Comments by "" (@A86) on "C-SPAN: President Barack Obama 2009 Inauguration and Address" video.

  1. 1) I thought you claimed there were no non-government studies. Why the change of tune suddenly? 2) Not really. They're corporate studies with their own slants as well. They're trusted by conservatives but not by most other people. 3) Look again sir: (dot) nationalpriorities (dot) org/ images/stories/ chartspage/ discfy04 (dot) gif
    1
  2. yglesias (dot) thinkprogress (dot) org/ wp - content/ uploads/ 2009/ 02/ nineteenth (dot) png No one in their right mind would argue that living standards in the 19th century were higher than they were after the New Deal. At any point. Our economic production has been higher ever sense and there has been more economic diversification and growth of businesses since 1938. The major staples of the economy used to be controlled by a few companies.
    1
  3. h t t p (.) org / files/ active / 0 real % 20GDP % 20per % 20capita % 20US (.) gif (put it all together) h t t p / / w w w (.) econbrowser (.) com / archives / 2005 / 08 / productivity _ graph2 (dot) gif
    1
  4. Their numbers don't match the numbers of this graph from the Office of Management and Budget. Here is the link of where the graph came from: (dot) gpoaccess (dot) gov/ usbudget/ fy05/ browse (dot) html
    1
  5. I think you're mistaken, the budget for 2008 was $2.9 Trillion. (dot) reuters (dot) com/article/ latestCrisis / idUSN17421953 Respectfully I think you misread the CBO report. It isn't wrong of course, I think you just misread it. For one thing defense is not the only type of military spending.
    1
  6. Just for future reference it's hypocritical to talk about my bias when you yourself used "liberal", "left wing", "anti-capitalist" and "Keynesian" as slurs. That kind of thing tends to just get you into arguments instead of helping to make a point. That's why I refrained from using your ideological leaning as a slur word.
    1
  7. I didn't mean the term as a slur. Sorry if you took it that way. I meant the term descriptively. I didn't say you called ME those terms as slurs you just threw them out as slurs in general.
    1
  8. 1) You claimed there are no non-governmental studies. Then you claimed you used independent studies. Contradict yourself much? 2) CATO isn't trusted by most non-conservatives either. The WHO is trustworthy and neutral. 3) Foreign debt under Carter: $0.9 Trillion Foreign debt under Reagan: $3 Trillion Foreign debt under Clinton: $5 Trillion Foreign debt under Bush: $10.4 Trillion Budget deficit under Bush: +$9 Trillion The last 3 presidents all decreased social services spending.
    1
  9. Exactly. If it's about country first they should be more concerned about the country working rather than trying to "prove" their ideology. I couldn't stand Bush and his ideology but I hoped things would work out for the best. I didn't want him to fail because I knew that would hurt me.
    1
  10. I see it but I don't really see anything to back up the information. This is from the Office of Management and Budget: (dot) nationalpriorities (dot) org/ images/ stories/ chartspage/ discfy04 (dot) gif
    1
  11. Who gives a shit about North Korea? They're a pissant country that poses no real threat to the US. Their weapons can't even reach us and half their shit doesn't work.
    1
  12. 1) Whom in the staff claims it didn't work? 2) If it didn't why did the US economy take off during and after it? (a lot of New Deal policies continued until the Reagan Era): upload (dot) wikimedia (dot) org/ wikipedia/commons/d/da/ Gdp20 - 40 (dot) jpg As you can see economic production and growth went up during and after it.
    1
  13. 1) I don't remember that. I remember reading about him not doing much of anything to stave off Depression. 2) What do mean about Reagan? He massively increased the size of the government. Government spending was far higher in 1988 than it was in 1979. What's worse is that he cut taxes (and thus decreased tax revenues) but increased spending which caused a budget deficit and lead to him massively increasing foreign borrowing to offset the debt. Also wages haven't raised for most of us since 1984.
    1
  14. What do you mean? Krugman is a big critic of the Democrats and their opposition to public healthcare and he's opposed to the Democrats' protection of tariffs and trade barriers. Yeah, he's a liberal. Your point? Milton Friedman was a Republican. Both of them still have good advice on topics regardless.
    1
  15. 1) The "free market" has never existed. The US has always had state-protected corporate mercantilism. 2) The general consensus on Reagan is that he actually did relatively little. His biggest accomplishment was bringing down inflation. Other than that he ran up our foreign deficit to $3 Trillion (it had been $0.9 Trillion under Carter), racked up a huge budget deficit and increased wasteful government spending. Wages haven't really changed either.
    1
  16. I'm sure you're probably a very miserable human being. Only the most ignorant and miserable of people go around attacking complete strangers simply because of their skin color. You're no better than the thugs you extrapolate onto all black people.
    1
  17. (dot) cbpp (dot) org/ images/ cms/ 9 - 27 - 06tax-f3 - rev (dot) jpg
    1
  18. "Total Real Per-Capita Revenue Growth in 22 Quarters after the Last Business Cycle Peak 2001-2007: 1.7% Average for All Previous Post-World War II Business Cycles: 12.0% 1990s Business Cycle (Following Tax Increases): 16.2%" (dot) mass (dot) gov/ bb/ h1/fy10h1/ img10/ wordimgs/ 06 - graph11 (dot) gif
    1
  19. "[joblessness during] the first five years of the New Deal, from 25 percent when FDR took office to 14.3 percent in 1937. Then, however, joblessness rose, hitting 19.1 percent in 1938 before dropping back to 14.6 percent in 1940 and 9.9 percent in 1941." "A 23.7 percent increase in federal spending in 1933 was followed by a 10.8 percent increase in GDP in 1934, for example, while a 34.2 percent increase in 1934 was followed by an 8.9 percent GDP increase in 1935."
    1
  20. Lol, oh no. Not the "Japan's lost decade" myth. Now you're really grasping for straws: mediamatters (dot) org/ research/ 200812220005 "Japan's monetary and fiscal stimulus did help to lift the economy. After a recession in 1993-94, GDP was growing at an annual rate of around 2.5% by 1995" This is THE ECONOMISTS stating this.
    1
  21. There is no private sector without consumers and workers just like there is no government without tax payers. Neither inherently exist in and of themselves. Labor/production and consumption is the end-all-be-all ultimately when you get down to the root of things. I have no reason to believe the information presented is invalid. As for unemployment during the Great Depression it came to its lowest level when spending was most active. It rose when FDR stopped spending for a bit.
    1
  22. Link please. No source seems to confirm this claim.
    1
  23. The Economist I meant. As for unemployment the U.S. unemployment rate was 14.3 percent in 1937 and 19 percent in 1938, compared to 24.9 percent in 1933. Lol. 3) I think I trust the CBPP and the CBO over John Stossel.
    1
  24. I've read that before. "Wasting Away in Hooverville" by Jonathan Chait, The New Republic blows most of these revisionist myths away.
    1
  25. Besides, I haven't "redirected" arguments. Unless you consider refuting claims you hold to be sacred and self-evident to be "misdirection" because you couldn't possibly conceive that they might be incorrect.
    1
  26. I'm sorry but this is completely revisionist: (dot) boston (dot) com/ bostonglobe/ editorial _ opinion/ oped/ articles/ 2009/02/ 18/ the_new_ deal_ and _right _ wing_ revisionism/ Before the New Deal there was no suburbia, no large, booming middle class, no interstate highway system, few social services, lower business/industrial output, lower wages, etc. To say the New Deal didn't work is like saying investment doesn't pay off.
    1
  27. 1) Prove the information is incorrect. If you cannot this argument is worthless. 2) BS. There are all sorts of private studies. CATO and the Heritage Foundation being two of them. 3) Government spending on social programs has shrunken over the past 30 years but the income gap is increasing.
    1
  28. You haven't proven that I've misrepresented anything. Your only argument consists of "well some guy under FDR later criticized him" and citing a certain book/article as if by itself it is the gospel truth. People claim all sorts of things. All that matters is pure, unbiased, unpredjudiced numbers. And the revisionists' numbers don't add up.
    1
  29. Most people in the EU work less hours per month and per year than Americans yet have higher living standards. America is 15th overall in the world in living standards and dropping.
    1
  30. 1) Again that's a logical fallacy. There is no reason to disbelieve the information simply because of the source. I could just as easily dismiss private/independent studies by saying they have their own motivations. You have to PROVE the information is false. BTW, some of the information was independent and private studies. Not government. 2) Did you know most economists don't take depreciation and foreign debt weighed against growth into consideration? Also no growth isn't necessarily bad.
    1
  31. About socialism I don't see anti-socialists getting rid of their pensions, unionized $38/hour jobs, retirement funds, the GI Bill, collective bargaining power, public parks, firefighter services, etc. Ironically (or maybe not) it was the socialistic policies that industrialized capitalist nations adopted that bailed them out of collapse and bails their people out of poverty. All the countries in the world with the best living standards are regulated capitalist or market socialist countries.
    1
  32. Newsflash: a lot of economists believe Obama's stimulus is insufficient. I know, I work with them.
    1
  33. 4) I linked a graph of government spending. Less than 40% of it was dedicated to those. The vast majority was dedicated to defense contractor spending, corporate handouts and agribusiness.
    1
  34. You do know that people who worked under Reagan now criticize him, right? It's not the source, it's the information. Argument from Authority is a logical fallacy.
    1
  35. "Tax cuts increase tax revenues" myth is one of the biggest tripe theories they teach kids in economic classes today. It's based on the Laffer Curve theory which is almost completely without basis. It doesn't even make common sense. It's like saying eating less makes you gain weight: (dot) cbpp (dot) org/ cms/ ? fa = view & id = 692 Real tax revenue collection has dropped over the past 30 years. But government spending has not. Hence why deficits and foreign borrowing and inflation increases.
    1
  36. (dot) salon (dot) com/ tech/ htww/ 2009/ 02/02/ the _ new _ deal _ worked/ Trying to argue the New Deal didn't work is an uphill battle. It doesn't even make logical sense. Logically if you invest in more production, more infrastructure (which allows businesses and workers to increase output) and increase tax revenue while keeping prices down you have economic growth.
    1
  37. Market growth has slowed over the past 30 years. Indeed the market can find a way to grow but that doesn't mean much if the growth isn't raising GDP per capita for most of the population, isn't decreasing inflation, isn't offsetting debt and borrowing and isn't lowering prices. Growth alone a good economy does not make.
    1
  38. Here's the budget for 2008: (dot) nationalpriorities (dot) org/ sites/ default/files/ disc08 (dot) gif 59% Defense.
    1
  39. 2) You can see for yourself the trend of income in the US: economistsview (dot) typepad (dot) com/ (dot) a/ 6a00d83451b33869e201156fec9518970c - 450wi (dot) newint (dot) org/ issue281/ death (dot) htm The highest growth in real income in the US was between 1938-1983. Since 1984 wages have only increased slightly for the top of the middle class. For everyone below that strata it has stagnated or outright decreased for the bottom 2/5.
    1
  40. Look at economic expansion before and after the ND: wpcontent (dot) answers (dot) com/ wikipedia/ commons/ thumb/ a/ a1/ US _ Employment_ Graph _ - _ 1920_ to _1940 (dot) svg/ 400px - US_Employment_Graph_-_ 1920 _ to _ 1940 (dot) svg (dot) png
    1
  41. 1) Using "Keynesian" as a slur is a logical fallacy. It's argument from incredulity. There are some things in Keyesnianism that are correct and some things in Neoliberalism that are correct. 2) Trying to deny that tax increases increase revenue is arguing against common sense and actual economic facts: (dot) cbpp (dot) org/ images/ cms/ 10 - 20 - 03tax - fact- f1 (dot) jpg I'm sorry friend but the facts are against you on this topic, though I agreed with some of what you said earlier.
    1
  42. 1) I'm using mathematical arguments regardless of ideology. I say things liberals wouldn't like either, like Reagan got inflation under control for a time. 2) Government intervention was highest during this time yet economic expansion and income rates rose rapidly. According to your ideology this shouldn't have happened, but it did anyway. 4) What are you talking about? Those presidents signed A LOT of deregulation: en (dot) wikipedia (dot) org/wiki/ Deregulation # United _States
    1
  43. Now you're just being silly. Get out of my face.
    1
  44. I'm an economist. I'm very well educated in US economic history. 1) Hoover did act in some ways but it was indirectly and insufficient: (dot) sparknotes (dot) com/ 101/ us _ history_two/ the _ great _ depression _ and_ the_ new _ deal/ hoovers _response (dot) html FDR's actions worked because his investments in increasing production and starting new businesses and putting people back to work increased production and consumption.
    1
  45. "In September of 1979 this person (the middle quintile of income earners] was earning (in constant, inflation-adjusted dollars) $498 a week, or $24,700 a year. By 1995 he or she had suffered a wage cut of about a hundred dollars a month, or 4.6 per cent."
    1
  46. 1) Ah, I misread this statement "There is no information, outside of government sponsored ones" I didn't read ahead. My apologies. 2) I said it isn't trusted by those not on the right. Just like those on the right usually don't trust Krugman. 3) I know Carter spent more money on social programs. Income also rose at higher rates back then and living standards were higher overall. 4) Bush's increases have mostly been in defense spending and corporate welfare. Not social programs.
    1
  47. I didn't redirect anything or make excuses. What I said is the truth and I directly tackled your argument. The fact that your argument was just flat-out WRONG doesn't mean that I misrepresented it. I love how ideologues claim to be misunderstood when they can't defend their arguments. BTW the US in 37th place overall in health care quality and accessibility. Almost every industrialized nation with nationalized healthcare (which is most of them) is ahead of us.
    1
  48. 1) I'm not a liberal. 2) The US economy expanded most rapidly during 1938-1982 when government intervention was highest. 3) Government intervention is needed for a market economy to work. It's common sense. 4) WTF are you on? The income gap has expanded from 1977-Present as government intervention has decreased.
    1
  49. Not really. Not at all. krugman (dot) blogs (dot) nytimes (dot) com/2009/02/20/ glorifying - the - gilded -age/ I don't know where you get this stuff from. You need to put the right-libertarian literature down and start reading some of the real stuff that was going on instead of the romantization of the era. Monopolies are not compatible with a free market.
    1
  50. The private sector has no money either other than what it makes in profits from value-added production and consumer sales. Government spending creates money when it is spent investing in things that produce more returned value. That's exactly what the New Deal did. As for the inflation rate: (dot) debtdeflation (dot) com/blogs/ wp - content/ uploads/ 2008/10/ IMG0008 _ 2834015 (dot) PNG
    1
  51. Untrue again: GDP per capita growth: agonist (dot) org/ files/ active/0/ real % 20GDP % 20per % 20capita % 20US (dot) gif private hours and productivity: (dot) econbrowser (dot) com/ archives/2005/08/ productivity _ graph2 (dot) gif
    1
  52. The Democrats ARE opposed to public healthcare. It's not getting passed because of Dems blocking it. Krugman is a defender of sweatshops and a defender of lowering tariffs and trade barriers. Apparently he's not that much of a "huge left winger". Stop being pedantic.
    1
  53. The last time we tried that under Herbert Hoover we got the Great Depression. This whole "the market is a perfect entity that works itself out" is one of the biggest lies ever told. Every president after Hoover learned their lesson. Even Ronald Reagan didn't just let the 1982 recession "work itself out".
    1
  54. 1) Whatever he said it doesn't add up economically. The numbers speak for themselves. 2) Look at the trend lines. The increase started before the war and continued to take off after the war ended.
    1
  55. 1) I'm concerned about what the number say, not what individuals say. The general consensus and the general mathematical conclusion is that it worked. I even posted some GDP and unemployment rates for you to chew on. 2) I didn't "redirect" the conversation to healthcare, I simply brought it up because I mentioned it earlier. 3) Prove that these other health issues are the main reasons why we are behind other industrialized nations in health care.
    1
  56. The Guilded Age was just another state-enforced corporate mercantile economy. Not a "free market". Though I'm no fan of the Fed either.
    1
  57. I was trying to quote this which had been in the article weeks ago: (dot) motherjones (dot) com/politics/ 2008/07/ where - credit - due - timeline- mortgage - crisis
    1
  58. Republicans aren't very hard to figure out. They want Obama to fail for a very simple reason: Because if Obama's polices work it will prove their Neoconservative ideology wrong. That's it. They are such ideologues they'd rather see the country crash and burn just "prove" that liberalism is "wrong" than see it prosper under a system that contradicts theirs.
    1