What is your position on gov't....??????

[CSpindizzy]

And you are attributing this cut in defense spending to Clinton just doing what is right? Or is it based on a trend? Military spending basically started going down after 1986. Military spending trended down with a slight uptick due to the first Gulf War in 1991. Then the trend continued downward. With the end of the Cold War there was no need for a massive standing army especially in Europe. So I would not play on some noble gesture on Clinton's part. If anything the areas he made cuts in were more detrimental to the military than anything.

Obama is not doing anything regarding the Bush tax cuts. It is in the hands of Congress and Pelosi and Reid refuse to renew them. Obama can only make a gesture of agreement on that matter.

We are not "withdrawing from Iraq in August". We will still be there in large form. And this is dependent on conditions remaining the same if not improving. This will still have a line item in the budget.

As for all of these moves by Obama, is this a reversal from what he did his first year?

 

[bam15]

And you are attributing this cut in defense spending to Clinton just doing what is right? Or is it based on a trend? Military spending basically started going down after 1986. Military spending trended down with a slight uptick due to the first Gulf War in 1991. Then the trend continued downward. With the end of the Cold War there was no need for a massive standing army especially in Europe. So I would not play on some noble gesture on Clinton's part. If anything the areas he made cuts in were more detrimental to the military than anything.

Obama is not doing anything regarding the Bush tax cuts. It is in the hands of Congress and Pelosi and Reid refuse to renew them. Obama can only make a gesture of agreement on that matter.

We are not "withdrawing from Iraq in August". We will still be there in large form. And this is dependent on conditions remaining the same if not improving. This will still have a line item in the budget.

As for all of these moves by Obama, is this a reversal from what he did his first year?

Reagan did nothing to curve the Military, if anything he was a Military Keynesian. I will agree that HW cut DOD spending more then Pres Clinton did. But that is irrelevant, Clinton trimmed it even more and helped create a surplus.

Your second point is a sad note, and I do hope and pray that congress comes to reality with the Bush tax cuts, but Obama has a major role if not the most important role in influencing congresses decision and getting legislation passed. The Bush tax cuts are nothing but detrimental to our economy, and if anything are encouraging more greed and corporations sending more jobs over seas.

All Military troops will be out by August, other non-military forces will remain and unfortunately some contractors.. but that is another story. It is long overdue to leave Iraq.

I'm not exactly following what you mean by your last statement, economically speaking it is Keynes in action - cut interest rates, increase spending, cut taxes during a downturn, I believe our recession qualifies as that. It was a given that after the recession was over that he would reign in spending.

 

[volinbham]

He did in fact reduce spending, most notably in the DOD, and raised taxes on the wealthiest individuals, this is the main reason we had a surplus, with of course the dot-com bubble helping.

Between 1993 and 2001, the Army went from 572,423 to 480,801, which is a decline of 16 percent. The entire military went from 1,705,103 to 1,385,116, a decrease of 18.8 percent.

Spending overall grew every year of the Clinton administration (as I suggested). The cuts in defense were clearly offset by growth in other areas of government spending. Tax receipts soared in the last few years along with the rapid economic growth.

Obama is taking measures, that is evident by the expiration of the bush era tax cuts, a pledge to restore PAYGO, a increase in taxes on the wealthiest individuals,

I thought you wanted stimulus - Keynes wouldn't raise taxes in a recession. Again we get to the cross talk from this administration. We must spend the unspent stimulus, we must implement another stimulus and we must respend TARP because the economy needs stimulus but we are going to raise taxes because the evil rich are getting a break. We are going to throw a junk tax on banks because they are the evil bastards that caused this whole mess. No wait, it was Bush. No it was the Banks. Okay it was the banks and Bush...and I'm pretty sure Halliburton had something to do with it.

the freeze in some categories, and withdrawing from Iraq in August. Once the Recession is gone in it's entirety that will eliminate an entire category of spending which is contributing to the very large budget.

What category is that? Stimulus? You've got to be kidding me - much of what was in Stimulus 1 will find it's way into standard budgets. Obama has ducked every pledge he made to reject bills from Congress with crap spending in them. I cited 3 examples in a previous post.

A slash in interest rates, cuts in taxes, and increasing spending is Keynes. Now that said, I would rather have Paul Krugman running the Fed rather then Ben Bernanke.

Cutting entitlement programs now would be a disaster in the making, as 15 million individuals are unemployed right now, that would be no different then raising Taxes, raising interest rates, and cutting spending during a recession.

How would you cut the military right now without that being a disaster but say entitlements cannot be cut. I thought we were talking about long term deficit reduction and your suggestion that it has to come from the military. Entitlements dwarf military spending-- why aren't you advocating cuts there?

Interest on debt is a given, but that is not something to worry about given our current predicament, however it is important and is often never mentioned, unless of course your a deficit-hawk.

Nothing to worry about? It is about 10% of the budget (and continues to grow).

 

[volinbham]

Reagan did nothing to curve the Military, if anything he was a Military Keynesian. I will agree that HW cut DOD spending more then Pres Clinton did. But that is irrelevant, Clinton trimmed it even more and helped create a surplus.

Your second point is a sad note, and I do hope and pray that congress comes to reality with the Bush tax cuts, but Obama has a major role if not the most important role in influencing congresses decision and getting legislation passed. The Bush tax cuts are nothing but detrimental to our economy, and if anything are encouraging more greed and corporations sending more jobs over seas.

All Military troops will be out by August, other non-military forces will remain and unfortunately some contractors.. but that is another story. It is long overdue to leave Iraq.

I'm not exactly following what you mean by your last statement, economically speaking it is Keynes in action - cut interest rates, increase spending, cut taxes during a downturn, I believe our recession qualifies as that. It was a given that after the recession was over that he would reign in spending.

Are you Keynes' nephew? Reagan was a military Keynesian? Everything BO has done has been Keynesian? :blink:

 

[CSpindizzy]

A major role in influencing Congress' decisions? Where have you been this past year? He all but ceded his agenda to Harry and Nancy - of which Nancy saw Harry's weakness and ran her own incompetent agenda. Obama influencing anything is a joke. He had people at hello during the campaign but his party saw his inexperience and gave him the proverbial finger in listening to anything he had to say.

And I hate to break it to you but there will be military troops in Iraq after August.

Here is military spending relative to GDP:

1985 6.1
1986 6.2
1987 6.1
1988 5.8
1989 5.6
1990 5.2
1991 4.6
1992 4.8
1993 4.4
1994 4.0
1995 3.7
1996 3.5
1997 3.3
1998 3.1
1999 3.0
2000 3.0
2001 3.0
2002 3.4
2003 3.7

 

[volinbham]

A slash in interest rates, cuts in taxes, and increasing spending is Keynes. Now that said, I would rather have Paul Krugman running the Fed rather then Ben Bernanke.
.

So you are an advocate of Monetary Policy as the tool to manage the business cycle as well? What would Uncle Keynes say? How could PK have pumped more money into the system than BB did?

 

[bam15]

Nothing to worry about? It is about 10% of the budget (and continues to grow).

I do want Stimulus, and what I mentioned applies to the future. Pres Obama's budget this year certainly doesn't apply to these rules and it shouldn't as I have mentioned several times, it would be detrimental in a Recession to follow these rules, however it is imperative to do after the Recession has passed.

The Stimulus is taking up a large portion of the budget as it should, it is needed and if it wasn't there the recession would be multiplied. That said the first Stimulus wasn't large enough and we needed a much larger one, that is also why we are hearing talk of a another one, and the extension of unemployment benefits, etc.

You cannot tell me the Iraq was is essential now or was essential in the beginning, it has been a joke and will continue to be a joke. Afghanistan is another story. I don't see

 

[BigPapaVol]

So you are an advocate of Monetary Policy as the tool to manage the business cycle as well? What would Uncle Keynes say? How could PK have pumped more money into the system than BB did?

Hold up. Monetary policy or fiscal policy? Which is it?

Krugman? That's entertaining. He and Geithner would be a hoot. Even the euros would laugh at our "change."

 

[bam15]

Are you Keynes' nephew? Reagan was a military Keynesian? Everything BO has done has been Keynesian? :blink:

No, but I follow his theories, and so does Pres Obama's administration, just look at his economic advisors' for goodness sake. Reagan was a military Keynesian, and that is one reason that he decelerated the early 80's recession.

 

[volinbham]

I do want Stimulus, and what I mentioned applies to the future. Pres Obama's budget this year certainly doesn't apply to these rules and it shouldn't as I have mentioned several times, it would be detrimental in a Recession to follow these rules, however it is imperative to do after the Recession has passed.

The Stimulus is taking up a large portion of the budget as it should, it is needed and if it wasn't there the recession would be multiplied. That said the first Stimulus wasn't large enough and we needed a much larger one, that is also why we are hearing talk of a another one, and the extension of unemployment benefits, etc.

Obama doesn't share your Keynesian exuberance - he's at the same time a deficit hawk (so he says) and Stimulator-in-Chief. I'm pointing out the inconsistencies in his approach along with the unfocused stimulus and you come back by justifying everything as being entirely Keynesian only not enough (you really do love Krugman) So let's look at another explanation. He doesn't know what he's doing, he turned over large parts of his agenda to Congress that viewed this a a blank check to throw money at every pet cause possible and now he tells us we can't spend tax payer's money like it's Monopoly Money. I admire your wide-eyed optimism that this additional spending will vanish and fiscal responsibility will rule the day but there's not a chance in hell of that happening.


You cannot tell me the Iraq was is essential now or was essential in the beginning, it has been a joke and will continue to be a joke. Afghanistan is another story. I don't see

Who said Iraq was essential?

 

[volinbham]

No, but I follow his theories, and so does Pres Obama's administration, just look at his economic advisors' for goodness sake. Reagan was a military Keynesian, and that is one reason that he decelerated the early 80's recession.

The bank tax and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts - remind me again how those are Keynesian?

Reagan - the Supply Side president was a military Keynesian? Who knew?

So it appears that anytime a POTUS cranks up spending he is a Keynesian?

 

[bam15]

So you are an advocate of Monetary Policy as the tool to manage the business cycle as well? What would Uncle Keynes say? How could PK have pumped more money into the system than BB did?

Yes, recessions are caused by inadequate aggregate demand, when a recession happens the government has the responsibility to increase the amount of aggregate demand and bring the economy back normalcy. Since you are an ardent student of the business cycle you should know this: to bring back the equilibrium in the economy the government has two possible ways firstly by increasing the money supply (expansionary monetary policy) and secondly by increasing government spending and cutting taxes.

Monetary Policy and Fiscal Policy go hand in hand.

Paul Krugman knows more about economic policy then any other person I know, however being a frequent critic of the Obama administration in economic policy I doubt that he would ever get a real chance at the Fed Job. And BB has already got 4 more years.

 

[BigPapaVol]

The bank tax and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts - remind me again how those are Keynesian?

Reagan - the Supply Side president was a military Keynesian? Who knew?

So it appears that anytime a POTUS cranks up spending he is a Keynesian?

Don't bother with the Reagan stuff. It's clear he's young, paid little taxes and likes him some raw idealism.

 

[bam15]

Hold up. Monetary policy or fiscal policy? Which is it?

Krugman? That's entertaining. He and Geithner would be a hoot. Even the euros would laugh at our "change."

Paul Krugman as Fed Chair would be amazing to say the least.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Yes, recessions are caused by inadequate aggregate demand, when a recession happens the government has the responsibility to increase the amount of aggregate demand and bring the economy back normalcy. Since you are an ardent student of the business cycle you should know this: to bring back the equilibrium in the economy the government has two possible ways firstly by increasing the money supply (expansionary monetary policy) and secondly by increasing government spending and cutting taxes.

Monetary Policy and Fiscal Policy go hand in hand.

Paul Krugman knows more about economic policy then any other person I know, however being a frequent critic of the Obama administration in economic policy I doubt that he would ever get a real chance at the Fed Job. And BB has already got 4 more years.

You know Paul Krugman?

 

[BigPapaVol]

Paul Krugman as Fed Chair would be amazing to say the least.

yes. We need a guy that has to move right to see eye to eye with Chairman Mao.

 

[volinbham]

Paul Krugman knows more about economic policy then any other person I know,

Paul Krugman as Fed Chair would be amazing to say the least.

I'll ask again - how much more money could he have pumped into the system than BB did? Would interest rates go negative?

 

[bam15]

The bank tax and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts - remind me again how those are Keynesian?

Reagan - the Supply Side president was a military Keynesian? Who knew?

So it appears that anytime a POTUS cranks up spending he is a Keynesian?

The bush tax will expire correct, but you have to remember the other tax cuts for lower incomes, and how low a percentage of the wealthiest percent are in terms of a broader scale and also how the stimulus has provided short term cash to stimulate the economy. The bank tax I will agree with you on, but of course if he did other wise it would be a very dumb move politically speaking, and knowing how presidents work, they are constantly running a reelection campaign.

Nope, but that follows the Keynesian model during a recession.

 

[volinbham]

You know Paul Krugman?

His Uncle JMK introduced them at the annual Stimulus-palooza.

 

[bam15]

Who said Iraq was essential?

As I have said before, he has not done enough to stimulate the economy, but is following generally speaking the Keynesian models with an administration full of Keynesians.

You said it was more important then entitlement funds, so that infers to me that you believe it to be essential, because I believe quite clearly entitlement funding is imperative during the recession.

How would you cut the military right now without that being a disaster but say entitlements cannot be cut.

 

[bam15]

Don't bother with the Reagan stuff. It's clear he's young, paid little taxes and likes him some raw idealism.

I am young yes, a senior in high school, if that still qualifies as young, but that doesn't stop me from believing in the Keynesian theories. Raw idealism is what this country needs more of.

 

[bam15]

You know Paul Krugman?

Not personally, but I wish I did. Would love to have a economics class under him at Princeton.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Tax cuts for lower incomes? Or giveaways? I was unemployed for a large chunk of last year. My income for the full year was very low - let's go ahead and say lower income. Needless to say not only does my tax return give me back what little I put in but hands me a substantial amount more. I can see why it pays in our society to do nothing. I was raised to earn my living and fortunately made it back to a tax bracket where I hand off more tax money and watch the three stooges spend and give away.

 

[volinbham]

The bush tax will expire correct, but you have to remember the other tax cuts for lower incomes, and how low a percentage of the wealthiest percent are in terms of a broader scale and also how the stimulus has provided short term cash to stimulate the economy. The bank tax I will agree with you on, but of course if he did other wise it would be a very dumb move politically speaking, and knowing how presidents work, they are constantly running a reelection campaign.

Nope, but that follows the Keynesian model during a recession.

His budget is raising taxes by 1 trillion over the next few years - hardly Keynesian (it is a net tax increase regardless of the cuts). Before you tell me that's post recession; review your comments that we must be Keynesian until the recession is over in it's entirety. Technically it is over based on the definition using GDP growth. In the broadest sense it won't be over until we return to full employment - the tax increases will kick in long before then thus delaying the recovery. Not very Keynesian.

As for the bank taxes? He came up with the idea. There would have been no political downside if he didn't do something that didn't exist until he suggested it. He did it to gain some populist favor. Hmmmm, wonder if any of his other policies could have that motivation? Nope - just that one. The rest are pure Keynesian goodness and the perfect solution to our troubled times.

 

[bam15]

I'll ask again - how much more money could he have pumped into the system than BB did? Would interest rates go negative?

Probably not much more, but I believe he is more knowledgeable about economic policies.

Paul Krugman is an expert on monetary policy – he wrote the classic paper on balance of payments crises, his work on Japan in the 1990s has helped develop everyone’s thinking of how to handle potential deflation, and his assessment of the crisis and needed response during the recession was extremely accurate.

Interest rates go negative.. lol: