Republicans Wave White Flag On Debt Ceiling Increase

White flag

Via TPM: “The jig is up. Republicans are going to increase the debt limit. Probably for free.”

First, the “Hastert rule” isn’t actually all that big a deal (it’s not really a rule). Republicans are now saying that the principle that legislation shouldn’t come to the House floor unless the majority of the GOP conference supports it only applies when there is a Republican in the White House.

Both the “fiscal cliff” deal and a relief bill for victims of Superstorm Sandy recently passed the House without a “majority of the majority” voting for them.

Second, the so-called “Boehner rule,” which requires a dollar in spending cuts for every dollar increase in the debt limit, is really, truly dead.

Third, Republicans’ big talk about forcing a partial government shutdown to avoid defaulting on the nation’s debts has faded away.


From HuffPo: What the GOP Doesn’t Want You To Know About The Deficit

The Deficit Has Grown Mostly Because Of The Recession
The deficit has ballooned not because of specific spending measures, but because of the recession. The deficit more than doubled between 2008 and 2009, as the economy was in free fall, since laid-off workers paid less in taxes and needed more benefits. The deficit then shrank in 2010 and 2011.

The Stimulus Cost Much Less Than Bush’s Wars, Tax Cuts
Republicans frequently have blamed the $787 billion stimulus for the national debt, but, when all government spending is taken into account, the stimulus frankly wasn’t that big. In contrast, the U.S. will have spent nearly $4 trillion on wars in the Middle East by the time those conflicts end, according to a recent report by Brown University. The Bush tax cuts have cost nearly $1.3 trillion over 10 years.

The Deficit Grew Under George W. Bush
When George W. Bush took office, the federal government was running a surplus of $86 billion. When he left, that had turned into a $642 billion deficit.

The Deficit Is Shrinking
Last year’s federal budget deficit was 12 percent lower than in 2009, according to the Office of Management and Budget.The deficit is projected to shrink even more over the next several years.

Investors Are Paying Us To Borrow Money
The interest rate on 10-year Treasury bonds is negative, according to the Treasury Department. Investors are even paying us for 30-year Treasury bonds, when adjusted for inflation.

Investors Are Not Running Away
Conservative commentators have been warning for years that investors will run away from Treasury bonds because of the national debt. So far it’s not happening. Interest rates on Treasury bonds continue to hover at historic lows.

Health Care Reform Reduces The Deficit
Republicans have blasted the Affordable Care Act as “budget-busting.” But health care reform actually reduces the deficit, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The U.S. Is Borrowing Less From China

The U.S. government is borrowing much less from foreign countries than before the recession, according to government data cited by Paul Krugman. That is because the U.S. private sector is financing our bigger deficits.

We Spend A Lot On Defense
Defense spending constituted 20 percent of federal spending last year, or $718 billion, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. This adds up to 41 percent of the world’s defense spending.

  1. #1 by cav on January 18, 2013 - 10:46 am

    I see a Trillion Dollar Coin as something of a Magic ‘blunderbuss’.

  2. #2 by brewski on January 18, 2013 - 11:05 am

    “The Deficit Has Grown Mostly Because Of The Recession”
    The recession was over 3 years ago. The non-recovery is the problem.

    “The deficit has ballooned not because of specific spending measures, but because of the recession.”
    The recession was over 3 years ago. The non-recovery is the problem.

    “The deficit more than doubled between 2008 and 2009 as the economy was in free fall, since laid-off workers paid less in taxes and needed more benefits.”
    Tripled actually. Again, that was over 3 years ago.

    “The deficit then shrank in 2010 and 2011.”
    False.

    “The Stimulus Cost Much Less Than Bush’s Wars, Tax Cuts”
    Who cares what was more or what was less. Solve it.

    “Republicans frequently have blamed the $787 billion stimulus for the national debt, but, when all government spending is taken into account, the stimulus frankly wasn’t that big.”
    There was no stimulus. And yes $787 billion is that big.

    “In contrast, the U.S. will have spent nearly $4 trillion on wars in the Middle East by the time those conflicts end, according to a recent report by Brown University.”
    Talk to the Commander in Chief.

    “The Bush tax cuts have cost nearly $1.3 trillion over 10 years.” Then fix the tax code. This compares to the $10 trillion forecast over the next 10 years. So much for comparisons.

    “The Deficit Grew Under George W. Bush”
    Bush isn’t president now.

    “When George W. Bush took office, the federal government was running a surplus of $86 billion. When he left, that had turned into a $642 billion deficit.”
    False. Also, Bush isn’t president now.

    “The Deficit Is Shrinking”
    False.

    “Last year’s federal budget deficit was 12 percent lower than in 2009, according to the Office of Management and Budget.The deficit is projected to shrink even more over the next several years.”
    False.

    “Investors Are Paying Us To Borrow Money”
    False. The Fed is buying all that debt with new fake money.

    “The interest rate on 10-year Treasury bonds is negative, according to the Treasury Department. Investors are even paying us for 30-year Treasury bonds, when adjusted for inflation.”
    False. The Fed is buying all that debt with new fake money.

    “Investors Are Not Running Away”
    False. The Fed is buying all that debt with new fake money.

    “Conservative commentators have been warning for years that investors will run away from Treasury bonds because of the national debt. So far it’s not happening. Interest rates on Treasury bonds continue to hover at historic lows.”
    False. The Fed is buying all that debt with new fake money.

    “Health Care Reform Reduces The Deficit”
    False.

    “Republicans have blasted the Affordable Care Act as “budget-busting.” But health care reform actually reduces the deficit, according to the Congressional Budget Office.”
    False

    “The U.S. Is Borrowing Less From China”
    The Fed is buying all that debt with new fake money.

    “The U.S. government is borrowing much less from foreign countries than before the recession, according to government data cited by Paul Krugman. That is because the U.S. private sector is financing our bigger deficits.
    False. The Fed is buying all that debt with new fake money.

    “We Spend A Lot On Defense”
    Talk to the Commander in Chief

    “Defense spending constituted 20 percent of federal spending last year, or $718 billion, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. This adds up to 41 percent of the world’s defense spending.”
    Talk to the Commander in Chief

  3. #3 by Nathan Erkkila on January 18, 2013 - 8:22 pm

    Republicans in congress submitted under pressure to the president? Now who could have told you that they would?

    cav :

    I see a Trillion Dollar Coin as something of a Magic ‘blunderbuss’.

    I see the trillion dollar coin as a stupid response to a stupid idea. But truthfully, arguing stupid with stupid never works and it’s shameful that the Dems even proposed that.

  4. #4 by Larry Bergan on January 18, 2013 - 11:15 pm

    The Trillion dollar coin is a joke.

    Implement a 26 Trillion dollar coin, representing one year of spending by the Federal Reserve, and you’ve got something!

    It’s possible that “The Federal Reserve” released figures so large as to embarrass Bernie Sanders, Ron Paul and Alan Grayson. This type of thing goes on. The fact that the corporate media has yet to report on it is of significance; IMO.

  5. #5 by Cliff on January 19, 2013 - 8:40 pm

    Brewski, “Recession was over three years ago” is supposed to be some kind of defense of your party’s purposeful, declared, admitted and executed attempt to sabotage the economy to make Obama a one-term president?

    You pathetic, useless piece of shit scum sucking lazy pig. You and your party deserve whats coming to you.

  6. #6 by brewski on January 19, 2013 - 10:13 pm

    What do you mean “my party”? I have voted Democratic, Reform, Libertarian and Republican at different times and places over my life. I am not the jack booted partisan that you are.

    The point is that to blame the recession which ended in 2009 on deficits in 2013 is to defy time, space, facts, logic, common sense, and pretty much everything else that matters.

    No go crawl back into your loser hole of losing every single argument you have ever pathetically attempted to pick with me before I schooled you.

  7. #7 by brewski on January 19, 2013 - 10:19 pm

    Cliff’s useless piece of shit scum sucking lazy pig party:
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/michigan-supreme-court-justice-charged-fraud-18259423

  8. #8 by Cliff Lyon on January 20, 2013 - 11:22 am

    It has become the now predictable mantra of the right to declare victory by fiat in political debate as you have done above.

    However you define yourself politically Mr. Brewski, you represent in both position and posture, the arguments of the right.

    That you have at some time in the past, voted for a Democrat should hold no value in your attempt to persuade me that you are other than a classic conservative.

    But you use of the term “free money” in reference to debt, suggests a visceral reverence to the body politic associated with Tea Party Republicans or just disenfranchised LOSER Republicans who like to declare themselves, as you have, Libertarians.

    May we at least agree that you have not a progressive bone in your body?

  9. #9 by brewski on January 20, 2013 - 7:04 pm

    “you use of the term “free money” in reference to debt,”

    I did not.

    Just shows how little you understand about how the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve Bank operate. Please get educated and get back to me when you understand freshman economics.

    No we don’t agree on my political bones. I have lots of positions which would not be considered “classic conservative” in the slightest.

    I am on record on this site (just ask Richard) of advocating:
    1. Single payer healthcare
    2. Marriage equality
    3. Carbon tax
    4. Legalization of marijuana
    5. Smaller military
    6. Increasing Warren Buffett’s taxes by 150%

    Is that “classic conservative”?

    I am a Bobby Kennedy Sr (not his punk shit whiney ass son) Democrat.

    “He was a Democrat who hated welfare”
    Jeff Greenfield, Bobby Kennedy campaign staffer and CBS News’ senior political correspondent

    “They might have wanted fathers and they might have wanted husbands. We have given them instead checks and a dole,”
    Bobby Kennedy Sr.

    Want to come back and get schooled by me again? Keep it coming.

  10. #10 by brewski on January 20, 2013 - 8:22 pm

    “One of the features that distinguished Bolshevism from Tsarism was the insistence of Lenin and his followers on the need for a complete overhaul of society. Old-fashioned despots may modernize in piecemeal fashion if doing so seems necessary to maintain their power, but they do not aim at remaking society on a new model, still less at fashioning a new type of humanity. Communist regimes engaged in mass killing in order to achieve these transformations, and paradoxically it is this essentially totalitarian ambition that has appealed to liberals. Here as elsewhere, the commonplace distinction between utopianism and meliorism is less than fundamental. In its predominant forms, liberalism has been in recent times a version of the religion of humanity, and with rare exceptions— [Bertrand] Russell is one of the few that come to mind—liberals have seen the Communist experiment as a hyperbolic expression of their own project of improvement; if the experiment failed, its casualties were incurred for the sake of a progressive cause. To think otherwise—to admit the possibility that the millions who were judged to be less than fully human suffered and died for nothing—would be to question the idea that history is a story of continuing human advance, which for liberals today is an article of faith. That is why, despite all evidence to the contrary, so many of them continue to deny Communism’s clear affinities with Fascism. Blindness to the true nature of Communism is an inability to accept that radical evil can come from the pursuit of progress.”

    John Gray, professor emeritus at the London School of Economics

  11. #11 by Larry Bergan on January 20, 2013 - 10:32 pm

    brewski:

    You’re distilling Robert Kennedy Jr’s bravery to speak up about the most disturbing aspects of our compromised society to being a whiny democrat.

    This is a man who has seen almost countless members of his family perish mysteriously and he still speaks out against things no others will.

    Shame on you!

    Robert has a malady which causes his voice to sound weak. If only Limbaugh had the same malady, his inane bellowing would cease.

  12. #12 by Ronald D. Hunt on January 21, 2013 - 4:37 am

    London school of economics, The place where Fredrick Hayek taught his economic religion.

    A bunch of diluted libertarian Austrian economists. These guys are so over the top conservative they could make Rand Paul blush.

    Nothing but crazy conspiracy theories, and economics that utterly fly in the face of all evidence otherwise.

    Please, we here in the real world, follow evidence based economic theory, Theory developed through observation, experiment, and analysis of data from the real world.

    The Austrian economic religions litany of “self evident, self proving, Axioms” are a great example of the fallacy of your faith based, science free economics.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/11/1142945/-Paul-Ryan-s-Magical-Economic-Worldview-The-Austrian-School

    brewski, You about as smart as a screen door on a submarine.

  13. #13 by brewski on January 21, 2013 - 8:07 am

    Thank you for providing the definition of “ad hominem” at the same times as being factually wrong. The LSE has always been a left of center institution and very recently its leadership has aligned itself with the Labour Party. So your unsupported and vacuous statements are, as usual, just plain wrong. Please try to use the observation, experiment, and analysis of data from the real world that you claim.

  14. #14 by brewski on January 21, 2013 - 8:14 am

    Larry,
    I am truly sorry for Bobby Jr’s speech issue.
    I am also truly sorry for the tragedies his family has endured.
    Neither of those excuse him for just being wrong all the time.

    Rolling Stone and Salon have withdrawn and apologized for publishing articles written by the Bobby Jr:

    “…continued revelations of the flaws and even fraud tainting the science behind the connection make taking down the story the right thing to do.” The story’s original URL now links to our autism topics page, which we believe now offers a strong record of clear thinking and skeptical coverage we’re proud of — including the critical pursuit of others who continue to propagate the debunked, and dangerous, autism-vaccine link.”

    Fraud means fraud regardless of your family and your voice.

  15. #15 by Ronald D. Hunt on January 21, 2013 - 11:45 am

    “leadership has aligned itself with the Labour Party.”

    One time pet of Rupert Murdock! Or more like his short term play thing? =p

    “The LSE has always been a left of center institution”

    The LSE again is where Fredrick Hayek taught, Center left my ass.

    They list themselves as being supporters of “classical liberalism” aka libertarianism, They house the Hayek society, a winger political group that supports “free markets, free trade, and free minds”.

    Clearly you are not very familiar with the LSE. The current double dip recession in Europe is party due to the lobbying of the LSE and its alumni, They are involved with both of the current ruling parties in Britain.

    “The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.” — John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money

  16. #16 by brewski on January 21, 2013 - 1:50 pm

    Next thing you’re going to tell me is that Yale Law School is a bastion of right wingers with your only evidence being that you can name one conservative who went there.

    Tell me, was it a conservative or a liberal who wrote the following:
    “First, tax changes have very large effects
    on output. Our baseline specification suggests that an exogenous tax increase of one percent of GDP
    lowers real GDP by roughly three percent. Our many robustness checks for the most part point to a
    slightly smaller decline, but one that is still well over two percent. Second, these estimated effects are
    substantially larger than those obtained using broader measures of tax changes, such as the change in
    cyclically adjusted revenues or all legislated tax changes. This suggests that failing to account for the
    reasons for tax changes can lead to substantially biased estimates of the macroeconomic effects of fiscal
    actions. Third, investment falls sharply in response to exogenous tax increases. Indeed, the strong
    response of investment helps to explain why the output consequences of tax changes are so large. Fourth,
    the output effects of tax changes are highly persistent. The behavior of inflation and unemployment
    suggests that this persistence reflects long-lasting departures of output from its flexible-price level, not
    large effects of tax changes on the flexible-price level of output.”

    Your problem is that you say things like you look at evidence and observation when in fact you do the opposite. You see the world as being between right and left and not as between opinion and fact, or as competent and incompetent. You equate people who feel and believe the same way you do as being correct and dismiss evidence and observation which disrupts with your world view.

    So, tell me, what sort of person would conclude what I put in quotes above? Competent, incompetent, smart, dumb, right, left? Tell me.

  17. #17 by Ronald D. Hunt on January 21, 2013 - 2:54 pm

    Its a quote by Christina and David Romer, its all over the tea party and libertarian websites. It is information distributed by a few republican groups to arm bloggers with pre-build party approved talking points. A tool to help dumb people look less dumb.

    And I would place them in the incompetent column!, Next to you.

  18. #18 by brewski on January 21, 2013 - 3:06 pm

    Christina D. Romer
    Professor of Economics at the University of California, Berkeley
    former Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Obama administration
    After her nomination and before the Obama administration took office, Romer worked with economist Jared Bernstein to co-author the administration’s plan for recovery from the 2008 recession.
    In a January 2009 video presentation, she discussed details of the job creation program that the Obama administration submitted to Congress.

    So in other words, a liberal and incompetent, according to you.

  19. #19 by Ronald D. Hunt on January 21, 2013 - 3:19 pm

    a liberal and incompetent, they do exist!!!, Actually Obama’s entire economics team has been less then stellar.

    They didn’t get a large enough stimulus, to much of the stimulus was low multiplier tax cuts, they didn’t use all of the Fed policy options available to them from the get go.

    His team allowed private parties to dampen the stimulus by not responding to the manipulation of the oil market through the period of time the stimulus was in effect. A period of time when demand had dropped through the floor and yet prices soared to $4 dollars a gallon.

  20. #20 by brewski on January 22, 2013 - 1:27 am

    I think you mean “less than stellar”

    I think you mean “too much of the stimulus”

    “A period of time when demand had dropped through the floor and yet prices soared to $4 dollars a gallon.”
    I guess you really don’t understand this do you?

    So Romer and Romer do the hard work of observation, evidence and research and that data reveals an answer you don’t like based on your infinite wisdom in your mother’s basement, so they must be incompetent and you are right. Thanks for the confirmation of what I have been saying about you all along.

  21. #21 by Ronald D. Hunt on January 22, 2013 - 8:39 am

    “The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.” — John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money

    They appear to be adherents to the Chicago school of economic theory, Which at the very least does try to dress up their wrong theories with some amount of real study, and they even in fact have been right once or twice. More by coincidence then having a theory that is actually correct, but as they say a broken clock is right twice a day!!

    If you want good economic advise, ask a new Keynesian, like Paul Krugman. His predictions have been consistently correct, Its the only theory that remotely resembles a theory, in that modifications are made every now and then as more data is gathered and new things are learned. That all important evidence based theory thing you seem to have a problem with.

    And sense when did you have absolute trust in Obama’s economic team brewski?, You ignorance of history is astounding, you jump between hating all of Obama’s policies, then taking the actions and writings of his staff as absolutes.

    Mr. aware of the Tyndale bible, What nonsense will you spew forth next, perhaps you can find some choice comments from his new SoS, supporting some silly tea party position, likely taken out of context, but that will be enough for you to argue his statement with absolutist fervor.

    Of course you won’t find this, you will pick it up from some other tea party or libertarian blog, as the ability to argue without that crutch is beyond you.

  22. #22 by brewski on January 22, 2013 - 9:10 am

    I did not pick up the Romer and Romer piece from any tea party or libertarian blog. Your assumption and assertions to the effect that I did show how feeble-minded you are. In fact, I read it here:
    http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~cromer/RomerDraft307.pdf
    You know, Berkeley’s academic website.

    You also apparently have not read the Romer and Romer study. It does not take some “theory” and then try to justify it. Quite the opposite. They do a deep data dive and try to find the answer that the evidence supports. You seem to not understand that this is how research is done, as opposed to how op-ed pieces in the New York Times are done.

    You also use the word “theory” as though you know what the word means. You then ascribe someone’s evidence based research to being a “theory” when in fact it is the evidence. You mix back and forth between pretending to care about data and then going back to just following your cult of personality slavishnesses to the Paul Krugman’s of the world.

    If you love Paul Krugman and Keynes, than I have a few quotes for you:

    ” it’s true that Keynes believed, wrongly, that the conditions of the 1930s would persist indefinitely ”

    “Keynes’s attempted generalizations about behavior now seem excessively facile and misleading in important ways. In particular, he argued on psychological grounds that the average savings rate would rise with per capita income. That has turned out to be not at all the case.”

    “The strongest criticism one can make of The General Theory is that Keynes mistook an episode for a trend. ”

    “he believed, wrongly, that the monetary environment of the 1930s would be the norm from then on.”

    ” the inflationary takeoff of the 1970s was partly caused by expansionary monetary and fiscal policy, adopted by Keynes-influenced governments with unrealistic employment goals.”

    “Keynes didn’t foresee a future of persistent inflation. This meant that he was excessively pessimistic about the future prospects for monetary policy. It also meant that he never addressed the policy problems posed by persistent inflation, which preoccupied macroeconomists in the 70s and 80s”

    So much for the virtue of Keynes according to your Messiah.

  23. #23 by Ronald D. Hunt on January 22, 2013 - 9:39 am

    “So much for the virtue of Keynes according to your Messiah.”

    You are mistaken, The fact that new Keynesian update their theory as new data, and observations come to light, is a clear example of evidence based theory.

    ” They do a deep data dive and try to find the answer that the evidence supports.”

    Really, In the other thread you crap all over Obama’s economic team.

    The whole problem you are having with this argument is the sheer number of different positions you have argued from!, You start arguing from a position of Austrian economic religion, then you move to Chicago school, Never mind the fact that in previous arguments you have argued from supply side theory, both supported and denied laffer depended on the argument you where trying to make.

    I can’t help but not take your argument seriously, it comes off so schizophrenic jumping from one mutually exclusive set of idea’s to another, based entirely on what you think can win you the argument.

    Do you have a coherent set of economic idea’s, or is this argument entirely about finding the ones that fit your political agenda?,

  24. #24 by brewski on January 22, 2013 - 10:03 am

    “Really, In the other thread you crap all over Obama’s economic team.”

    I was referring to this paper. You must be referring to something else.

    I have crapped all over Obama’s chosen policies, not his team. He seems to have ignored what his team was telling him much of the time.

    I have crapped all over Geithner, who is not an economist. He is a tax cheat and a banking regulator by trade. Geithner did at least have the honesty to say that the Obama Administration “has no solution” to the unsustainable spending levels in their own projections.

    I don’t argue from the Austrian School or the Chicago School or from Rydell High School. I argue from settled fact which is consensus from everyone who understands this stuff. You see the world as being divided between different opinions and feelings. I divide the world between those who understand this stuff and those who have opinions and feelings based on reading blogs written by 23-year olds with French Literature degrees.

    My only political agenda is that economic growth provides a rising standard of living for everyone. We are doing a lot as a country to make sure that never happens.

  25. #25 by Richard Warnick on January 22, 2013 - 10:14 am

    brewski–

    How can austerity budgeting, continued low taxes for the rich and corporations, cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, and lax regulation of the financial sector lead to a rising standard of living for anyone but the top 1-2 Percent?

    Why not save the American middle class?

  26. #26 by Ronald D. Hunt on January 22, 2013 - 10:20 am

    ” I argue from settled fact which is consensus from everyone who understands this stuff.”

    If it was settled fact, their would only be one school of economic thought!

    ” I divide the world between those who understand this stuff and those who have opinions and feelings”

    So coup out response?, Can’t say I didn’t expect that!

    So your argument will be whatever is convenient to your political position.

    “My only political agenda is that economic growth provides a rising standard of living for everyone. “

    A good ideal, But it is the means by which this ideal can be achieved that is important, and the solutions you put forward are contrary to your stated goal.

  27. #27 by brewski on January 22, 2013 - 10:44 am

    “How can austerity budgeting, continued low taxes for the rich and corporations, cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, and lax regulation of the financial sector lead to a rising standard of living for anyone but the top 1-2 Percent?”
    I never suggested anything close to that so it is a dishonest question.

    “Why not save the American middle class?”
    I’m trying to. You’re not.

  28. #28 by brewski on January 22, 2013 - 11:27 am

    “If it was settled fact, their would only be one school of economic thought!”
    There is only one school of economics. You are conflating economics with policy. You can agree on the economics and disagree on the policy. You need to understand the difference between the two. What Romer and Romer’s paper was was economics. You are arguing policy bringing in your own feelings and dressing it up as though it is economics.

    How are my solutions contrary to my stated goal? Be specific.

  29. #29 by Ronald D. Hunt on January 22, 2013 - 11:53 am

    “There is only one school of economics. You are conflating economics with policy.”

    Wow, This says a lot right here.

    Clearly I am not arguing with a reasonable person.

    First you predispose your argument as being that of obvious and common sense fact, which is your opinion and not necessarily in fact, a fact.

    Second using the basis of your first conclusion you dismiss any argument otherwise, simply by stating that your facts instantly give you the higher ground without regard for the quality or substance of your “facts”.

    Third any evidence that shows flaws in your position is also dismissed under the same premise as any opposed idea, thought, or alternative theory is from your second conclusion.

    Richard Warnick’s question is no less loaded then your own questions and juxtaposed view of reality, The question he put forward however given your proposed policies is very valid.

    Given the glut of alternative idea’s and opinions on the internet, like this one… http://www.angrybearblog.com/2009/01/further-critique-of-romer-and-romer.html

    In this discussion policy and theory go hand in hand, What outcome most matches the predictions of each theory, which theory has been consistently correct in predicting outcomes.

    Paul Krugman correctly predicted the outcome of Greek austerity, Very much to the derision of his character by every other economist out their, until he was proven correct. And this is hardly the first time he has been right, against the predictions of his would be peers.

  30. #30 by brewski on January 22, 2013 - 11:58 am

    Is there liberal engineering and conservative engineering? Is there liberal chemistry and conservative chemistry? Is there tea party physics and occupy wall street physics?

    No.

    But these people may agree and disagree on policy.

    Krugman predicted the US recovery would be much stronger. He was wrong.

  31. #31 by brewski on January 22, 2013 - 12:26 pm

    Thanks for linking a guy who works in “Education Management”, calls himself a “political junkie”, tells us that his bias is lefty, and tells us he doesn’t like the answer to the Romer and Romer paper so by-gonnit, he is going to find something wrong. Next time why don’t you just use Richard as a “source”. Seems like you like listening to the echo chamber in your head.

    Next time try a peer reviewed journal. This paper was published in American Economic Review, the most prestigious peer-reviewed journal in economics.

  32. #32 by Ronald D. Hunt on January 22, 2013 - 12:46 pm

    “Krugman predicted the US recovery would be much stronger. He was wrong.”

    Had was not party to the extent that republican governors would slash and burn their budgets to undermine Obama’s stimulus, which he predicted would need a follow up to provide a long term success(a follow up that never occurred).

    “Thanks for linking a guy who works in “Education Management”, calls himself a “political junkie””

    And you have proven my point.

  33. #33 by Ronald D. Hunt on January 22, 2013 - 1:00 pm

    “try a peer reviewed journal.”

    Austrian economists, Keynesian economists, Marxist economists, Chicago school economists, all have peer reviewed journals and mutually exclusive idea’s, they can’t all be right!!!

    Merely having works published in a peer reviewed journal, specifically in the case of economists, really doesn’t mean much. Each economist tends to find the journal that is amenable to their idea’s.

  34. #34 by brewski on January 22, 2013 - 3:43 pm

    Well, then, we should trust the education administrator as long as he agrees with your predetermined feelings. That is a solid analytical framework for evaluation.

  35. #35 by brewski on January 22, 2013 - 3:50 pm

    ” republican governors would slash and burn their budgets to undermine Obama’s stimulus,”

    There was no stimulus at all. If you know Keynes then you will know that that bill had no stimulus in it. There was no Keynesian in it at all.

  36. #36 by Ronald D. Hunt on January 22, 2013 - 3:53 pm

    I never said I agreed with the “education administrator”, I merely presented that as an opinion opposed to the opinion you put forward.

    Not everyone has pre agreed to the same “facts” as you!, Or can even come to agreement on the scope of those “facts”, or the totality of what those “facts” cover.

    Simply put you continue to presume to much!

  37. #37 by brewski on January 22, 2013 - 4:19 pm

    So Keynes was right except when he was wrong. Krugman is right except when he is wrong. Your opinions are you starting point from which you evaluate everyone else as to whether they they right or wrong. Your opinions based on nothing is how you start evaluating everything and everyone and they are always wrong even if they know more than you, have done more research than you, have been evaluated by other experts (when you have not). You you know the answer before you even ask the question. You must be God in your own mind.

  38. #38 by Ronald D. Hunt on January 22, 2013 - 5:24 pm

    Keynes most correctly described the economy as compared to any other person, Krugman has as well mostly correctly described how different policies will effect the economy as compared to any other person.

    If you wanna make a “Ignore the man behind the curtain” argument, be my guest. Don’t expect anyone to buy into it however.

  39. #39 by Larry Bergan on January 22, 2013 - 6:40 pm

    brewski:

    As-per your comment at #14:

    You cast as wide a net against RFK, Jr. as you do against Maddow; saying everything they say is a lie.

    Robert has stood against some of the most powerful adversaries in existence. In this particular case, he believes that the things the inoculation industry is doing is suspect, and I tend to think he’s right.

    Personally, I have never had a flu shot, and I haven’t had the flu for over 20 years.

    The article is still published at Rolling Stone and Salon lost my respect when Greg Palast revealed that a very important article about election fraud in the 2000 election was pulled because they called Bush-The- Smarter, (Jeb – governor of Florida at the time), and he said there was nothing there.

  40. #40 by brewski on January 22, 2013 - 9:11 pm

    So Keynes was right except when he was wrong. Krugman is right except when he is wrong. And Krugman even said Keynes was wrong. That must make your head explode. Sure, Keynes contributed greatly to economic observation and thought. No economist would deny that. But you don’t know the difference between Keynes economics and Keynes policies or Krugman’s economics and Krugman’s policies.

    Is there liberal engineering and conservative engineering? Is there liberal chemistry and conservative chemistry? Is there tea party physics and occupy wall street physics? You never answered.

    I can’t think of anything Maddow has said which is true other than “I’m Rachel Maddow”.

  41. #41 by Larry Bergan on January 22, 2013 - 9:47 pm

    I can’t think of anything Maddow has said which is true other than “I’m Rachel Maddow”.

    There is honest debate and dishonest debate. The truth lies somewhere in there.

    NOT!

    There were times in America when different sides “of the aisle” were debating their differing sides honestly, but naked capital became the ONLY means of success in our unnecessarily tired system.

    We have to start listening to smart people who aren’t out for the buck!

    They are legion.

  42. #42 by brewski on January 22, 2013 - 9:59 pm

    MSNBC news anchor Rachel Maddow, has an estimated net worth of approximately $12.5 million.

  43. #43 by Larry Bergan on January 22, 2013 - 10:17 pm

    Wow! That must make Maddow able to take on all of the Koch brothers AND the Walmart dudes…

    PLUS…

    I’ll just bet she’s not going to bitch, if they ask her to pay social security taxes if she makes over $100,000 a year.

    Think?

  44. #45 by cav on January 23, 2013 - 9:04 pm

    I think this article about the Platinum coin will help clarify just what currency is, how it comes into being and for who’s benefit.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/01/18/the-trillion-dollar-cat-shit-coin/

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: