So we hit the debt limit...

[Razgovory]

Which part is a lie?  That you supported the war or that certain arguments were thrown around at the time?

[HisMajestyBOB]

I find it odd that of the proposals for debt reduction I've seen in the few articles I've read, none seem to mention reducing military spending.  Am I missing something, or is that really that much of a political untouchable in the US?

There have been calls and speculation, but I'll believe it when it's actually cut.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pentagon-braces-for-much-deeper-military-spending-cuts-as-part-of-debt-deal/2011/07/20/gIQAdBKfQI_story.html

Boehner and Cantor both stated that they don't believe it's proper to cut the defense budget, but instead appropriations should be cut. Unfortunately I can't find the article in the Post.

[DGuller]

Found this graph:



Tax income RIGHT NOW is lower than it has EVER BEEN SINCE 1960. Time to raise the taxes.

Just to be consistent with both the time period, the source, and the components included, I'll post my own graph as well:

[Berkut]

There is no question that the decline in revenue combined with a huge increase in spending has made the debt a serious problem.

But its not like the debt is the basis of the problem from a fiscal conservative perspective. Massive spending increases without raising taxes is even worse than just massive spending increases. The problem is that what happens is that the wanna be socialists generally operate by increasing spending without increasing taxes (is it always easy to increase government programs as long as it is 'free' of course), then when the debt gets out of hand, we get this "Hey, we need to increase taxes! Why, if you conservatives are really serious about the debt, then you would support increased taxes to deal with it!"

At least, that is how it look to the fiscal conservatives. The fact that much if the recent round of increased spending happened while the Republicans were in charge just makes them that much more pissed off and willing to knife their own in the back if they are seen to waver.

[Berkut]

Found this graph:



Tax income RIGHT NOW is lower than it has EVER BEEN SINCE 1960. Time to raise the taxes.

What is that a graph of though?

Why aren't I surprised that DG accepts this data from Marty without question, even though he doesn't even know what the graph is graphing?

It is that gross tax revenues, revenues as a percentage of something, tax rates...what?

And a fiscal conservative is not, of course, going to even agree that taxes simply being low is a valid reason to raise them. Taxes are bad, therefore there should be a good reason to raise them beyond that they are simply low.

And supporting spending that they never agreed should have been increased by 40%* to begin with is not a particularly good reason.

You can disagree with this of course, and for good reasons - but the idea that the Tea Party fiscal conservatives are just assholes who are out to destroy America out of spite is simply pathetic. It is standard demonization of those who do not agree with you, and no better than the claims of Beck and Rush that the DGs of America are radical socialists who just want to make everyone poor.

*-Actually much, much more than 40% - I keep meaning to mention this and then forgetting. My original point was that the FCs are pissed that spending has increased so much, not that spending as a ratio of GDP has increased so much (although of course that just makes it worse). Even when DGs graph shows the ratio decreasing, spending itself is likely flat or increasing in real dollars. So the point that the feds keep spending more and more and more is perfectly true - they do. It is interesting that DGs argument is that not only should the feds spend more, they should take a larger and larger and larger share, and the fact that their share today is larger than it has been since WW2 is nothing to be concerned about. I think they have a word for that view...

[Berkut]

Finally, the view of the Tea Party are not my own - I am not trying to argue that they are right, IMO, just that their position makes sense given their viewpoints of what is important to them. It is not based on lies, irrationality, hating America and wanting to destroy it, just not being as smart as the lefties, etc., etc.

Personally, I think it is pretty obvious that we need to bump up the overall tax rate a bit, and decrease spending a LOT.

[DGuller]

What is that a graph of though?

Why aren't I surprised that DG accepts this data from Marty without question, even though he doesn't even know what the graph is graphing?

Why aren't I surprised that you're making shit up about what I'm saying and what I'm thinking?  The graph looks exactly like the graph I posted for the common period, which is the graph of federal revenues as percentage of GDP, so why I exactly should I question it?  I know exactly what it is graphing.  It's valid to question graphs without titles and labels, but it's not obligatory if you already know the answer.

*-Actually much, much more than 40% - I keep meaning to mention this and then forgetting. My original point was that the FCs are pissed that spending has increased so much, not that spending as a ratio of GDP has increased so much (although of course that just makes it worse). Even when DGs graph shows the ratio decreasing, spending itself is likely flat or increasing in real dollars. So the point that the feds keep spending more and more and more is perfectly true - they do. It is interesting that DGs argument is that not only should the feds spend more, they should take a larger and larger and larger share, and the fact that their share today is larger than it has been since WW2 is nothing to be concerned about. I think they have a word for that view...

Then we're back to the fallacy behind the Laffer Curve charlatanism.  Analyzing either revenue or spending numbers without deflating by nominal GDP is just bad analysis.  That's another example how data alone is meaningless, and it has to be coupled with valid analysis.  The problem is that people who cannot do the valid analysis themselves have to take the word of other people on what is a valid analysis.  That gives them the opportunity to take the word of someone who says what they want to hear, and not someone whose analysis will lead to the most rational long-term decision-making.

[Admiral Yi]

There's something I can't figure out about federal spending.  So we had a stimulus program in Obama's first year that raised spending by about 800 billion.  With the end of that program I would have expected the deficit to decrease by about that amount, since they haven't passed any major new spending initiatives.  Yet the deficit appears to have remained roughly constant in dollar terms since then.

Anyone know the answer to this?

[DGuller]

Finally, the view of the Tea Party are not my own - I am not trying to argue that they are right, IMO, just that their position makes sense given their viewpoints of what is important to them. It is not based on lies, irrationality, hating America and wanting to destroy it, just not being as smart as the lefties, etc., etc.

Personally, I think it is pretty obvious that we need to bump up the overall tax rate a bit, and decrease spending a LOT.

And I'm trying to argue that their position is based on mistaken set of assumptions and facts.  If you start with mistaken set of assumptions and facts, then even if you're perfectly rational (which is a very iffy assumption by itself), you're still going to come to the wrong conclusions.

[DGuller]

There's something I can't figure out about federal spending.  So we had a stimulus program in Obama's first year that raised spending by about 800 billion.  With the end of that program I would have expected the deficit to decrease by about that amount, since they haven't passed any major new spending initiatives.  Yet the deficit appears to have remained roughly constant in dollar terms since then.

Anyone know the answer to this?

Automatic stabilizers like extended unemployment insurance payments account for the big chunk of it, more than 1 percentage point of GDP above the normal level.

[Razgovory]

What exactly is a fiscal conservative, anyway?

[Admiral Yi]

Automatic stabilizers like extended unemployment insurance payments account for the big chunk of it, more than 1 percentage point of GDP above the normal level.

That still leaves quite a few percentage points of GDP unaccounted for.

[Berkut]

Finally, the view of the Tea Party are not my own - I am not trying to argue that they are right, IMO, just that their position makes sense given their viewpoints of what is important to them. It is not based on lies, irrationality, hating America and wanting to destroy it, just not being as smart as the lefties, etc., etc.

Personally, I think it is pretty obvious that we need to bump up the overall tax rate a bit, and decrease spending a LOT.

And I'm trying to argue that their position is based on mistaken set of assumptions and facts. 

Which position?

The position that we should increase taxes and decrease spending?

Or the position that those who do not agree with you on this political issue really are not idiots bent on destroying America?

Meh, we are back to the basic old DG-Berkut argument. You are a True Believer in the rightness of your clan, and anyone who does not believe as you must be stupid or deluded.

[Berkut]

Then we're back to the fallacy behind the Laffer Curve charlatanism.  Analyzing either revenue or spending numbers without deflating by nominal GDP is just bad analysis.

No it isn't. There is no principle that demands that federal spending should somehow be tied to GDP. There are plenty of federal programs, for example, whose cost are NOT tied to the size of the overall economy, therefore there is no reason to apriori assume that any and every increase in GDP MUST see a increase in federal spending. You can argue that there should be, or that there is nothing wrong with it, but it is by no means a given that the size of the federal government MUST be tied to the size of the US economy.

The reverse, of course, is true as well. Many costs do not decline if the economy declines.

There is nothing dishonest about saying that federal spending is increasing when it is in fact increasing. It is not a lie.

  That's another example how data alone is meaningless, and it has to be coupled with valid analysis.

Who are you arguing with? What is funny is that your data and your analysis lead to the inescapable conclusion that right now the federal government is consuming the greatest proportion of the GDP than it has ever since WW2, and you posted that in an effort to refute the basic claim that the feds are kind of spending a shitload of money, and this is valid cause for concern.

  The problem is that people who cannot do the valid analysis themselves have to take the word of other people on what is a valid analysis.

Your problem is that you like to pretend that your "valid analysis" says things it does not, then call other people liars when they point that out. What is sad is that we do in fact know that you are smart enough to failry evaluate data, and yet choose to present it in in an inaccurate manner anyway.

  That gives them the opportunity to take the word of someone who says what they want to hear, and not someone whose analysis will lead to the most rational long-term decision-making.

Right - because obviously the rational response to the feds spending more money in absolute AND relative terms than ever before is to...not worry about it,and call people who are worried about it liars and idiots being duped by others.

Purple Drazi forever! Or is it green? I forget...

[Martinus]

Found this graph:



Tax income RIGHT NOW is lower than it has EVER BEEN SINCE 1960. Time to raise the taxes.

Obviously. It is unfortunate that US leaders do not realize the possibility of paying more debts from increased income. I think you should contact them before this crisis spirals out of control.

You do realize that Republican position is that there would be no tax increases (including, no removal of tax breaks) whatsoever, right?