(01-17-2018 03:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 02:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm not "defending everything," I'm offering a different perspective. On the flip side of the coin, if I'm defending everything, you must be doing so as well, so practice what you preach?

To throw the Socratic method back at you, adjusted for inflation, did Obama really double the cumulative debt?

Defend, defend, defend.

Quote:Reducing deficits will require a combined approach of increasing revenues and decreasing spending. We disagree about the best way to increase revenues, and I would imagine we also disagree about the best way to decrease spending. Increased economic activities will no doubt increase revenues, however, if they are completely couple with tax cuts then the benefit is moot - there's a reason the Laffer Curve is a theory - there is a happy area where tax rates are high enough to maximize revenue, but not too high to hamper economic activity.

Yes, and I think we are now in that happy area.

What is your opinion of the best way to decrease spending, and what do you think is my opinion?

Ah, so no response about accounting for inflation? Why not? It looks like you're just deflecting by trying to label me as a blind defender instead of digging deeper. I'm simply asking you to provide a normalized number, which is generally what people do when comparing costs from one era to another. I don't freak out that the absolute price of milk has increased since 1950 because normalizing costs to a standard dollar (normally today's) is a better way to compare how actual costs have changed (in this case, debt).

I think the best way to decrease spending is to try and reform some of our mandatory spending if there are ways to actually reduce the costs to, and not the outlays from, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. However, I hesitate to cut services to the poor or elderly that are really counting on these services if they can't afford to pay for medical care either due to their income or age. So while the best (these items take up >50% of our budget), probably not ideal.

Discretionary spending is where cuts would be ideal, as they make up about $1.2T of our budget (~38%). The military gets the majority of that (~$825B in 2018), with the other sectors of discretionary spending lagging kind of far behind. I'd like to try and reduce military spending because of the bang for you buck you could get (e.g. 1% reduction in spending is worth a lot more there than elsewhere). For other areas, I would like to see an analysis on what sort of ROIs we see for dollars spent and begin to cull from there, but I can't say that I have very specific ideas about various programs that would/should be cut.

(01-17-2018 04:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ah, so no response about accounting for inflation? Why not? It looks like you're just deflecting by trying to label me as a blind defender instead of digging deeper. I'm simply asking you to provide a normalized number, which is generally what people do when comparing costs from one era to another. I don't freak out that the absolute price of milk has increased since 1950 because normalizing costs to a standard dollar (normally today's) is a better way to compare how actual costs have changed (in this case, debt).

Waste of time. All you are trying to do is make a doubling of debt in 8 years more palatable by comparing it to President Polk's.

Eight years is a short enough time that we don't need no stinkin' badges, er, normalization.

Quote:I think the best way to decrease spending is to try and reform some of our mandatory spending if there are ways to actually reduce the costs to, and not the outlays from, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. However, I hesitate to cut services to the poor or elderly that are really counting on these services if they can't afford to pay for medical care either due to their income or age. So while the best (these items take up >50% of our budget), probably not ideal.

Discretionary spending is where cuts would be ideal, as they make up about $1.2T of our budget (~38%). The military gets the majority of that (~$825B in 2018), with the other sectors of discretionary spending lagging kind of far behind. I'd like to try and reduce military spending because of the bang for you buck you could get (e.g. 1% reduction in spending is worth a lot more there than elsewhere). For other areas, I would like to see an analysis on what sort of ROIs we see for dollars spent and begin to cull from there, but I can't say that I have very specific ideas about various programs that would/should be cut.

This is why I like you, Lad. You actually try to answer the questions and think about the problems. It's why I think there is hope for you. You are not a mindless follower.

We disagree on military spending. We need to maintain our defensive abilities. When we need them is too late to start developing them.

ROI is going to be hard to determine on some items. How will we determine the ROI on maintaining or expanding our national parks?

I really am not sure we can cut spending very much. The best we can do is not increase it.

(01-17-2018 03:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 02:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm not "defending everything," I'm offering a different perspective. On the flip side of the coin, if I'm defending everything, you must be doing so as well, so practice what you preach?

To throw the Socratic method back at you, adjusted for inflation, did Obama really double the cumulative debt?

Defend, defend, defend.

Btw Lad, dont jump on OO for not normalizing, your defense is *way* more than a simple answer and actually requires more than tangential effort to do. You are a tad unreasonable in your comment given this.

so to ballpark it ---

1 trillion in 1980
2 trillion in 1987
3 trillion in 1990
4 trillion in 1993
5 trillion in 1996
6 trillion in 1999
7 trillion in 2004
8 trillion in 2005
9 trillion in 2008

so lets inflate (and assume worst case that all deficits accrued in the *first* year of each span. http://www.in2013dollars.com/2015-dollar...6?amount=1

1 trillion from, say, 1970 (all inflated to 2016 dollars) --- about 6.2 trillion
1 trillion from 1980 --- 3.9 trillion
1 trillion from 1987 -- 2.1 trillion
1 trillion from 1990 -- 1.8 trillion
1 trillion from 1993 -- 1.6 trillion
1 trillion from 1996 -- 1.5 trillion
1 trillion from 1999 -- 1.4 trillion
1 trillion from 2004 -- 1.2 trillion
1 trillion from 2005 -- 1.2 trillion

total of 20.8 trillion in 2016 dollars

but we added 10 trillion overall for Obama's tenure.
The multipliers for each of his years to 2016 are : 1.12, 1.1, 1.07, 1.05, 1.03, 1.01, 1.01, and 1. Averaging we get about 1.05. (Ballpark, remember).

So Obama's 10 trillion should be ballparked at about 10.5 trillion.

Looks like Obama added right at 50 per cent in inflation adjusted dollars in his tenure in addition to doubling it in nominal terms. Still pretty fing crappy.

Your "look at inflation adjusted" really doesnt do much of defense here.

In short George W doubled it, then Obama doubled down on the doubling down

Quote:

Quote:Reducing deficits will require a combined approach of increasing revenues and decreasing spending. We disagree about the best way to increase revenues, and I would imagine we also disagree about the best way to decrease spending. Increased economic activities will no doubt increase revenues, however, if they are completely couple with tax cuts then the benefit is moot - there's a reason the Laffer Curve is a theory - there is a happy area where tax rates are high enough to maximize revenue, but not too high to hamper economic activity.

Yes, and I think we are now in that happy area.

What is your opinion of the best way to decrease spending, and what do you think is my opinion?

Is everything on the table, both mandatory and discretionary? I mean, the mandatory pile is very much off the table for half of the ideological spectrum....

(01-17-2018 04:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think the best way to decrease spending is to try and reform some of our mandatory spending if there are ways to actually reduce the costs to, and not the outlays from, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. However, I hesitate to cut services to the poor or elderly that are really counting on these services if they can't afford to pay for medical care either due to their income or age. So while the best (these items take up >50% of our budget), probably not ideal.

The problem with so many of our health and welfare programs is that not enough dollars go the people who truly need it, because too many dollars go to fraud and to administrators. The top 3 counties in terms of household income, and 7 pop the top 12, are in the DC Metro. That's your tax dollars going to fat cat bureaucrats. One of the things I really like about Bismarck is that because everybody gets it, you don't need a legion of gatekeepers to administer things. There was an old Marvin Zindler deal about a woman who worked in the med center and had a son with some disability that required fairly regular medical attention. She was on some federal aid program. But the problem was that she got paid bi-weekly, so some months she got three paychecks because of the way the paydays fell. Every time that happened, her income exceeded the qualification threshold, and she got thrown off, her son didn't get his meds, and she had to reapply and get reproved the following month. How freaking stupid is that? But that kind of stuff keeps bureaucrats employed.

That's the kind of stuff we need to be rid of.

Quote:Discretionary spending is where cuts would be ideal, as they make up about $1.2T of our budget (~38%). The military gets the majority of that (~$825B in 2018), with the other sectors of discretionary spending lagging kind of far behind. I'd like to try and reduce military spending because of the bang for you buck you could get (e.g. 1% reduction in spending is worth a lot more there than elsewhere). For other areas, I would like to see an analysis on what sort of ROIs we see for dollars spent and begin to cull from there, but I can't say that I have very specific ideas about various programs that would/should be cut.

The problem with the military is laid out nicely by Peter Zeihan. We think of Bretton Woods as a currency agreement. But there were other agreements reached. Basically, we told the rest of the world, we'll protect your trade routes if you fight the Cold War the way we tell you to. So we've had 70 years where we committed to provide Holland with the trade route protection so the Dutch didn't need a carrier and two cruisers and could focus on minesweeping the approaches to the Rhine, and similarly for Italy and UK and Germany and all the other allies. UK almost got bit in the butt in the Falklands because they were still downsizing to their NATO requirements, primarily ASW in the GIUK gap, so they're getting rid of their power protection forces. If Argentina had waited six months, the Brits would have had no way to retake the islands. Yeah we spend more than the next ten countries or so on defense. That's because we're covering most of their butts, because that's what we committed to do.

The trick to reducing our military budget is for allies to pick up the slack. But when Trump proposes that, all the left can say is that he's destroying NATO. It's kind of one way or the other, but you can't have both. Pick.

(01-17-2018 04:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Is everything on the table, both mandatory and discretionary? I mean, the mandatory pile is very much off the table for half of the ideological spectrum....

Feel free to give your thoughts without regard to the politics...

(01-17-2018 04:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 03:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 02:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm not "defending everything," I'm offering a different perspective. On the flip side of the coin, if I'm defending everything, you must be doing so as well, so practice what you preach?

To throw the Socratic method back at you, adjusted for inflation, did Obama really double the cumulative debt?

Defend, defend, defend.

Btw Lad, dont jump on OO for not normalizing, your defense is *way* more than a simple answer and actually requires more than tangential effort to do. You are a tad unreasonable in your comment given this.

so to ballpark it ---

1 trillion in 1980
2 trillion in 1987
3 trillion in 1990
4 trillion in 1993
5 trillion in 1996
6 trillion in 1999
7 trillion in 2004
8 trillion in 2005
9 trillion in 2008

so lets inflate (and assume worst case that all deficits accrued in the *first* year of each span. http://www.in2013dollars.com/2015-dollar...6?amount=1

1 trillion from, say, 1970 (all inflated to 2016 dollars) --- about 6.2 trillion
1 trillion from 1980 --- 3.9 trillion
1 trillion from 1987 -- 2.1 trillion
1 trillion from 1990 -- 1.8 trillion
1 trillion from 1993 -- 1.6 trillion
1 trillion from 1996 -- 1.5 trillion
1 trillion from 1999 -- 1.4 trillion
1 trillion from 2004 -- 1.2 trillion
1 trillion from 2005 -- 1.2 trillion

total of 20.8 trillion in 2016 dollars

but we added 10 trillion overall for Obama's tenure.
The multipliers for each of his years to 2016 are : 1.12, 1.1, 1.07, 1.05, 1.03, 1.01, 1.01, and 1. Averaging we get about 1.05. (Ballpark, remember).

So Obama's 10 trillion should be ballparked at about 10.5 trillion.

Looks like Obama added right at 50 per cent in inflation adjusted dollars in his tenure in addition to doubling it in nominal terms. Still pretty fing crappy.

Your "look at inflation adjusted" really doesnt do much of defense here.

In short George W doubled it, then Obama doubled down on the doubling down

Quote:

Quote:Reducing deficits will require a combined approach of increasing revenues and decreasing spending. We disagree about the best way to increase revenues, and I would imagine we also disagree about the best way to decrease spending. Increased economic activities will no doubt increase revenues, however, if they are completely couple with tax cuts then the benefit is moot - there's a reason the Laffer Curve is a theory - there is a happy area where tax rates are high enough to maximize revenue, but not too high to hamper economic activity.

Yes, and I think we are now in that happy area.

What is your opinion of the best way to decrease spending, and what do you think is my opinion?

Is everything on the table, both mandatory and discretionary? I mean, the mandatory pile is very much off the table for half of the ideological spectrum....

My question about normalizing wasn't about trying to defend Obama - it was about trying to understand the actual increase in debt. Using the proper metrics should be done when possible. It is meaningless to compare non-normalized numbers especially when you're talking about decades of accumulated debt that are not normalized to today's dollars. Sure, that will inherently shrink Obama's debt accumulation compared to past presidents, but to understand if that is really unprecedented or not, you must normalize.

A defense of Obama would have been stating that Obama did not in fact double the debt because of normalization. A defense is not asking for someone to present a more appropriate metric for the evaluation of a claim.

(01-17-2018 04:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 04:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Is everything on the table, both mandatory and discretionary? I mean, the mandatory pile is very much off the table for half of the ideological spectrum....

Feel free to give your thoughts without regard to the politics...

The problem is that picking the 'areas' to cut are fundamentally tied to politics and political issues.

Especially in the fact that for meaningful reductions in spending in any one area (i.e. more than 5-10 billion) at its core becomes a discussion of political impact.

One of the major problems is that cuts in the mandatory side are off limits, as are reductions in the rate of increase. I really dont think we can have a discussion of cuts per se, as they are just a proxy for political differences.

The massive balloon in the federal spending scheme since the 1960's has been in medical and social security. I seem to remember that between Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid we are talking of somewhere near 60 per cent of federal outlays which is an *enormous* number *and* ratio. But that is a direct offshoot of the institutionalizing and now near permanent embedding of LBJ's Great Society leap forward. (pun intended).

If you cannot find room *anywhere* in that 60 per cent, there is something at the root wrong going on. Same can be said for Defense given its budget size and ratio.

(01-17-2018 04:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 04:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 03:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 02:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm not "defending everything," I'm offering a different perspective. On the flip side of the coin, if I'm defending everything, you must be doing so as well, so practice what you preach?

To throw the Socratic method back at you, adjusted for inflation, did Obama really double the cumulative debt?

Defend, defend, defend.

Btw Lad, dont jump on OO for not normalizing, your defense is *way* more than a simple answer and actually requires more than tangential effort to do. You are a tad unreasonable in your comment given this.

so to ballpark it ---

1 trillion in 1980
2 trillion in 1987
3 trillion in 1990
4 trillion in 1993
5 trillion in 1996
6 trillion in 1999
7 trillion in 2004
8 trillion in 2005
9 trillion in 2008

so lets inflate (and assume worst case that all deficits accrued in the *first* year of each span. http://www.in2013dollars.com/2015-dollar...6?amount=1

1 trillion from, say, 1970 (all inflated to 2016 dollars) --- about 6.2 trillion
1 trillion from 1980 --- 3.9 trillion
1 trillion from 1987 -- 2.1 trillion
1 trillion from 1990 -- 1.8 trillion
1 trillion from 1993 -- 1.6 trillion
1 trillion from 1996 -- 1.5 trillion
1 trillion from 1999 -- 1.4 trillion
1 trillion from 2004 -- 1.2 trillion
1 trillion from 2005 -- 1.2 trillion

total of 20.8 trillion in 2016 dollars

but we added 10 trillion overall for Obama's tenure.
The multipliers for each of his years to 2016 are : 1.12, 1.1, 1.07, 1.05, 1.03, 1.01, 1.01, and 1. Averaging we get about 1.05. (Ballpark, remember).

So Obama's 10 trillion should be ballparked at about 10.5 trillion.

Looks like Obama added right at 50 per cent in inflation adjusted dollars in his tenure in addition to doubling it in nominal terms. Still pretty fing crappy.

Your "look at inflation adjusted" really doesnt do much of defense here.

In short George W doubled it, then Obama doubled down on the doubling down

Quote:

Quote:Reducing deficits will require a combined approach of increasing revenues and decreasing spending. We disagree about the best way to increase revenues, and I would imagine we also disagree about the best way to decrease spending. Increased economic activities will no doubt increase revenues, however, if they are completely couple with tax cuts then the benefit is moot - there's a reason the Laffer Curve is a theory - there is a happy area where tax rates are high enough to maximize revenue, but not too high to hamper economic activity.

Yes, and I think we are now in that happy area.

What is your opinion of the best way to decrease spending, and what do you think is my opinion?

Is everything on the table, both mandatory and discretionary? I mean, the mandatory pile is very much off the table for half of the ideological spectrum....

My question about normalizing wasn't about trying to defend Obama - it was about trying to understand the actual increase in debt. Using the proper metrics should be done when possible. It is meaningless to compare non-normalized numbers especially when you're talking about decades of accumulated debt that are not normalized to today's dollars. Sure, that will inherently shrink Obama's debt accumulation compared to past presidents, but to understand if that is really unprecedented or not, you must normalize.

A defense of Obama would have been stating that Obama did not in fact double the debt because of normalization. A defense is not asking for someone to present a more appropriate metric for the evaluation of a claim.

So 'trying to understand' == calling someone else a deflector?

But yet you chastise OO for not doing the work you called for and somewhat clamor OO (by naming him a 'deflector') for it to be done. I would suggest the next time you proffer a reasoning that something shouldnt be taken as such, and there is more than Google work to do, you shouldnt be calling people as deflectors when you dont do the work that you call for.

Btw, you are welcome for ballpark work.

(01-17-2018 05:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 04:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 04:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 03:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 02:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm not "defending everything," I'm offering a different perspective. On the flip side of the coin, if I'm defending everything, you must be doing so as well, so practice what you preach?

To throw the Socratic method back at you, adjusted for inflation, did Obama really double the cumulative debt?

Defend, defend, defend.

Btw Lad, dont jump on OO for not normalizing, your defense is *way* more than a simple answer and actually requires more than tangential effort to do. You are a tad unreasonable in your comment given this.

so to ballpark it ---

1 trillion in 1980
2 trillion in 1987
3 trillion in 1990
4 trillion in 1993
5 trillion in 1996
6 trillion in 1999
7 trillion in 2004
8 trillion in 2005
9 trillion in 2008

so lets inflate (and assume worst case that all deficits accrued in the *first* year of each span. http://www.in2013dollars.com/2015-dollar...6?amount=1

1 trillion from, say, 1970 (all inflated to 2016 dollars) --- about 6.2 trillion
1 trillion from 1980 --- 3.9 trillion
1 trillion from 1987 -- 2.1 trillion
1 trillion from 1990 -- 1.8 trillion
1 trillion from 1993 -- 1.6 trillion
1 trillion from 1996 -- 1.5 trillion
1 trillion from 1999 -- 1.4 trillion
1 trillion from 2004 -- 1.2 trillion
1 trillion from 2005 -- 1.2 trillion

total of 20.8 trillion in 2016 dollars

but we added 10 trillion overall for Obama's tenure.
The multipliers for each of his years to 2016 are : 1.12, 1.1, 1.07, 1.05, 1.03, 1.01, 1.01, and 1. Averaging we get about 1.05. (Ballpark, remember).

So Obama's 10 trillion should be ballparked at about 10.5 trillion.

Looks like Obama added right at 50 per cent in inflation adjusted dollars in his tenure in addition to doubling it in nominal terms. Still pretty fing crappy.

Your "look at inflation adjusted" really doesnt do much of defense here.

In short George W doubled it, then Obama doubled down on the doubling down

Quote:

Quote:Reducing deficits will require a combined approach of increasing revenues and decreasing spending. We disagree about the best way to increase revenues, and I would imagine we also disagree about the best way to decrease spending. Increased economic activities will no doubt increase revenues, however, if they are completely couple with tax cuts then the benefit is moot - there's a reason the Laffer Curve is a theory - there is a happy area where tax rates are high enough to maximize revenue, but not too high to hamper economic activity.

Yes, and I think we are now in that happy area.

What is your opinion of the best way to decrease spending, and what do you think is my opinion?

Is everything on the table, both mandatory and discretionary? I mean, the mandatory pile is very much off the table for half of the ideological spectrum....

My question about normalizing wasn't about trying to defend Obama - it was about trying to understand the actual increase in debt. Using the proper metrics should be done when possible. It is meaningless to compare non-normalized numbers especially when you're talking about decades of accumulated debt that are not normalized to today's dollars. Sure, that will inherently shrink Obama's debt accumulation compared to past presidents, but to understand if that is really unprecedented or not, you must normalize.

A defense of Obama would have been stating that Obama did not in fact double the debt because of normalization. A defense is not asking for someone to present a more appropriate metric for the evaluation of a claim.

So 'trying to understand' == calling someone else a deflector?

But yet you chastise OO for not doing the work you called for and somewhat clamor OO (by naming him a 'deflector') for it to be done. I would suggest the next time you proffer a reasoning that something shouldnt be taken as such, and there is more than Google work to do, you shouldnt be calling people as deflectors when you dont do the work that you call for.

Btw, you are welcome for ballpark work.

You're carrying a lot of water for OO. If you are going to try and call me out for something, please do so to all parties. Both OO and I have asked each other questions that we could have answered, yet for some reason, you're only saying something about that to me. Hmmmmm, I wonder why?

I said OO was deflecting (not that he was a deflector, to be pedantic) because I asked a question about inflation. Instead of responding to that, either by saying I should do the work, providing a response about inflation, or flat out saying inflation didn't matter because of the magnitude of the increase, he ignored the question and labeled me a defender of all things, and said "Defend, defend, defend." I didn't call him a deflector because he didn't do the work, I called him that because he didn't address my comment.

So in that context, where the question wasn't even responded to, and instead a comment about the motivation of my question was rendered. How is that appropriate?

(01-17-2018 05:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 05:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 04:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 04:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 03:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Defend, defend, defend.

Btw Lad, dont jump on OO for not normalizing, your defense is *way* more than a simple answer and actually requires more than tangential effort to do. You are a tad unreasonable in your comment given this.

so to ballpark it ---

1 trillion in 1980
2 trillion in 1987
3 trillion in 1990
4 trillion in 1993
5 trillion in 1996
6 trillion in 1999
7 trillion in 2004
8 trillion in 2005
9 trillion in 2008

so lets inflate (and assume worst case that all deficits accrued in the *first* year of each span. http://www.in2013dollars.com/2015-dollar...6?amount=1

1 trillion from, say, 1970 (all inflated to 2016 dollars) --- about 6.2 trillion
1 trillion from 1980 --- 3.9 trillion
1 trillion from 1987 -- 2.1 trillion
1 trillion from 1990 -- 1.8 trillion
1 trillion from 1993 -- 1.6 trillion
1 trillion from 1996 -- 1.5 trillion
1 trillion from 1999 -- 1.4 trillion
1 trillion from 2004 -- 1.2 trillion
1 trillion from 2005 -- 1.2 trillion

total of 20.8 trillion in 2016 dollars

but we added 10 trillion overall for Obama's tenure.
The multipliers for each of his years to 2016 are : 1.12, 1.1, 1.07, 1.05, 1.03, 1.01, 1.01, and 1. Averaging we get about 1.05. (Ballpark, remember).

So Obama's 10 trillion should be ballparked at about 10.5 trillion.

Looks like Obama added right at 50 per cent in inflation adjusted dollars in his tenure in addition to doubling it in nominal terms. Still pretty fing crappy.

Your "look at inflation adjusted" really doesnt do much of defense here.

In short George W doubled it, then Obama doubled down on the doubling down

Quote:Yes, and I think we are now in that happy area.

What is your opinion of the best way to decrease spending, and what do you think is my opinion?

Is everything on the table, both mandatory and discretionary? I mean, the mandatory pile is very much off the table for half of the ideological spectrum....

My question about normalizing wasn't about trying to defend Obama - it was about trying to understand the actual increase in debt. Using the proper metrics should be done when possible. It is meaningless to compare non-normalized numbers especially when you're talking about decades of accumulated debt that are not normalized to today's dollars. Sure, that will inherently shrink Obama's debt accumulation compared to past presidents, but to understand if that is really unprecedented or not, you must normalize.

A defense of Obama would have been stating that Obama did not in fact double the debt because of normalization. A defense is not asking for someone to present a more appropriate metric for the evaluation of a claim.

So 'trying to understand' == calling someone else a deflector?

But yet you chastise OO for not doing the work you called for and somewhat clamor OO (by naming him a 'deflector') for it to be done. I would suggest the next time you proffer a reasoning that something shouldnt be taken as such, and there is more than Google work to do, you shouldnt be calling people as deflectors when you dont do the work that you call for.

Btw, you are welcome for ballpark work.

You're carrying a lot of water for OO. If you are going to try and call me out for something, please do so to all parties. Both OO and I have asked each other questions that we could have answered, yet for some reason, you're only saying something about that to me. Hmmmmm, I wonder why?

I said OO was deflecting (not that he was a deflector, to be pedantic) because I asked a question about inflation. Instead of responding to that, either by saying I should do the work, providing a response about inflation, or flat out saying inflation didn't matter because of the magnitude of the increase, he ignored the question and labeled me a defender of all things, and said "Defend, defend, defend." I didn't call him a deflector because he didn't do the work, I called him that because he didn't address my comment.

So in that context, where the question wasn't even responded to, and instead a comment about the motivation of my question was rendered. How is that appropriate?

The question I saw that OO asked of you required nothing more than a google search. You responded by asking for a year by year inflate to present year. A tad of difference in the work required.

Lad, as I said before you are fing welcome for the ballpark. I have noticed you still havent bothered to thank anyone for it (that is, the work that *you* clamor for).....

But I guess I am just carrying water for someone else.

Lad there is no serious need to normalize between the 2008 figure and the 2016 figure. A short amount of time passed, with no serious inflation. Whether you count them in 2008 dollars, 1789 dollars, or bushels of carrots, the debt doubled more or less in the eight years from 2008 to 2016.
yes, if we wanted to compare the debt in 1821 to the debt in 2017, normalization would apropos. Not so 2008 and 2016.

OO, he has a point that a non-insubstantial amount of the accrued debt was accrued in (whatever year) dollars. I agree that the shorter time between 2016 and the accrual year the smaller the effective impact --- but 1 trillion accrued in 1980 is not necessarily equal to 1 trillion accrued in 2013.

But I guess I am carrying water for him or somefink....

Wow.... does this count as a sign that the tax bill was one huge mfing mistake?

Apple brings back almost all its 250 billion clams stuck overseas

Apple announces 350 billion in investment and 20k jobs in 5 years

Quote: After the repatriation tax payment, the company will have $207 billion left over from the move it can use for investments, acquisitions, stock buybacks or larger dividends. Apple said it plans more than $30 billion in capital expenditures in the U.S. during the next five years.

Apple had $252.3 billion in overseas cash as of the end of September quarter, according to SEC filings, so that means the company is paying tax on nearly all of that foreign cash.

Quote:Apple announces plans to repatriate billions in overseas cash, says it will contribute $350 billion to the US economy over the next 5 years

This is an absolute disastrous outcome for US workers......

(01-17-2018 06:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  OO, he has a point that a non-insubstantial amount of the accrued debt was accrued in (whatever year) dollars. I agree that the shorter time between 2016 and the accrual year the smaller the effective impact --- but 1 trillion accrued in 1980 is not necessarily equal to 1 trillion accrued in 2013.

But I guess I am carrying water for him or somefink....

If he is right, he's right. But all I was saying was the debt increased from 2008 to 2106 by nearly 100%.

I don't care about the debt incurred in 1980 - or 1807. Just comparing two relatively close years.

If we are to equivalize each year's debt, what will be the benchmark year? 1789?

(01-17-2018 06:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  OO, he has a point that a non-insubstantial amount of the accrued debt was accrued in (whatever year) dollars. I agree that the shorter time between 2016 and the accrual year the smaller the effective impact --- but 1 trillion accrued in 1980 is not necessarily equal to 1 trillion accrued in 2013.

But I guess I am carrying water for him or somefink....

If he is right, he's right. But all I was saying was the debt increased from 2008 to 2106 by nearly 100%.

I don't care about the debt incurred in 1980 - or 1807. Just comparing two relatively close years.

If we are to equivalize each year's debt, what will be the benchmark year? 1789?

Ok, so the net owed in 2008 (1789dollars) is $15. The net owed in 2016(1789 dollars) is $30. did it double?

Actually point taken --- money owed is money owed; no need to normalize it based on year incurred. If I took a mortgage out in 1995 for 700,00k, who cares what the 'normalization' of that is now since the point is that I owe 700k, I could care less if I normalize that owed amount to today's dollars in that context.....

(01-17-2018 11:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually point taken --- money owed is money owed; no need to normalize it based on year incurred. If I took a mortgage out in 1995 for 700,00k, who cares what the 'normalization' of that is now since the point is that I owe 700k, I could care less if I normalize that owed amount to today's dollars in that context.....

But you wouldn’t compare it to your income made 30 years ago. So it doesn’t matter if the debt double, triple, etc, what matters is $X dollars were added to the debt in Y years. OO was trying to make a comparison about how bad those $X dollars added were compared to our historical debt accumulation. So to do that appropriately, we need to understand how much debt was generally accumulated in real dollars.

And since I hen explicitly said it, thanks for doing a quick estimate.

(01-18-2018 07:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 11:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually point taken --- money owed is money owed; no need to normalize it based on year incurred. If I took a mortgage out in 1995 for 700,00k, who cares what the 'normalization' of that is now since the point is that I owe 700k, I could care less if I normalize that owed amount to today's dollars in that context.....

But you wouldn’t compare it to your income made 30 years ago. So it doesn’t matter if the debt double, triple, etc, what matters is $X dollars were added to the debt in Y years. OO was trying to make a comparison about how bad those $X dollars added were compared to our historical debt accumulation. So to do that appropriately, we need to understand how much debt was generally accumulated in real dollars.

And since I hen explicitly said it, thanks for doing a quick estimate.

Which "real" dollars do you want to use as the base? Whether we measure it in 1789 dollars or pieces of eight, it nearly doubled in eight years under Obama. You seem to think calling a dung heap a recycling facility makes it smell better.

And why are you so intent on making Obama's contributions to our national debt seem like ...nothing?

I have an idea. Let's normalize the Clinton's wealth to 1981 dollars, so they will seem less rich.



Try this: You bought a house in 1988, with the first wife. . In 2008 your debt stood at $300,000. Then you remarried, and wifey #2 went on a remodeling jag,adding a pool and a gazebo and converting the garage, and in 2016, when you divorced her, your debt stood at $585K. Do you really need to normalize to 1988 dollars to know that wifey #2 cost you a bundle? That your debt nearly doubled in those short EIGHT YEARS? That you added $285K in debt over the last eight years?

In 2008, we owed exactly ZERO dollars enumerated in terms of previous years. We owed $10B. Period. In 2016, we owed $19B. all of it payable in 2016 US dollars.

(01-13-2018 01:28 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(01-09-2018 09:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-09-2018 08:29 PM)JOwl Wrote:  Former Mayor Bill White. US Sen Tom Carper. Hillary Clinton?

White yes.
Carper not really, but at least not as anti-business as most democrat leaders
Hillary, no way.


Ok, now I'll flip it: who do the conservatives on here consider to be business-friendly Republicans? And I'll add a question -- why did you consider them to be such?

I've only skimmed the thread, but Owl69, haven't seen any response from you on this. Thoughts?

Actually, only response I saw was tanq saying "pretty much any Republican governor", with no real explanation of why he considers them business-friendly (just a comment that they obviously should be pro-business, since they're governors, a comment which of course equally applies to Dems as Reps).

(01-19-2018 09:37 AM)JOwl Wrote:  

(01-13-2018 01:28 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(01-09-2018 09:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-09-2018 08:29 PM)JOwl Wrote:  Former Mayor Bill White. US Sen Tom Carper. Hillary Clinton?

White yes.
Carper not really, but at least not as anti-business as most democrat leaders
Hillary, no way.

Ok, now I'll flip it: who do the conservatives on here consider to be business-friendly Republicans? And I'll add a question -- why did you consider them to be such?

I've only skimmed the thread, but Owl69, haven't seen any response from you on this. Thoughts?
Actually, only response I saw was tanq saying "pretty much any Republican governor", with no real explanation of why he considers them business-friendly (just a comment that they obviously should be pro-business, since they're governors, a comment which of course equally applies to Dems as Reps).

I thought I answered this. Maybe part of a longer answer, which might be why your skim missed it. But I'll go again.

My answer is not as many who should be, which I think is a big problem with the republican party in general. They've gotten too tied up with the religious right, which, I agree with Barry Goldwater, is a pox.

I think most governors of either party tend to be more business-friendly than most other politicians, because attracting businesses is part of their job. That may be one reason why I think governors generally make the best presidents, although there are exceptions. Certainly the two that I think were best among recent ones--Reagan and Clinton--were governors, but then so were Carter and GWB. But neither Carter nor GWB were particularly business friendly. Each in his own way was really more aligned with evangelical Christians. Carter is probably the last democrat capable of getting a big evangelical vote. To be clear, I don't have any problem with evangelical Christianity as a religious belief. But I don't think it belongs the heart of a political philosophy.

Had the "Bush tax cuts" been more supply-side oriented and less "trickle-down" then we would probably still have had the 2008 crash, which had nothing to do with taxes, but the recovery would almost certainly have been more robust.

Because of geography, demography, and shale, the US is probably far better positioned economically than any other country going forward. All we have to do is not screw it up totally. I'm not sure we can pull even that off, lord knows we have tried mightily to screw it up, but lowering corporate taxes to world rates is a huge step in the right direction.