President Obama lied to us again!

Remember when President Barack Hussein Obama stood up in front of a joint session of Congress and the American people, to propose his American Jobs Act of 2011? Do you remember when the President told us that the proposed bill wouldn’t add anything to the deficit, but it would be paid for?

The American Jobs Act will not add to the deficit. It will be paid for. And here’s how.

The agreement we passed in July will cut government spending by about $1 trillion over the next 10 years. It also charges this Congress to come up with an additional $1.5 trillion in savings by Christmas. Tonight, I am asking you to increase that amount so that it covers the full cost of the American Jobs Act. And a week from Monday, I’ll be releasing a more ambitious deficit plan — a plan that will not only cover the cost of this jobs bill, but stabilize our debt in the long run.

This approach is basically the one I’ve been advocating for months. In addition to the trillion dollars of spending cuts I’ve already signed into law, it’s a balanced plan that would reduce the deficit by making additional spending cuts, by making modest adjustments to health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid, and by reforming our tax code in a way that asks the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share. What’s more, the spending cuts wouldn’t happen so abruptly that they’d be a drag on our economy, or prevent us from helping small businesses and middle-class families get back on their feet right away.

But, when the President’s plan came out, guess what: it was all tax increases!

White House Outlines $467 Billion In Savings To Pay For Jobs Act

Obama Jobs Bill WASHINGTON — The Obama administration announced on Monday a series of tax policy changes that officials say will pay for the costs of the president’s job creation plan.

The provisions, announced by Office of Management and Budget Chair Jack Lew, would raise a projected $467 billion over the course of 10 years. The American Jobs Act, as outlined by the president last week, will cost an estimated $447 billion.

The president is set to offer those pay-fors as part of a larger package of debt and deficit reduction measures that he will present to the congressional committee tasked with finding $1.5 trillion in savings. Whether the committee incorporates those measures is up to them, Lew said. If they choose not to, however, the administration said it would welcome Congress as a whole taking up the proposal.

The provisions the White House is offering as an offset are largely rehashes of tax policy changes that the president has pushed before. The primary piece would be to limit itemized deductions for individuals making over $200,000-a-year and families making over $250,000 — which Lew said would raise $400 billion over 10 years. Another pay-for would be to treat carried interest as ordinary income rather than capital gains, which Lew said would raise $18 billion. The White House is also calling for the end of tax subsidies for certain oil and gas companies, which the administration believes would raise $40 billion, and the axing of a tax break for corporate jet owners, which it believes could save $3 billion.

Much more at the link. But this much certainly tells you one thing: no matter what President Obama says he’s going to do, he is lying to you!

The President told us that he would propose even deeper spending reductions than what were agreed to during the debt ceiling increase negotiations, letting us know that the American Jobs Act would be paid for, in part, by additional spending cuts. He was honest in saying, as he has all along, that the top producers in this country should pay more — their “fair share,” he keeps calling it, even though the wealthiest taxpayers already pay a far greater share of federal income taxes (nearly twice as much) than their share of income¹ — but what he has proposed is to pay for the American Jobs Act through tax increases alone.

So, the President lied to us, again. I wish I could say that I’m surprised, but no, I’m not. After all, his lips were moving! It was a magnificent speech, starting out strong, and raising crescendo to an outright black Southern Baptist preacher stem winder by the time he was done, but it was still nothing but a lie.

___________________________
¹ – The top 1% of income earners, as quantified by Adjusted Gross Income, earned 20.00% of AGI in 2008, but paid 38.02% of all federal income taxes. The top 5% (including the top 1%) earned 34.73% of total AGI, but paid well over half of all income taxes, at 58.72%. The top 10% earned 45.77% of total AGI, but paid 69.94% of total federal income taxes. Their “fair share” would be to pay less in taxes, not more. (Source)
___________________________
Cross posted on Truth Before Dishonor

49 Comments

  1. Pingback: His lips were moving « Truth Before Dishonor

  2. “But this much certainly tells you one thing: no matter what President Obama says he’s going to do, he is lying to you!

    ….

    But, when the President’s plan came out, guess what: it was all tax increases!”

    Ah, ta ta Dana, and this coming from a member of the Party who lied us into a war of choice and aggression on a sovereign nation who had no ties whatsoever with al-Qaeda, and did not pay for this Cheney/Bush/Neocon war/disaster!

    But that is beside the point; here is the point:

    Obama did not lie – you already posted the proof! Here, Dana, reread what the President said:

    “The American Jobs Act will not add to the deficit. It will be paid for. And here’s how:

    The agreement we passed in July will cut government spending by about $1 trillion over the next 10 years. It also charges this Congress to come up with an additional $1.5 trillion in savings by Christmas. Tonight, I am asking you to increase that amount so that it covers the full cost of the American Jobs Act. And a week from Monday, I’ll be releasing a more ambitious deficit plan — a plan that will not only cover the cost of this jobs bill, but stabilize our debt in the long run.

    This approach is basically the one I’ve been advocating for months. In addition to the trillion dollars of spending cuts I’ve already signed into law, it’s a balanced plan that would reduce the deficit by making additional spending cuts, by making modest adjustments to health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid, and by reforming our tax code in a way that asks the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share. What’s more, the spending cuts wouldn’t happen so abruptly that they’d be a drag on our economy, or prevent us from helping small businesses and middle-class families get back on their feet right away.”

    Thus, it is not all tax increases. Here is how we pay for the AJA ($0.467 trillion), according to the Obama Plan:

    1. $1 trillion cut passed in July
    2. $1.5 trillion cut to be passed by Congress by December
    3. Reformed tax code so the burden is shared

    So where is the lie, Dana? There isn’t one! I’m looking forward to your apology to our President!!!

  3. Dunno, Dana. According to Krugman the Democrat economics makes sense. And he’s an “expert”. And guys like me who have been shorting gold for a week ( a cool 75 plus grand ) are “stupid, morons, idiots, phuckwits” and any other name you can imagine. Meanwhile, the professional book-putter-backer is home with the sniffels. Oh, what fools these moonbats are!

    Again, thanks Perry and Pho. Just betting against you builds my retirement account daily.

  4. Perry, tell me you don’t really believe that this “Super Commission” is going to actually find $1.5 trillion dollars worth of government spending to cut, do you? If so, you are a total doof who also believes in the tooth fairy, leprechauns and unicorns. Republicans won’t cut $1.5 trillion and most definitely Democrats won’t cut it either – all are playing a game with us and we are the losers for it. Get a life.

  5. “Perry, tell me you don’t really believe that this “Super Commission” is going to actually find $1.5 trillion dollars worth of government spending to cut, do you? If so, you are a total doof who also believes in the tooth fairy, leprechauns and unicorns. Republicans won’t cut $1.5 trillion and most definitely Democrats won’t cut it either – all are playing a game with us and we are the losers for it. Get a life.”

    Ed, my point was to straighten Dana out on his lie about the President. Do you agree with my point, or are you just on here to make personal attacks against folks with whom you disagree political, as is the pattern of you so-called conservatives on here?

    That said, you raise a good point. I certainly hope they do, because it is that important for the fiscal and monetary stability of our nation.

    I like Obama’s plan, because it attacks both job creation and deficit/debt reduction, with the latter aimed at being a more shared burden.

    All this is for you, Ed, from the “total doof”. :)

  6. Right, Hoagie, in this country it takes a lot of money to make a lot of money, with the help of astute brokers who enjoy the commissions from your hefty selling short transactions. If I had earned 5 or 10 mil, I suspect I could do just as well by shorting.

    The idea of investing in the stock market for the long run has fallen by the wayside, because even the stocks and bonds of the best of the best are subject to the more pronounced fluctuations/volatility of late, perfect for the wealthy short sellers, imperfect for the long range IRA investors who lose half their savings and then are afraid to get back in, because it means their life blood as seniors.

    This is a life changing issue for most of us, and a gold mine for people like you. Do you care, Hoagie, or is it all about you?

  7. According to Krugman the Democrat economics makes sense. And he’s an “expert”. And guys like me who have been shorting gold for a week

    Hoagie-woagie, what exactly does a gold bubble have to do with a persistant demand-driven shortfall in production well below capability?

    Let me guess – Keynes! Money! I’m rish! Arglebarglefluff!

  8. First off Perry, I do my own trades on eTrade. I get “up to the tick” availability (that’s called Level 2 trading to you novices) . I did have an investment business you know. I also do personal trading for several friends…at no charge to them. A “round play” (that means a buy and a sell ) costa all of $7.95. BIG COMMISSIONS for someone?

    The idea of “investing for the long run” has fallen by the wayside to YOU! I have a “long run” portfolio and I also trade short term. The two are not mutually exclusive. You, my friend, are limited by your philosophy. I have no limits. I’m 60 years old and day-trade like I’m 35. But I invest “long run” like I’m 90. Liberal on one end and very conservative on the other.

    And for you to infer that I don’t “care” about anyone else is crazy. It’s not my job to “care”. It’s my job to make money for me. Because when I invest my money, it is all about me. When I invest a friends money, it’s all about them too. My groundsman is here today trimming back a bunch of trees and plants for the fall. When he’s done, he will sit down with me and we’ll go over his portfolio. So then, it’s all about him and how to maximize his return. Get it?

    Perhaps if you spent a little more time actually learning economics instead of parroting Krugman and Pho or putting up charts (which numbers are suspect at best) you could do the same as I. You don’t need a broker, you just need, well…common sense. And yes, this life is a “changing issue” and a challenging issue also for all of us including me. It’s gold mine for “people like” me because I use the lemmons to make lemmonaide.

  9. “Hoagie-woagie, what exactly does a gold bubble have to do with a persistant demand-driven shortfall in production well below capability?”

    Nothing. What do you think it has to do with it? And what do you think “the government” can do about it? Again, nothing.

  10. “…. by reforming our tax code in a way that asks the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share.’

    How about we ask the 47% of workers who pay zero federal income tax to pay their “fair share” while we’re at it? Or is asking that we all participate in our government too much to ask? Or is it just guys like me who need to pony up more money? That’s right, I make $350 grand a year so I’m an eeeeevil capitalist pig. I need to pay more so others don’t have to pay anything. Bullcrap.

    Guys like you have already kept me from opening one business. Want to see all my assets move off shore? Keep talkin’. Or let Obambi win re-election. Last night I was talking to a guy from Barcelona, Spain at the Club. He thinks we’re crazy listening to a bunch of “European Socialists” (his words, not mine) when it comes to the economy. Perry, guys like Whistler or Pho do NOT drive an economy. All they do is complaine about those of us who do. They’re whiney, little nobodies who never were and never will be and they envy of anyone who “is”. They are the little piggies in their own Animal Farm.

  11. BTW Pho, it’s not a Gold Bubble. Gold is a commodity just like oil, wheat or pork bellies. Commodities go up, and commodities go down. If you can’t play the game then I suggest you sit it out. Of course you always sit it out. That way you have more room to complain about those of us who choose to participate. I must suck to be you, always hateful, always envying others, always a librarian. With your brains you could do better. But you won’t. It’s easier to bitch than to “do”.

    I think I’ll get June a new Rolex for Christmas. What are you getting your wife? Oh wait, you don’t have one, do you? Guess that wonderful personallity of yours can’t handle any competition. Beside, you don’t celebrate Christmas. That’s for “us little people” who cling to our guns and Bibles.

    The groundsman is in. Time for this greedy capitalist to go to work. Bye-bye.

  12. Perry, tell me you don’t really believe that this “Super Commission” is going to actually find $1.5 trillion dollars worth of government spending to cut, do you? If so, you are a total doof who also believes in the tooth fairy, leprechauns and unicorns.

    That’s exactly what Perry think, Ed.

  13. Nothing. What do you think it has to do with it?

    God, you’re an 1diot. Your own words, maybe?

    “According to Krugman the Democrat economics makes sense. And he’s an “expert”. And guys like me who have been shorting gold for a week ( a cool 75 plus grand ) are “stupid, morons, idiots, phuckwits” and any other name you can imagine.”

    BTW Pho, it’s not a Gold Bubble. Gold is a commodity just like oil, wheat or pork bellies.

    My god, you really are an 1diot.

  14. New empirical research:

    In a new paper for the International Monetary Fund, Laurence Ball, Daniel Leigh and Prakash Loungani look at 173 episodes of fiscal austerity over the past 30 years—with the average deficit cut amounting to 1 percent of GDP. Their verdict? Austerity “lowers incomes in the short term, with wage-earners taking more of a hit than others; it also raises unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment.”

    More specifically, an austerity program that curbs the deficit by 1 percent of GDP reduces real incomes by about 0.6 percent and raises unemployment by almost 0.5 percentage points. What’s more, the IMF notes, the losses are twice as big when the central bank can’t cut rates (a good description of the present.) Typically, income and employment don’t fully recover even five years after the austerity program is put in place.

    There’s also a class dimension here: A deficit cut of that size tends to cause real wage income, where lower-income folks get their money, to shrink by 0.9 percent, whereas rents and profits, which higher-income folks depend on, decline by just 0.3 percent. And, as the chart on the right shows, profits tend to bounce back faster than wages.

    So, given that the Fed is unable to cut interest rates, every 1% of GDP reduction in the deficit will cut US real incomes by about 1.2% and raise unemployment by nearly 1%.

    The 2010 deficit was 8.9% of US GDP (last available). Your official unemploymeent rate is 9.1%, and the median real household income has been stagnat for about a decade.

    Dana, Hoagie – what do you propose cutting that deficit down to as a % of GDP with austerity measures? Let me help you – I’ll try to chart out a rough table of consequences:

    Deficit % GDP —– % Unemployment —- Change in median household income
    9% —– 9% —- 0 (stagnant)
    8% —– 10% —- -1.2%
    7% —– 11% —- -2.4%
    6% —– 12% —- -3.6%
    5% —– 13% —- -4.8%
    4% —– 14% —- -6.0%
    3% —– 15% —- -7.2%
    2% —– 16% —- -8.4%
    1% —– 17% —- -9.6%
    0% (balanced budget) 18% —- -10.8%

    Now you people have been calling for a “balanced budget” for ages now. Here’s some empirical evidence of the consequences.

    Do you actually have the guts to come out and state for the record “I want spending cuts to balance the budget even if it means 18% official unemployment and Americans being 11% poorer”?

    Well?

    Do you have the guts to state that for the record, you p1ssy bunch of c0wards>?

  15. I think I’ll get June a new Rolex for Christmas. What are you getting your wife?

    I believe I’m getting my gf a partner who isn’t a sad little c0ward who can only define himself in terms of money and things owned. An actual man, rather than a walking wallet.

    Your wife is happy with a walking wallet, obviously.

  16. An actual man

    BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Aside from that, I do believe Hoagie and Hitch both carried a gun for their country, while Cheese Dick in NZ carried … a few paperbacks. But they’re the “cowards,” and he’s the “real” man.

    Admit it — it’s hard for to find the right blind woman, isn’t it, CD?

  17. Special for Dana, Hitchcock, Hube, and Hoagie, apropos to this topic and many others:

    The GOP Has Become a Religion!

    “”That’s how I explain the current GOP. It can only think in doctrines, because the alternative is living in a complicated, global, modern world they both do not understand and also despise. Taxes are therefore always bad. Government is never good. Foreign enemies must be pre-emptively attacked. Islam is not a religion. Climate change is an elite conspiracy to impoverish America. Terror suspects are terrorists. When Americans torture, it is not torture. When Christians murder, they are not Christians. And if you change your mind on any of these issues, you are a liberal, an apostate, and will be attacked.”" h/t Andrew Sullivan

    Now are you Rightie religionists in denial of the above “fact” with which you have allowed yourselves to become indoctrinated? It’s like I’ve said many times, you are uncompromising absolutists. We will be unable to turn this ship of state around as long as your party continues to have this *my way or the highway approach* in your politics positions! Come November 2012, the American people will understand this very well, when they view your *do-nothing* behavior of the prior two years. When will y’all grow up and behave like intelligent adults in your politics?

  18. Andrew Sullivan is right up your alley, Fossil — a conspiracy theorist to the extreme. Glad to see you’re quoting the guy who believes Trig Palin isn’t really Sarah’s kid.

    Well done, putz.

  19. “Andrew Sullivan is right up your alley, Fossil — a conspiracy theorist to the extreme. Glad to see you’re quoting the guy who believes Trig Palin isn’t really Sarah’s kid.

    Well done, putz.”

    Irrelevant! And playing the *attack the messenger game* doesn’t work here either. You ought to book mark this paragraph, because every word that Sullivan wrote is demonstrated almost daily on this blog by you neocon religionists/absolutists.

  20. Irrelevant! And playing the *attack the messenger game* doesn’t work here either.

    It sure does. Anyone has the right to question the wisdom of quoting an idiot who believes the nonsense Sullivan does. It’d be as insane as quoting you, Fossil, who believes in the election conspiracies of 2000 and 2004.

    You ought to bookmark some freakin’ sense for that worn-out noggin’ of yours.

  21. An actual man

    BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Aside from that, I do believe Hoagie and Hitch both carried a gun for their country, while Cheese Dick in NZ carried … a few paperbacks. But they’re the “cowards,” and he’s the “real” man.

    Admit it — it’s hard for to find the right blind woman, isn’t it, CD?

    More irrelevancies from Hube, plus an assumption without foundation. And btw, was Hitchcock in combat? If not, then hell, I carried one for my country too. You are a fine one to make this point hypocrite Hube!

  22. Aside from that, I do believe Hoagie and Hitch both carried a gun for their country

    Didn’t say anything about what he might have been once. What he is now is pathetic.

    A man doesn’t define himself by what he owns, as Hoagie’s rantings reveal he does. Nor does a man allow his own c0wardice and fear to lead him to advocate murdering 1.5 billion people, as you have.

    Don’t worry, Hube – no-one expects you to understand.

  23. Darn, that was Hoagie again. You m0rons are so interchangably stup1d one simply can’t keep you seperated mentally.

  24. “One can only imagine Fossil’s reaction to me, Dana or whoever quoting a well known Birther as a legit source. LLMAO!!!”

    Irrelevant again! Another red herring too.

    Hube, exactly what is it about the quote from Sullivan that you wish to counter. I note nothing from you on the subject so far!

  25. Irrelevant! And playing the *attack the messenger game* doesn’t work here either.

    It sure does. Anyone has the right to question the wisdom of quoting an idiot who believes the nonsense Sullivan does. It’d be as insane as quoting you, Fossil, who believes in the election conspiracies of 2000 and 2004.

    You ought to bookmark some freakin’ sense for that worn-out noggin’ of yours.

    Now Hube doubles down on his irrelevancies and his red herrings, and still not a single counter to Sullivan’s words. Loser!

  26. “Do you have the guts to state that for the record, you p1ssy bunch of c0wards>?”

    You and I know they don’t have the guts, PiaToR.

    This is an citation to an excellent piece written by a very bright fellow (Ezra Klein) who does his homework. Thanks!

    [Added: Dana, Hube, Hitchcock, and Hoagie have now been rightly flummoxed!]

  27. Re Andrew Sullivan’s piece, here is the question he posed, which you Repubs ought to be thinking about:

    “How did the whole toxic stew of GOP beliefs – economic royalism, militarism and culture wars cum fundamentalism – come completely to displace an erstwhile civilized Eisenhower Republicanism?”

  28. [Added: Dana, Hube, Hitchcock, and Hoagie have now been rightly flummoxed!]

    Give them a chance. They still have to read the post and digest it, and consider it.

    MAYBE they will have the guts to state for the record:

    “I want spending cuts to balance the budget even if it means 18% official unemployment and Americans being 11% poorer”

    maybe…

  29. Perry wrote:

    Obama did not lie – you already posted the proof! Here, Dana, reread what the President said:

    The American Jobs Act will not add to the deficit. It will be paid for. And here’s how:

    The agreement we passed in July will cut government spending by about $1 trillion over the next 10 years. It also charges this Congress to come up with an additional $1.5 trillion in savings by Christmas. Tonight, I am asking you to increase that amount so that it covers the full cost of the American Jobs Act. And a week from Monday, I’ll be releasing a more ambitious deficit plan — a plan that will not only cover the cost of this jobs bill, but stabilize our debt in the long run.

    This approach is basically the one I’ve been advocating for months. In addition to the trillion dollars of spending cuts I’ve already signed into law, it’s a balanced plan that would reduce the deficit by making additional spending cuts, by making modest adjustments to health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid, and by reforming our tax code in a way that asks the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share. What’s more, the spending cuts wouldn’t happen so abruptly that they’d be a drag on our economy, or prevent us from helping small businesses and middle-class families get back on their feet right away.”

    Thus, it is not all tax increases. Here is how we pay for the AJA ($0.467 trillion), according to the Obama Plan:

    1. $1 trillion cut passed in July
    2. $1.5 trillion cut to be passed by Congress by December
    3. Reformed tax code so the burden is shared

    So where is the lie, Dana? There isn’t one! I’m looking forward to your apology to our President!!!

    Of course he was lying, Perry. I copied his words, too,l and I emphasized the points which prove he was lying. Referring to the spending cuts agreed to in the debt ceiling compromise, President Obama said,”Tonight, I am asking you to increase that amount so that it covers the full cost of the American Jobs Act.” And he added, “And a week from Monday, I’ll be releasing a more ambitious deficit plan — a plan that will not only cover the cost of this jobs bill, but stabilize our debt in the long run.”

    Yet what he produced was nothing but tax increases. He lied, and everyone but a hopeless Obama sycophant or a Democratic party operative (pardon the redundancy) recognizes it.

  30. Perry wrote:

    Ed, my point was to straighten Dana out on his lie about the President.

    Sorry, but what I wrote was the truth. The Presidentsaid that he wanted additional savings, beyond what was agreed to in the debt ceiling compromise, to pay for his proposal. And then he submitted a tax increase package.

    You’re old enough to understand how things work, Perry: if someone has to explain how what someone else said wasn’t a lie, it’s already too late.

    Of course, it seems that y’all have a lot to have to explain away about the President: why what he said last Thursday wasn’t a lie, and why his 2009 stimulus plan really worked, even though it hit none of the markers promised and unemployment rose to levels — and has stayed above levels — we were told would only happen if we didn’t pass the stimulus plan.

    Wouldn’t you rather have a President you didn’t have to make excuses for or explain away his perceived failures? Wouldn’t you rather have a President whose achievements were so obvious that no explanations were needed?

    And, to top it all off, then you have to try to explain away the successes of some of the President’s opponents. We’ve had tremendous job growth in Texas, yet y’all are trying to explain that away, saying that, well, they weren’t good jobs, or whatever.

    Of course, I’m really just trying to help the President. I’m trying to help him get richer faster, by giving him a four-years-earlier-than-planned head start on his memoirs, and ease the task by cutting the writing involved by half. :)

  31. The Phoenician wrote:

    I think I’ll get June a new Rolex for Christmas. What are you getting your wife?

    I believe I’m getting my gf a partner who isn’t a sad little c0ward who can only define himself in terms of money and things owned. An actual man, rather than a walking wallet.

    Your wife is happy with a walking wallet, obviously.

    Well, if you’re going to be this snotty, she was obviously happy enough with him that she was willing to actually marry him.

  32. Well, if you’re going to be this snotty, she was obviously happy enough with him that she was willing to actually marry him.

    Indeed. I imagine she had a very good return on her investment, and it forms a profitable part of her portfolio.

    By the way, Dana, now that you’re here – ARE you going to have the guts to state for the record

    “I want spending cuts to balance the budget even if it means 18% official unemployment and Americans being 11% poorer”

    ?

  33. Perry quotes Powerglutes:

    How did the whole toxic stew of GOP beliefs – economic royalism, militarism and culture wars cum fundamentalism – come completely to displace an erstwhile civilized Eisenhower Republicanism?

    It’s simple: Republicans were tired of the old Republicanism that you liked, the Democrats Lite go-along-to-get-along Republicans of the seemingly permanent minority, and the voters decided that they’d rather try something different.

    You see, in our democratic representative republic, we can, in the end, do nothing without the approval of the voters. If the esteemed Mr Sullivan’s and your view of what current Republican conservative thought is today has advanced, it is because Republican candidates took their proposals to the voters and were elected to office.

    Fourteen months from now, the voters will have their say again. And while it’s true that the only polls which count are the ones held on election day, the polls which don’t count are, thus far, indicating that you might be crying in your Cheerios when the election results do come in.

    The polls close at 9:00 PM in the 9th District special election in New York. In a race that Republicans should never have even been able to contend in, in a district with a 3 to 1 Democrat advantage in registration, y’all are sweating the outcome and pouring in outside money, because President Obama has been such an utter and complete failure.

  34. The Phoenician wrote:

    Well, if you’re going to be this snotty, she was obviously happy enough with him that she was willing to actually marry him.

    Indeed. I imagine she had a very good return on her investment, and it forms a profitable part of her portfolio.

    Which begs the question: why hasn’t your “gf” been willing to marry you? After all, judging by this post, she’s been your “gf” for well over a year now.

    By the way, Dana, now that you’re here – ARE you going to have the guts to state for the record

    “I want spending cuts to balance the budget even if it means 18% official unemployment and Americans being 11% poorer”

    Sorry, but I don’t accept your premises. I want the budget balanced because it will make people who actually produce things wealthier, and it is better for our country.

    You’ll notice that, despite the bovine feces put out by people who don’t have any actual responsibilities for making things work, real government leaders, here, and even in Europe, where they’ve lived with a pathetic form of soft socialism for decades now, the leadership which does have actual responsibilities recognizes that, despite pain and hardships, living withing their means is the only way out.

    You want to blame us wicked reich-wing TEA Partiers, but how does that explain the fact that people like Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron are putting into place the same economic policies?

  35. Which begs the question: why hasn’t your “gf” been willing to marry you? After all, judging by this post, she’s been your “gf” for well over a year now.

    Que? You’re operating from some very blinkered assumptions. NZ society is following Western European lines.

    Sorry, but I don’t accept your premises.

    Sorry, weasel, but you’re evading.

    I presented empirical evidence of the effects of austerity spending. I then did a quick back of an envelope estimate of the effects of a balanced budget on the US based on this empirical evidence. What exactly are the “premises” you are dismissing? Do you actually think that people who observe reality are wrong because you don’t want them to be right.

    You’ll notice that, despite the bovine feces put out by people who don’t have any actual responsibilities for making things work, real government leaders, here, and even in Europe, where they’ve lived with a pathetic form of soft socialism for decades now, the leadership which does have actual responsibilities recognizes that, despite pain and hardships, living withing their means is the only way out.

    Blabber, blabber, ideological blather. You’re talking a lot, but you’re not saying anything.

    i, There exists concrete empirical evidence of the effects of austerity budgets.
    ii, We can use this to very roughly estimate the effects of your beloved balanced budget.

    Now, without resorting to more evasions about “socialism” and “doing the actual work”, try dealing with those two facts.

    Show some guts. State for the record:

    “I want spending cuts to balance the budget even if it means 18% official unemployment and Americans being 11% poorer”

    Note the use of the words “even if” above.

  36. BTW, 18% unemployment is higher than has ever been recorded in the US, and just a bit below the very worst years of the Great Depression.

    Now show some guts, Dana. Either state that you’ve gone back on your previous position, or state for the record that you’re sticking to your guns despite the evidence suggesting the consequences.

  37. The Phoenician wrote:

    BTW, 18% unemployment is higher than has ever been recorded in the US, and just a bit below the very worst years of the Great Depression.

    [snort!] If it’s just a little below the worst years of the Depression, how is it higher than anything ever recorded? :)

    You have produced “evidence” from one side, whose analysis I do not accept, and which is not accepted by many other economists; you act as though there was some unanimity among economists, when you know it is untrue.

    But hey, if balancing the budget produces 18% unemployment, then I will have been proved wrong, but I’ll wait to see it actually happen rather than paying attention to the cockamamie ideas of people who tell us that the right way to get out of our problems is to keep doing the things that got us into our problems.

    Greece kept stimulating its economy in just the way you want us to keep doing; how’d that work out for them?

  38. [snort!] If it’s just a little below the worst years of the Depression, how is it higher than anything ever recorded? :)

    Because the results during the GD were estimated, not being officially recorded back then,.

    You have produced “evidence” from one side,

    Empirical evidence has sides now? Is there a “the sky is blue” and a “the sky is pink” side in your world these days?

    whose analysis I do not accept,

    On what basis?

    and which is not accepted by many other economists;

    Please cite the economists who have said this IMF paper is wrong.

    Here’s the link for you.

    But hey, if balancing the budget produces 18% unemployment, then I will have been proved wrong, but I’ll wait to see it actually happen rather than paying attention to the cockamamie ideas of people who tell us that the right way to get out of our problems is to keep doing the things that got us into our problems.

    You don’t seem to have grasped the point yet, Dana – it isn’t theory. The paper is not stating “this is what will happen if you cut spending”. It’s saying “Here ate 170 cases in the past 30 years of people cutting spending, and this is what HAPPENED“.

    To give an analogy, you’re asserting that you’re sure a particular electrical wire is dead. I’m pointing out that he last 170 people who touched it were electrocuted, but you’re claiming this is just “one side’s evidence” and that you “do not accept the analysis”.

    This is what happened in the past in 170 cases, Dana. On what basis do you “not accept the analysis”?

    But hey, if balancing the budget produces 18% unemployment, then I will have been proved wrong, but I’ll wait to see it actually happen

    “Hey, if touching that wire electrocutes America, then I will have been proved wrong, but I’ll wait to see it actually happen. So shove it onto the wire and lets fnd out…”

  39. And here’s a link to the actual working paper. Bottom of page 29 gives the conclusions:

    This paper investigates the macroeconomic effects of fiscal consolidation in OECD economies, and assesses the evidence regarding the expansionary fiscal contractions hypothesis. Estimation results based on measuring discretionary changes in fiscal policy using cyclically-adjusted fiscal data––a practice often used in the literature––suggest that fiscal consolidation stimulates private domestic demand in the short term, providing support for the hypothesis. This result is consistent with a literature that finds that fiscal contractions can be expansionary. However, our analysis suggests that using cyclically-adjusted data to estimate the effects of fiscal consolidation biases the analysis toward overstating expansionary effects.

    In contrast, estimation results based on fiscal actions identified directly from contemporaneous policy documents provide little support for the expansionary austerity hypothesis. In particular, we compile an international dataset of fiscal policy adjustments motivated by a desire to reduce the budget deficit and not in response to current and prospective economic conditions using the Romer and Romer (2010) historical approach. Based on the fiscal actions thus identified, our baseline specification implies that a 1 percent of GDP fiscal consolidation reduces real private consumption by 0.75 percent within two years, while real GDP declines by 0.62 percent. The baseline results survive a battery of robustness tests. Our main finding that fiscal consolidation is contractionary holds up in cases where one would most expect fiscal consolidation to raise private domestic demand. In particular, even large spending-based fiscal retrenchments are contractionary, as are fiscal consolidations occurring in economies with a high perceived sovereign default risk.

    [released - pH]

  40. Now here’s an interesting point.

    Assume you have a company just struggling along – buying materials, manufacturing stuff, selling it, and making a small profit.

    Someone comes along and points out that there’s a bank offering to lend you funds to not do any manufacturing or selling but stockpile your materials for 30 years – and this would be *more* profitable as long as those materials increased in value by 39% over 30 years. In nominal terms, not real terms. And the price of the materials has been following the inflation rate like clockwork.

    Would you do it? Would you bet your money for 30 years that the annual inflation rate was going to average over 1.1% Or would you say “Oh no, it’s immoral to borrow money”.

    Well, it’s currently cheaper for the US to suspend taxes entirely and borrow on a 30 basis than it is to collect taxes. Real interest rates for 30 year Treasury bonds are at 1.1% annually. If the real GDP growth rate of the US averages better than that over those 30 years, the government would make money – it gets more now by borrowing in percentage of GDP terms than it loses by taxing in 30 years.

    So, uh, why exactly were you worried about the deficit again?

  41. And, hey, Dana, you know how you cowardly sniffed “I don’t accept your premises.” to weasel out of dealing with actual empirical evidence of the effects of austerity, in your typical weasel fashion?

    You remember how one of those “premises” was when I said that median household income had been stagnant?

    Well…

    Income Slides to 1996 Levels
    Median Household Earnings Fall for Third Year, Census Says

    The income of the typical American family—long the envy of much of the world—has dropped for the third year in a row and is now roughly where it was in 1996 when adjusted for inflation.

    The income of a household considered to be at the statistical middle fell 2.3% to an inflation-adjusted $49,445 in 2010, which is 7.1% below its 1999 peak, the Census Bureau said.

    The Census Bureau’s annual snapshot of living standards offered a new set of statistics to show how devastating the recession was and how disappointing the recovery has been. For a huge swath of American families, the gains of the boom of the 2000s have been wiped out.

    Earnings of the typical man who works full-time year round fell, and are lower—adjusted for inflation—than in 1978. Earnings for women, meanwhile, are a relative bright spot: Median incomes have been rising in recent years and rose again last year, though women still make 77 cents for every dollar earned by comparably employed men.

    Do you wanna write to the Wall Street Journal and tell them they’re wrong because “you don’t accept their premises”?

  42. Hube, exactly what is it about the quote from Sullivan that you wish to counter. I note nothing from you on the subject so far!

    Wrong. I noted he is a Palin Birther and thus as nutty as any Obama Birther, 9/11 Truther, or, like you, a 2000 and 2004 Electioner. Conspiracy nuts all.

  43. Hube, exactly what is it about the quote from Sullivan that you wish to counter. I note nothing from you on the subject so far!

    Wrong. I noted he is a Palin Birther and thus as nutty as any Obama Birther, 9/11 Truther, or, like you, a 2000 and 2004 Electioner. Conspiracy nuts all.

    That’s not a counter, Hube, it’s an attack the messenger, which means next to nothing!

  44. That’s not a counter, Hube, it’s an attack the messenger, which means next to nothing!

    Silly me. Remind me then to post stuff from Birthers and other nuts from now on, and whenever you doubt their claims because of their conspiracy beliefs, I’ll merely point to this. Of course, however, you won’t even remember this little exchange just as you don’t remember practically anything beyond five minutes thanks to your Alzheimers.

Comments are closed.