is finished.

 
At 5/02/2012 12:44 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

....besides..you need to at least cancel out my vote, right?

:-)

 
At 5/02/2012 2:29 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

Man, I respect your opinion immensely, but I beg you to consider what a 2nd term of Obama would do to this nation. I'm no fan of Romney, but at least he would (probably)slam on the brakes. Give Obama another 4 years of wrecking ball "flexibility" and this country is finished.

Slam on the breaks? Wasn't it Bush and GOP that got the bus moving towards the cliff in the first place? From what I see Obama is simply serving out Bush's third term and while a terrible president is not that much worse than Bush II or Bush I. The idea that the GOP stands for small government does not pass the smell test when we look at history. Which GOP president since Eisenhower has reduced the size of government?

 
At 5/02/2012 2:41 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"Wasn't it Bush and GOP that got the bus moving towards the cliff in the first place?"...

Is that you pseudo benny masquerading as vangeIV?

 
At 5/02/2012 3:22 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"Slam on the breaks? Wasn't it Bush and GOP that got the bus moving towards the cliff in the first place?"

We've had this debate a thousand times. Bush differed from Obama on taxes, abortion, drilling, Supreme Court appointments, costly regulation, health care, off the top of my head. He spent way too much on failed liberal programs, but nowhere near the madness of Obama.

The National Debt Road Trip illustrates the diff:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SV-xPS5-GxE

 
At 5/02/2012 3:28 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

wasn't it Bush who said "deficits don't matter"?

;-)

 
At 5/02/2012 3:37 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"wasn't it Bush who said "deficits don't matter"?

I think that was Cheney. While I disagree with this sentiment, Bush's deficits were not in the same ballpark as Obama's. I would happily go back to Bush's worst $400 billion deficit and figure out how to close the gap.

 
At 5/02/2012 4:02 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

Is that you pseudo benny masquerading as vangeIV?

No. The questions still stand.

Who created Medicare Part D?

Who invaded Iraq without any credible evidence of involvement on 9/11?

Who gave you No Child Left Behind?

Who was regularly running $500K plus budgets?

 
At 5/02/2012 4:26 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"If not mistaken ...and correct me otherwise, the law says the Sec of State must certify and that's why it falls to Clinton."

You aren't wrong about the wording, but it's only a recognition that that type of job would be among the responsibilities of the Secretary.

Clinton would not accept an assignment from Congress without her boss directing her to do so.

"The Law could have said the POTUS or it could even have said..Congress, right?

The law could have said POTUS, or administration, or it could have said nothing about who would get the job, as it must be the Executive branch by definition, so it couldn't have said Congress. Laws made by the Legislative branch are carid out and enforced by the Ececutive. One legislates, the other executes.

In this case, the specific task fell to the Sec of State.

 
At 5/02/2012 4:36 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"no. It must be cut. The question is can you cut it when the economy is fragile without driving it back into recession.

I've pointed out previously that money that the govt receives and spends actually does pay for employees and goods and services and that when you do this, you're choosing to buy a soldier verses a private sector worker.
"

So my question remains: Do you think paying a soldier is a better use of resources than paying a private sector worker?

Unless that soldier is actively repelling foreign invaders, wouldn't it be better that a person be employed producing a good or service people actually want?

If not, it would seem easier, and less dangerous for people to be employed by government to dig holes and then fill them back in.

 
At 5/02/2012 4:37 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

the specific task was defined by the Congress....

the point here is that Congress set up how they wanted it to work and then disagreed with how it was executed even though it was executed according to the way they set it up.

 
At 5/02/2012 4:41 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

"So my question remains: Do you think paying a soldier is a better use of resources than paying a private sector worker?"

that's a bigger question now, isn't it?


"Unless that soldier is actively repelling foreign invaders, wouldn't it be better that a person be employed producing a good or service people actually want?"

oh I totally agree. the question is what is the "productivity" value of repelling...and being able to repel...?

compare it to a company that has to pay guards to keep from having their facility damaged. Are the guards "productive"?

"If not, it would seem easier, and less dangerous for people to be employed by government to dig holes and then fill them back in."

well.. if the vandals burn down your building...no one is productive then...

 
At 5/02/2012 4:47 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

As someone who has always opposed restrictions placed by government Dr. Paul opposed the laws that encouraged discrimination. Businesses did not want blacks to have restricted access to their establishment because they wanted access to black spending power. The mostly private bus lines depended on black riders for their survival, not whites.


I was referring to Paul "Rasputin eyes" Krugman, not Ron Paul.

Does anybody think that Paul Krugman is an economist anymore?

 
At 5/02/2012 4:59 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"he's exercising his authority within the constraints of Congress and the SCOTUS."

His constraint is the Constitution, not Congress or the SCOTUS, although the Scotus may judge some of his actions to make that determination.

Clearly all three branches have stepped outside the Constitution from the beginning, but more recently it's hard to tell that there is or ever was a Constitution. Sometimes the lame excuse of "general welfare" is thrown out as justification for clearly unconstitutional laws and acts.

"for instance, he's NOT telling the SCOTUS that Gitmo are outside their purview...like his predecessor did."

And yet, he keeps it open. To what end, Larry? On his 2nd day in office your boyfriend suspended the Guantanamo military commission, and promised to close Camp X-Ray within the year. What happenned to that?

Why should those people, unpleasant scumbags that some no doubt are, be held indefinitely outside of civil law and due process? They aren't prisoners of war, so what exactly is their status?

 
At 5/02/2012 5:17 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

ROn - you've taken to calling Obama my boy friend also?

that's RICH!

re: the Constitution

you know it was written by people and written in such a way as to lack precision on key things that are argued..

I recall something called Habeas Corpus.. in the Constitution.. did it exclude scum balls?

or the Geneva Convention...did it define treatment for prisoners of war?

So now.. no matter whether you are a US citizen or not...if you are "suspected" of being a terrorists, your rights are different from others?

what happened to the Constitution?

are you in favor of it not changing when it suits you and then changing or ignoring it when it does not?

 
At 5/02/2012 5:30 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"that's a bigger question now, isn't it?"

No, that's the same question, but using a specific example. The soldier was your idea.

The question is: is government spending a better use of resources than private spending? If not, then how can you suggest that a reduction in government spending would cause economic harm? It doesn't matter that Krugman said that. What do YOU think?

"oh I totally agree. the question is what is the "productivity" value of repelling...and being able to repel...?"

"Actively repelling", for me, brings to mind actual activity of some kind. Perhaps it's different for you.

"compare it to a company that has to pay guards to keep from having their facility damaged. Are the guards "productive"?"

The guards a company hires to protect their facility are usually on site, preventing imminent invasion. They aren't likely to be found camping out in another city, watching for potential criminal activity that would never reach the facility they are protecting. Nor do businesses hire guards to protect their business partners in far away places.

"well.. if the vandals burn down your building...no one is productive then..."

I don't know how that's a response to anything I've written.

 
At 5/02/2012 5:32 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Methinks,

"Does anybody think that Paul Krugman is an economist anymore?"

No, "political hack" seems a better descrition.

 
At 5/02/2012 5:51 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

"that's a bigger question now, isn't it?"

No, that's the same question, but using a specific example. The soldier was your idea."

no different than the Coast Guard or NASA or the GPS system.

you're assuming in every case that the govt is always less efficient.

I'm saying that "efficient" is not the only criteria.

"The question is: is government spending a better use of resources than private spending? If not, then how can you suggest that a reduction in government spending would cause economic harm?"

those are two different things.

the first involves more than just a determination of "better use"..

and the second is in the context of cutting govt during a recession as opposed to cutting it during a economic expansion.

It doesn't matter that Krugman said that. What do YOU think?

that there are certain things that the govt needs to provide even as we know they are inherently inefficient and immune to the forces that affect the private sector.




"oh I totally agree. the question is what is the "productivity" value of repelling...and being able to repel...?"

"Actively repelling", for me, brings to mind actual activity of some kind. Perhaps it's different for you.

preparation?



"compare it to a company that has to pay guards to keep from having their facility damaged. Are the guards "productive"?"

The guards a company hires to protect their facility are usually on site, preventing imminent invasion. They aren't likely to be found camping out in another city, watching for potential criminal activity that would never reach the facility they are protecting. Nor do businesses hire guards to protect their business partners in far away places.

they could be if they were all part of one entity...

you have a police force that is not "on site 24/7", right?



"well.. if the vandals burn down your building...no one is productive then..."

I don't know how that's a response to anything I've written.

police, fire, ems, soldiers all sit around waiting... right?

is that "productive"?

you could hire private versions but they'd still sit around waiting... it's a different game than a factory or other kinds of "productivity".

 
At 5/02/2012 6:31 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

ROn - you've taken to calling Obama my boy friend also?

that's RICH!


Do you prefer "fantasy lover", Larry?

 
At 5/02/2012 6:48 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

I just think it's amusing. He's just another politician....with the usual good, bad and ugly... depending on your view and political leanings.

I just object to the extreme falsehoods that are being promoted.

the structural deficit - he had nothing to do with.

Clinton did not leave a structural deficit and Obama did not add anything to the structural deficit.

it all happened between 2000 and 2008.

 
At 5/02/2012 7:55 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

We've had this debate a thousand times. Bush differed from Obama on taxes, abortion, drilling, Supreme Court appointments, costly regulation, health care, off the top of my head. He spent way too much on failed liberal programs, but nowhere near the madness of Obama.

Bush was an irresponsible big government Republican who tried to claim to be a fiscal conservative. That claim was a lie. Obama is a big government Democrat who ran on a promise of more government. There is no substantial difference between the two. Obama is still fighting the wars that were begun by Bush and is paying for the police state that was expanded by Bush. Without those obligations the deficit would be much smaller than it is but still far too much.

Bush introduced all kinds of new programs and expanded government when he had a majority in Congress. That is not what a fiscal conservative would do. He was a brainless idiot who was not all that different in his actions than Obama. And as far as Romney is concerned I see no major difference at all. Like Obama, he would continue meddling in foreign conflicts and increase military spending. Like Obama he was responsible for a huge healthcare bill that he now claims is unconstitutional at the federal level.

The fact that you claim to see major differences shows just how committed you are to a political side rather than to principles. Because most voters are like you the country is getting the government that it deserves.

 
At 5/02/2012 8:02 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

I was referring to Paul "Rasputin eyes" Krugman, not Ron Paul.

I stand corrected.

Does anybody think that Paul Krugman is an economist anymore?

Sadly most Keynesians still think like he does. The fact that Dr. Paul laid out exactly how the credit expansion would create the housing bubble and how that bubble would cause a huge recession when the Keynesians were signalling the all clear and people like Mark were talking up the good times seems to be something that they do not wish to deal with. Funny how a physician who understands Austrian Economics is capable of making much better predictions than the monetarists and the Keynesians. The thing is that the methodology is applicable to much more than economics and can be used by those that understand it to see reality much clearer than those that are blind to it and use approaches that have failed the test of history.

 
At 5/02/2012 8:04 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"re: the Constitution

you know it was written by people and written in such a way as to lack precision on key things that are argued..
"

You are absolutely wrong. It was written as precisely as possible to avoid just the kind of ambiguity and willful confusion that has arisen despite the best efforts of the authors.

"I recall something called Habeas Corpus.. in the Constitution.. did it exclude scum balls?

Here's the exact wording from Article 1 Section 9:

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

The 5th Amendment contains the following language regarding due process:

"Nor shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

I assume that includes scumbags.

The 14th Amendment extends that to apply to States also.

"or the Geneva Convention...did it define treatment for prisoners of war?"

The Geneva not only defines treatment, but defines who exactly IS a prisoner of war.

"So now.. no matter whether you are a US citizen or not...if you are "suspected" of being a terrorists, your rights are different from others?"

That is correct, based on provisions of the "Patriot Act", which haven't yet been challenged on Constitutional grounds.


"what happened to the Constitution?"

It is no longer much of a constraint on government. SC Rep. Clyburn has this to say about it:

“There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do.”

"are you in favor of it not changing when it suits you and then changing or ignoring it when it does not?"

I agree with Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland, in his dissent in "Home Building and Loan vs Blaisdell".

"If the provisions of the constitution be not upheld when they pinch as well as when they comfort, they may as well be abandoned."

In other words, the Constitution applies at all times, whether we like it or not.

In that infamous case the SCOTUS found that a Minnesota law interfering with the terms of existing contracts was Constitutional.

One of many instances of government failure.

 
At 5/02/2012 8:25 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"no different than the Coast Guard or NASA or the GPS system."

That's irrelevant to the subject at hand, and isn't a correct response. You can pick any government job you wish, and the question is still whether you think it's a better use of resources than private spending.

"you're assuming in every case that the govt is always less efficient.

I'm saying that "efficient" is not the only criteria.
"

I'm asking YOU, Larry, which do YOU think is the better use of resources.

"The question is: is government spending a better use of resources than private spending? If not, then how can you suggest that a reduction in government spending would cause economic harm?"

"those are two different things."

Yes, government spending and private spending are two different things.

Why do you believe changes in one can cause economic harm but not changes to the other?

"the first involves more than just a determination of "better use"."

I Don't know, Larry, "better use" is pretty broad. What isn't included in "better use"?

"and the second is in the context of cutting govt during a recession as opposed to cutting it during a economic expansion."

You must not understand my question. Spending remains constant but less of it is government spending while more of it is private spending, where's the harm?

Unless you believe that government spending is better than private spending in some way.

"It doesn't matter that Krugman said that. What do YOU think?"

"that there are certain things that the govt needs to provide even as we know they are inherently inefficient and immune to the forces that affect the private sector."

But we know of nothing that fits that description.

How about allowing competition for all government services so we can choose for ourselves, and find out which is better?

 
At 5/02/2012 8:26 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

There are over 200 constitutions for govts in the world...

Ours is a significant one in many respects but I believe there are more than a few instances where the words, their meaning, and their intent are open to interpretation.

Anytime you have the SCOTUS making rulings that are 5-4 - that's a sign.

The Constitution essentially sanctioned slavery and denial of voting rights to women and the SCOTUS upheld it.

 
At 5/02/2012 8:36 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

"no different than the Coast Guard or NASA or the GPS system."

That's irrelevant to the subject at hand, and isn't a correct response. You can pick any government job you wish, and the question is still whether you think it's a better use of resources than private spending.

you could. And my point is that some jobs are better done by govt.
we don't agree on that... I know.



"you're assuming in every case that the govt is always less efficient.

I'm saying that "efficient" is not the only criteria."

I'm asking YOU, Larry, which do YOU think is the better use of resources.

and I've answered you.. in some cases.. the govt is the better use.

"The question is: is government spending a better use of resources than private spending? If not, then how can you suggest that a reduction in government spending would cause economic harm?"

"those are two different things."

Yes, government spending and private spending are two different things.

Why do you believe changes in one can cause economic harm but not changes to the other?

"the first involves more than just a determination of "better use"."

I Don't know, Larry, "better use" is pretty broad. What isn't included in "better use"?

it's obviously subjective but reality tells you that a large number of people support govt doing some functions.



"and the second is in the context of cutting govt during a recession as opposed to cutting it during a economic expansion."

You must not understand my question. Spending remains constant but less of it is government spending while more of it is private spending, where's the harm?

Unless you believe that government spending is better than private spending in some way.

I do. and I'm not alone.


"It doesn't matter that Krugman said that. What do YOU think?"

"that there are certain things that the govt needs to provide even as we know they are inherently inefficient and immune to the forces that affect the private sector."

But we know of nothing that fits that description.

I feel we are "wandering" a bit here.. no?


How about allowing competition for all government services so we can choose for ourselves, and find out which is better?

I'm all for competition for govt services... at the fed, state and local level.

I'm in agreement that some things the govt does now could and should be done by private industry but PER GOVT POLICY and standards.

Having some direct knowledge of DOD... in the R&D and Sys Engineering arena.. there are ample opportunities for better efficiency.

I still think there is a need for govt to define the functions of govt.

and I know I keep asking you .... but I like to see examples of what your are proposing - real world analogs...

we have 200 countries.

surely not all of them are equally bad and you have a couple of role models in mind.

sometimes it seems like we're talking about a configuration that does not exist... almost like it's an experiment.

 
At 5/02/2012 10:01 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Ours is a significant one in many respects but I believe there are more than a few instances where the words, their meaning, and their intent are open to interpretation."

You and many other liberals and progressives believe that, but it just wouldn't make sense in the context of the times in which the authors of the Constitution lived. You can read the Federalist papers to understand what the founders actually meant by the wording of Constitution.

It's hard to believe, for instance that the Founders carefully enumerated the powers Congress would have in A1 S8, and then said "Oh never mind, just do whatever you think promotes the general welfare."

"Anytime you have the SCOTUS making rulings that are 5-4 - that's a sign."

That is usually an indication of their ideology, and the SCOTUS has been wrong many times.

The Constitution essentially sanctioned slavery and denial of voting rights to women and the SCOTUS upheld it.

That's correct. The job of the SCOTUS is to determine Constitutionality, not what is morally right. Fully addressing slavery at that time the Constitution was written would have resulted in failure, no United States, and perhaps 2 separate countries, as nearly happened 70 years later, except for Lincoln's illegal war of aggression that cost the lives of 650,000 Americans.

Both of those issues were corrected by the amendment process.

 
At 5/02/2012 10:08 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"I still think there is a need for govt to define the functions of govt."

OMG!

Didn't you ask "What happened to the Constitution?"

People who agree with that statement is what happened to it.

 
At 5/02/2012 10:24 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"it's obviously subjective but reality tells you that a large number of people support govt doing some functions."

A large number of people used to believe that the Earth was flat, and positioned at the center of the universe. That's not a good argument for your position.

"I do. and I'm not alone."

More of the same nonesense.

 
At 5/02/2012 10:33 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"I'm in agreement that some things the govt does now could and should be done by private industry but PER GOVT POLICY and standards."

You mean like the USPS, or perhaps the DMV at the State level?

What would be the point? It is those very policies and standards that are the problem. Why not let people choose for themselves what services they want, and what standards they prefer?

 
At 5/02/2012 10:59 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"and I know I keep asking you .... but I like to see examples of what your are proposing - real world analogs..."

That's easy.

There is a relatively free market in food, so there is keen competition for my food dollar, resulting in a staggering variety of items available, relatively low prices, and great service. I can choose what to buy, and where to shop, and by voting in that way I help decide what items are available, and what stores succeed.

Compare that to the monopoly service provided by the Post Office.

Why couldn't private security and fire fighting and fire fighting companies compete for the dollars I spend for those services?

Do I need a local commission to tell me how many taxis can operate in my city? The market will decide exactly how many are required, and what the correct price should be.

I know you have a lot of trouble with that concept of choice, but give it some thought.

 
At 5/03/2012 4:54 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

so much to cover...

tell me again why "general welfare" was a "good" approach for the forefathers to define what they had in mind.

 
At 5/03/2012 6:28 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

re: USPS and DMV.

the private sector could operate both of these but the standards would need to be govt standards.

I have no problem with transitioning the USPS to a private for-profit operation but mail service itself needs to serve each person and all the rest of what the USPS is from a functional point of view needs to be in place and a requirement for any company that would operate it.

DMVs are the same. People must have drivers and vehicle licenses and what is on them and the qualifications for obtaining them are govt functions.

The DMVs in Virginia are a combination of state and vendor operated but the standards are set by the state and the fee structure is set to have the operation not a tax burden.

you can tally off a long list of things that need (in most people's view) to have govt standards even if they are operated by the private sector whether it's traffic signals, or roadway widths or public utilities.

the private sector can operate these things but the govt has to set the standards. You NEED a govt to set those standards.

I know of no country in the world that operates without a govt.

Govt is an agreement among people to establish and maintain standards.

the countries that do it the least are primarily 3rd world and developing.

the countries that do it best have large and complex govt.

when you can show me one or more countries that follow the path you advocate.. I would be more convinced.

but when you advocate something that does not exist except as ideology and theory... it then becomes ...literally.. an out of THIS WORLD proposition.

The changes you advocate simply push us back to a 3rd world governance - govts strong on dictates, weak on liberty and individual rights.

the governments that best protect rights are the ones that are the industrialized representative govts.

do they have problems?

yes.. really bad problems.

the alternative is much,much worse.

 
At 5/03/2012 6:06 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"tell me again why "general welfare" was a "good" approach for the forefathers to define what they had in mind."

Once more:

The term "general welfare", as used in the Constitution, applies to the enumerated powers listed below it.

It is not a "free to do as you please card", but a restriction - yes restriction - on everything Congress did, within the limits of the enumerated powers, in that it must promote the general welfare, not for the welfare of only some. Get it?

Congress shall make no law that DOESN'T promote the general welfare, within the limits listed below.

If you doubt that, read the volumes of material the Founders wrote about it. It is quite clear to those willing to spend the effort, and those without something to gain by interpreting the Constitution as they see fit.

 
At 5/03/2012 6:11 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" must promote the general welfare, not for the welfare of only some. Get it?"

it appears to me to be a phrase that can be interpreted in many different ways including for things not enumerated.

Can you give some examples that were found to violate this clause and found unconstitutional?

it looks to be as wide as an 18-wheeler...

like this:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html

 
At 5/03/2012 6:20 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"re: USPS and DMV.

the private sector could operate both of these but the standards would need to be govt standards.
"

Why?

Who knows best how I want my postal service to operate?

Must we all have the same standards?

You can't just say that standards are necessary because standards are necessary.

You need to explain why the current standard is the best one.

The USPS is currently a private organization operating to government standards just as you would wish.

I don't advocate abolishing the USPS, just allowing totally private competition. If the USPS is the best for most people, it will continue to operate. If not, it will go out of business as any other dinosaur would.

What have you got to lose?

The same is true of any other service that enjoys government monopoly. Allow competing service.

Either competition is good, or it's not. It works really well in most areas of our lives, why not in more things that government now monopolizes?

 
At 5/03/2012 6:29 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

things like DMV need to have a validated address...to verify where you physically live.

how will local govt get in touch with you, register you to vote without an address?

how would would anyone deliver to you if you could just choose your own address or choose none?

how would they bill you?

is there a better way? maybe. maybe each address could be a simple GPS coord, eh?

 
At 5/05/2012 1:04 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Pulv: "Throughout history", in the case of central banking, begins in the late seventeenth century, a relatively short time ago, all things considered."

Obviusly you didn't bother to follow the link I provided, or you wouldn't have written that.

And in any case, how does any part of your response support the notion that the establishment of the Fed in 1913 was considered a radical idea?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home