CTB SHOW SPECIAL REPORT
1 day ago
Thursday, December 2, 2010
KFTCTTBFO: GOP
I never thought I would use this godforsaken acronym, but BMR already had these guys banging poultry today (with good reason) and I just couldn't wait until tomorrow to post this.
This is, in one chart, what the debate over the Bush tax cuts is all about:
The blue is what everyone saves per year under the Democrats partial repeal, which passed the House today (and I think is a bad idea anyway, though obviously not as bad as the GOP plan). The red is what would be tacked on by the GOP's full extension, except that the last bar, for those making $1 million or more a year, which actually should go up over $100,000 - there just wasn't room to fit it without destroying the rest of the graph.
And we're arguing about this when either policy would hugely increase the national debt, while at the same time freezing federal pay, letting unemployment benefits expire, and receiving new deficit-reduction proposals virtually every day.
Wow I fucking hate U.S. politics sometimes.
This is, in one chart, what the debate over the Bush tax cuts is all about:
The blue is what everyone saves per year under the Democrats partial repeal, which passed the House today (and I think is a bad idea anyway, though obviously not as bad as the GOP plan). The red is what would be tacked on by the GOP's full extension, except that the last bar, for those making $1 million or more a year, which actually should go up over $100,000 - there just wasn't room to fit it without destroying the rest of the graph.And we're arguing about this when either policy would hugely increase the national debt, while at the same time freezing federal pay, letting unemployment benefits expire, and receiving new deficit-reduction proposals virtually every day.
Wow I fucking hate U.S. politics sometimes.
KFTC: GOP
"Republicans, who won control of the House in the Nov. 2 election, have opposed legislative efforts to regulate carbon emissions as a tax on energy. When the panel convened today, Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican, said that the hearing “will be the last of the select committee.”
Oh, that should be effective. We should definitely put off resolving the climate issue and suck the oil teet for another decade or so. Sensenbrenner, could you BE more of a fat worthless fuck? What would your committee be about, should you start one? Cheese? Brett Favre? How you haven't seen your johnson since the series finale of 'Kojak'?
KFTC. I hope your arteries choke your fatass out.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
JOTD: Leslie Nielsen
Concept of the Day: Context
BHMF linked to this post by aspiring chemist Benjamin Lee as a rebuttal to BMR's post on Paul Krugman. So let's take a look at Mr. Lee's argument, shall we?
He begins by mocking Dr. Krugman's "so-called deflationary spiral", pointing out that we've had "six straight months of price increases". In other words, deflation can't be a potential problem, obviously, because it's been half a year (six whole months) since inflation was less than or equal to zero. So why does Dr. Krugman fear deflation? To the data...
So inflation has been trending downward ever since the economic crisis started. And the last point on the graph above (from October) represents "the smallest 12-month increase in the history of the index, which dates to 1957." Wow, our "Nobel Prize-winning economist" (scare quotes from Mr. Lee) sure hasn't been paying attention, huh?
But on to our main theme: Context. Mr. Lee goes on to make the argument that Dr. Krugman was correct in deeming deficits a problem during the Bush years but contradicting himself now by saying deficits are part of the solution to the economic downturn.
But he ignores that the situations surrounding those deficits were completely different! President Bush and the Republicans in Congress rolled up huge deficits while the economy was growing and, as a result, federal revenues were rapidly increasing. It's not really any secret how:
Compare that to Obama, who passed the stimulus (the goal of which was deficit spending) and....well, that's about it, actually. (The Affordable Care Act was completely paid for via spending cuts and tax increases.) The increase in the deficit under Obama is almost entirely because of the shitty economy (people who don't have jobs don't pay taxes, reducing revenue, while often requiring safety net services, which costs money).
Basically, my understanding of Krugman's view of the 2008 economic slump is that the financial crisis triggered a panic, in which everyone suddenly said "Holy shit, my savings are gone, my house is under water, I might lose my job....I need to save every penny I can right now!" But everyone can't suddenly start saving at once without the money coming from somewhere. The result is that the economy to steadily contracts as less and less money is flowing around. [Imagine a two person economy where every day I sell you something for $10 and you in turn sell me something back, also for $10. Every day we each earn $10 while also getting $10 worth of goods. But if we each suddenly decide to save 10 cents each day, on day 2 we're each only making $9.90 and by day 50 the economy stops altogether.] This is especially bad, because the contraction leads to reduced growth expectations, which lowers interest rates, which decreases the incentive for people to invest their money rather than stuff it under their mattress (and if inflation turns to deflation, suddenly people make money by holding cash, and the whole economic engine starts functioning backwards).
So the solution is have someone put money into the economy so that the savings shock doesn't cause massive contraction (and mainly widespread, long-term unemployment that can ruin people's lives and, if it lasts too long, limit the growth potential of the economy in the future), in one of two ways:
Moreover, Mr. Lee never acknowledges that while Dr. Krugman advocates further deficit-financed fiscal stimulus (as does Chairman Bernanke, a Republican originally appointed by Bush), he has always made it clear that America needs to make serious strides to address our longer-term debt issues. And that has to start with reforms to Medicare and how America does health care more broadly. But the GOP has said that's evil, too.
As Mr. Lee notes, "in 2003, [D]r. Krugman wrote a great article with an incredibly accurate picture of the financial health of the United States at the time." Perhaps Mr. Lee should consider whether Dr. Krugman, so prescient seven years ago, might also know what he's talking about this time around.
He begins by mocking Dr. Krugman's "so-called deflationary spiral", pointing out that we've had "six straight months of price increases". In other words, deflation can't be a potential problem, obviously, because it's been half a year (six whole months) since inflation was less than or equal to zero. So why does Dr. Krugman fear deflation? To the data...
So inflation has been trending downward ever since the economic crisis started. And the last point on the graph above (from October) represents "the smallest 12-month increase in the history of the index, which dates to 1957." Wow, our "Nobel Prize-winning economist" (scare quotes from Mr. Lee) sure hasn't been paying attention, huh?But on to our main theme: Context. Mr. Lee goes on to make the argument that Dr. Krugman was correct in deeming deficits a problem during the Bush years but contradicting himself now by saying deficits are part of the solution to the economic downturn.
But he ignores that the situations surrounding those deficits were completely different! President Bush and the Republicans in Congress rolled up huge deficits while the economy was growing and, as a result, federal revenues were rapidly increasing. It's not really any secret how:
- He passed two massive ($4 Trillion) tax cut packages...and cut no spending to offset them.
- He started wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (to the tune of $1 Trillion)...and did not raise taxes or cut spending to offset them.
- He passed a massive ($400 Billion) Medicare prescription drug benefit...and put it entirely on the deficit.
Compare that to Obama, who passed the stimulus (the goal of which was deficit spending) and....well, that's about it, actually. (The Affordable Care Act was completely paid for via spending cuts and tax increases.) The increase in the deficit under Obama is almost entirely because of the shitty economy (people who don't have jobs don't pay taxes, reducing revenue, while often requiring safety net services, which costs money).Basically, my understanding of Krugman's view of the 2008 economic slump is that the financial crisis triggered a panic, in which everyone suddenly said "Holy shit, my savings are gone, my house is under water, I might lose my job....I need to save every penny I can right now!" But everyone can't suddenly start saving at once without the money coming from somewhere. The result is that the economy to steadily contracts as less and less money is flowing around. [Imagine a two person economy where every day I sell you something for $10 and you in turn sell me something back, also for $10. Every day we each earn $10 while also getting $10 worth of goods. But if we each suddenly decide to save 10 cents each day, on day 2 we're each only making $9.90 and by day 50 the economy stops altogether.] This is especially bad, because the contraction leads to reduced growth expectations, which lowers interest rates, which decreases the incentive for people to invest their money rather than stuff it under their mattress (and if inflation turns to deflation, suddenly people make money by holding cash, and the whole economic engine starts functioning backwards).
So the solution is have someone put money into the economy so that the savings shock doesn't cause massive contraction (and mainly widespread, long-term unemployment that can ruin people's lives and, if it lasts too long, limit the growth potential of the economy in the future), in one of two ways:
- The federal government can run a big deficit during the shock. After all, if the federal government, the largest consumer in the economy, joins in the savings frenzy by cutting spending, it only increases the contraction.
- The Fed can basically create money during the shock (so in the example above, when everyone takes their 10 cents, there's still $10 moving around). This will reduce the value of the currency to some extent (what the Fed is doing is not huge), but that's not really a bad thing, since it decreases the incentive for destructive (i.e. mattress) savings.
Moreover, Mr. Lee never acknowledges that while Dr. Krugman advocates further deficit-financed fiscal stimulus (as does Chairman Bernanke, a Republican originally appointed by Bush), he has always made it clear that America needs to make serious strides to address our longer-term debt issues. And that has to start with reforms to Medicare and how America does health care more broadly. But the GOP has said that's evil, too.
As Mr. Lee notes, "in 2003, [D]r. Krugman wrote a great article with an incredibly accurate picture of the financial health of the United States at the time." Perhaps Mr. Lee should consider whether Dr. Krugman, so prescient seven years ago, might also know what he's talking about this time around.
Boogerdamus Speak Da Troof: ETs
It's your ol' pal Boogers up to his same ol' tricks, exposing X-files shit like Brett Favre dick pics. Your boy requested a press pass and has a question drafted to boot. Ba leeve that.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
JOTD: Pablo Solon
Monday, November 29, 2010
KFTC: Right Wingers
GOP, please continue engaging in intercourse with said gallus domesticus. I fucking hate you clones.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
