So we hit the debt limit...

[Martinus]

As long as you continue to pretend that a 40% increase in spending as a percentage of GDP and the largest government in US history doesn't give the tea baggers a valid beef not motivated by being liars and scoundrels, why would I stop?

Could you stop using idiotic phrases like "big government", "largest government" etc. in the context of public spending? Waging two wars (probably the most basic function of even the "smallest" of governments) does not make your government "big"  - at the same time, internal overregulation (the sign of a "big" government) probably is not that costly.

[Razgovory]

I wouldn't bother with him, DG.  He's going into full defensive mode and can't be reasoned with at this point.  Good indicator is when he goees on about Purple Dragxis, calling people liars and insisting that he's some kind of paragon of neutrality and he's just looking at things reasonably and rationally.  I've heard that, before.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[Neil]

You're stating a preference (one that I happen to support) as if it were some law of mathematics.

Fair enough, but my suspicion is that balancing the budget without a tax increase is a mathematical impossibility.

I know that you're wrong.  It's a political impossibility, but if I were to reduce social security to zero, then that would do it.

[DGuller]

I wouldn't bother with him, DG.  He's going into full defensive mode and can't be reasoned with at this point.  Good indicator is when he goees on about Purple Dragxis, calling people liars and insisting that he's some kind of paragon of neutrality and he's just looking at things reasonably and rationally.  I've heard that, before.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Another good indicator is the prodigious use of histrionic sarcasm when replying to third parties.

[MadImmortalMan]

I'm late in posting this because I lost the email that contained the link, but here's a "Feminist Economist" take on running budget deficits.  Who knew that our debt gets paid by a few clicks on a keyboard-- just like the one I'm typing on right now!

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2011/07/14/a-woman-economist-speaks-out-deficits-are-a-grrrls-best-friend/

This is great! Dick Cheney was right, deficits don't matter. Hell, why do we even have to pay taxes at all when we can just keep clicking?

[DontSayBanana]

I know that you're wrong.  It's a political impossibility, but if I were to reduce social security to zero, then that would do it.

The cost of twice-weekly cleanup crews to remove unsightly old, homeless people would more than offset any savings.

[MadImmortalMan]

It's about to pass...

[MadImmortalMan]

And that's it. The Senate will vote tomorrow (ON THE DAY WTF DID I TELL YOU). 

[Admiral Yi]

The cost of twice-weekly cleanup crews to remove unsightly old, homeless people would more than offset any savings.

That's a state or local responsibility, not federal.

[dps]

Yeah, when an increase in spending is presented as a cut, that's just doublespeak.

No, it's not.  Economically speaking, the baseline is not the current numbers, the baseline are the reasonable projections of the future.  After all, a dollar saved is a dollar earned.  Comparing numbers without factoring in the projected growth is how Laffer Curve myths are supported.

Of course it's doublespeak if you say you've cut government spending when you've actually increased government spending.  Now, if you say you've cut government spending relative to the size of the economy or something to that affect, it may be perfectly true, but when you just flatly call a spending increase a spending cut, well, I was being generous in calling it doublespeak.  The more blunt terminology is to call it an outright lie.

[DontSayBanana]

That's a state or local responsibility, not federal.

No, but the block grants to keep them running to save the tourism industry would be a federal responsibility.  Also, why the hell do people take me seriously?

[garbon]

That's a state or local responsibility, not federal.

No, but the block grants to keep them running to save the tourism industry would be a federal responsibility.  Also, why the hell do people take me seriously?

Perhaps you should be asking yourself why you don't take yourself seriously.

[DGuller]

Of course it's doublespeak if you say you've cut government spending when you've actually increased government spending.  Now, if you say you've cut government spending relative to the size of the economy or something to that affect, it may be perfectly true, but when you just flatly call a spending increase a spending cut, well, I was being generous in calling it doublespeak.  The more blunt terminology is to call it an outright lie.

If that's a lie, then I'm constantly lying at work.

For example, we do an analysis, and we estimate that the average premium would go from $50 today to $60 some time in the future, solely due to the fact that policyholders increase the insured amounts over time.  We also look at projected losses, and decide in the future, policyholders would only need to pay $54 in premiums to cover for the expected losses. 

Does that qualify as a 10% cut in premiums ($60 to $54), or an 8% hike ($50 to $54)?  Everybody, on all sides, whether they are company actuaries, regulators, or consumer advocates, regard it as a 10% cut.  The reason is simple:  if we didn't change anything, policyholders would be paying $60 instead of $54.

The same exact thinking applies to a budget debate.  It may be counter-intuitive to the lay person to start with the projected budget as the baseline, especially a cynical lay person just looking for a reason to rag on the government, but it's absolutely the right way to think about it.  The baseline should be a number that you would have without having implemented any unusual action.

[CountDeMoney]

i dunno, berkut. i get what you're saying about the whole tribal/group mindset, but i don't think it can apply to condemnations of the tea party. when you get right down to it, at its core, there are a lot of stupid people involved with that movement who have no idea what they're talking about. that they might be accidentally right on some level is no surprise, what with stopped watches and all, but that doesn't mean they're any less ignorant of the world around them

Berkut's one of those guys that predicates each argument with "ZOMG BOTH SIDES ARE IN TEH WRONG", yet votes Republican 90% of the time anyway.  Plausible deniability.  Makes him feel good. 

[Berkut]

i dunno, berkut. i get what you're saying about the whole tribal/group mindset, but i don't think it can apply to condemnations of the tea party. when you get right down to it, at its core, there are a lot of stupid people involved with that movement who have no idea what they're talking about. that they might be accidentally right on some level is no surprise, what with stopped watches and all, but that doesn't mean they're any less ignorant of the world around them

Oh, there is not question that the Tea Party as a group is chock full of partisan idiocy at its finest. It is hard to beat the Republican radicals when it comes to willful ignorance.

But they would never have gotten the power they have if there was not a core of perfectly valid concepts that non-Tea Party types find resonates with them.