jerseyhoya wrote:... Not that the budget deficit and mounting debt aren't valid concerns, but in the short term our ability to borrow appears strong. ...

The key words being "short term". The bond market is a fickle mistress that can turn on you with no warning in a matter of days. Bond rates are historically low right now. When investors demand higher interest rates or refuse to roll over debt at any price, the only choice the govt really has is to make substantial spending cuts and/or raise taxes in order to keep the financial market from going ape!@#$ turbulent. Either or both of those, since they'd be reactionary and not "phased in", makes the economic situation worse and throws a substantial standard of living decline (due to falling dollar and hyperinflation) into the mix.

The IT bubble burst. The real estate bubble burst. If I were to play Nostradamus and predict the next bubble to burst, my guess would be the standard of living bubble. We (and the govt for that matter) have been "living beyond our means" to maintain a standard of living higher than, quite frankly, what we really deserve. We don't need an iphone, digital cable, high speed internet, large screen TV, blu-ray, nicer home and car that are beyond our means, etc. Meh, many yearn for the nostalgic "good ol' days". Might be interesting to see their reactions with a return of the "good ol' days" when the only people to have such luxuries are the monied while the non-monied working class commoners spend all their money on the basic living essentials.

pacino wrote:government investment in infrastructure would've gone much further, and provided a more solid base for future development of the economy.

these did nothing. our two stupid checks did very little. putting money out there is an aimless way of trying to put good use to said money

Yep, can't forget about all those shovel ready projects

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:lower rates didn't work. 'higher' rates generate more revenue for the government to reinvest in infrastructure and provide things which stimulate the economy. if the stimulus had less tax cuts in it it would've helped even more.

our taxes were already damn low in the 90s, why go lower?

In what ways did lower rates not work? Do you think the past decade would have had more job growth or better GDP growth or higher incomes if the tax rates remained the same as at the end of the 1990s?

this is what some might refer to as a false dichotomy

Those people would be wrong. When making a prediction of a continuous variable (ie. GDP growth), asking if it would be higher or lower is not a false dichotomy. Since that's not really stopping pacino from saying any number above, below, or at the last decade's GDP growth.

Note that I disagree with parts of each argument. I think growth in the 2000s could have been higher if the government had spent the increased tax revenue well. However, I dont think that was likely to happen, based on the spending patterns of that time period (part D, Iraq, Afghanistan). Tax revenues were not a limiting factor.

Raising taxes in a recession, or shortly into a recovery, isnt a good policy either. The economy in 1937 is a classic case of a tax increase choking off a recovery.

What Congress needs to do in 2011 is commit to more than a 1 year patch on tax policy, so people can know what to expect from the next 10 years. I think that will help jobs. Right now, companies dont know the best way to improve shareholder value. Many are afraid to aggressively grow, and are simply giving huge 1-time dividends to spend their cash before 2010 is up. Incentives matter, but so does uncertainty.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:... Not that the budget deficit and mounting debt aren't valid concerns, but in the short term our ability to borrow appears strong. ...

The key words being "short term". The bond market is a fickle mistress that can turn on you with no warning in a matter of days. Bond rates are historically low right now. When investors demand higher interest rates or refuse to roll over debt at any price, the only choice the govt really has is to make substantial spending cuts and/or raise taxes in order to keep the financial market from going ape!@#$ turbulent. Either or both of those, since they'd be reactionary and not "phased in", makes the economic situation worse and throws a substantial standard of living decline (due to falling dollar and hyperinflation) into the mix.

The IT bubble burst. The real estate bubble burst. If I were to play Nostradamus and predict the next bubble to burst, my guess would be the standard of living bubble. We (and the govt for that matter) have been "living beyond our means" to maintain a standard of living higher than, quite frankly, what we really deserve. We don't need an iphone, digital cable, high speed internet, large screen TV, blu-ray, nicer home and car that are beyond our means, etc. Meh, many yearn for the nostalgic "good ol' days". Might be interesting to see their reactions with a return of the "good ol' days" when the only people to have such luxuries are the monied while the non-monied working class commoners spend all their money on the basic living essentials.

So all those so-called "books" I've been collecting are going to come back into style? Do you foresee a subsequent bubble in book prices? I have a mint edition "Road to Serfdom" and a heavily highlighted "Atlas Shrugged" that I could sell to tea partiers for a pretty penny.... Since it's highlighted, they wouldn't have to read the whole thing.

No, I didn't actually highlight Atlas Shrugged

Werthless wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:lower rates didn't work. 'higher' rates generate more revenue for the government to reinvest in infrastructure and provide things which stimulate the economy. if the stimulus had less tax cuts in it it would've helped even more.

our taxes were already damn low in the 90s, why go lower?

In what ways did lower rates not work? Do you think the past decade would have had more job growth or better GDP growth or higher incomes if the tax rates remained the same as at the end of the 1990s?

this is what some might refer to as a false dichotomy

Those people would be wrong. When making a prediction of a continuous variable (ie. GDP growth), asking if it would be higher or lower is not a false dichotomy. Since that's not really stopping pacino from saying any number above, below, or at the last decade's GDP growth.

e.g. (exempli gratia, "for example") rather than ie (id est, "in other words" )



I guess I gave more of my attention to the 1st of Jerz's 2 sentences. Legitimate responses to the question "In what ways did lower rates not work?" might include descriptions of outcomes that do not have to do with the direction of GDP, or jobs, or incomes. And of course the movement of those metrics, singly or in combination, does little to sum up even the course of an economy, much less a society.

id est is that is, c'mon man

jerseyhoya wrote:id est is that is, c'mon man

paging larry literal, cleanup in topic 3

I dunno, I always thought there was a venn diagram of sorts where there was an overlapping of applicability of id est and eg. And when two words translate cleanly into an English phrase that also has a meaning, the priests would be angry if you chose any other option.

jerseyhoya wrote:I dunno, I always thought there was a venn diagram of sorts where there was an overlapping of applicability of id est and eg. And when two words translate cleanly into an English phrase that also has a meaning, the priests would be angry if you chose any other option.

when we used to corner our parish priest in CYO on assertions like "US involvement in Vietnam is right, because it's a "just" war", he'd start talking about his switchblade collection

angry, yea, I guess you could call it that

but in other words, you're asserting that "that is" is not equivalent in meaning to "in other words"?

No, I saw you write that id est meant something other than "that is," which is what I was taught it meant in Latin class and corrected you without thinking through the similarities between the English phrases "that is" and "in other words."

gridlock!

House Dem caucus voted against taking up the tax cut compromise. Leadership can overrule them but this is getting messy.

oh well so much for my windfall

If this is the start of the dem caucus growing some balls, good. If they repubs are going to control the government in 2012 anyway I'd prefer if the dems got some practice in obstructionism.

It's still going to pass. This was purely symbolic, and a bit pouty--though, as the do-nothing fucking Senate tables the DREAM Act, is near-certain to fail to repeal the odious DADT, and might not even ratify the nuke treaty, it's hard to blame the House for standing on, what's the word, "principle."

But the point is Pelosi won't kneecap Obama. She'll push it through and deal with the fallout later.

As for the Dem caucus "growing some balls" and obstructing, there's really no way to do that in the House. The bare majority there is as all-powerful as the Senate majority < 60 votes is impotent.

I know, but that idea makes me feel better so I reject your reality and insert my own.

The Senate is going to have to pass it, then the House will act. Hopefully they remember to use some spending bill that originated in the House.

How is it that no one has beaten someone from the Wetsboro Baptist Church to death with a lead pipe during one of these funeral pickets?

People get killed for the dumbest reasons in this country and yet no one feels compelled to start spraying bullets at these fuckers? I don't get it.

Werthless wrote:I have a mint edition "Road to Serfdom" and a heavily highlighted "Atlas Shrugged" that I could sell to tea partiers for a pretty penny.... Since it's highlighted, they wouldn't have to read the whole thing.

C'mon, you know tea partiers don't read

(oh snap!)

I think DADT repeal would be a great case study in the absolute inanity of the United States Senate. It had enough votes and still failed.

(Is inanity a word?)