Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Math, math, math.

The big boys use mathematical models. The others are crybabies.

I'm not asserting that there was no drop. I am asserting that since the numbers were roughly the same, the drop was small, and decreased Democrat turnout was a minor factor compared to the major shifts in ideology, Independent voters, and seniors that I pointed out.

The 2010 elections showed both a reduction in young voters who ordinarily would be expected to vote heavily Democratic and a rebound of elderly voters who tended to lean Republican. The elderly tend to be more concerned with the safety of their pensions and savings; the younger voters are more concerned with income, as they are ill-paid unless they have a college degree (for which they are likely to be heavily in debt). So if one depends upon corporate profits for one's pensions one might be more willing to support a more rapid extraction of natural resources, more offshoring of jobs, wage cuts, and tax shifts that promote the interests of shareholders. Add to that, many corporations at which Millennial voters are heavily concentrated (like food service) seem to have told their workers to be sure to vote Republican.

This is the only way in which I can explain how Pennsylvania elected Pat Toomey (a pure corporate stooge who had been President of the corporatist Club for Growth) over retired Admiral Joe Sestak, who might have had some desirable insights on military and foreign policy.

If anything, the 2006 and 2008 elections may have shown depressions in the conservative vote because of the poor performance of the GWB administration and the inept campaigning of Sarah Palin.

In order to prove your point, you have to show several things:

1) The share of the total population made up by the Democrat-leaning groups you're talking about increased.

2) By how much that share increased from 2006-2010.

3) How that increase (assuming there was one) relates to the pool of registered voters.

4) That the turnout percentage of each of those groups was lower than in 2006, and by how much.

5) How a turnout similar to 2006 would have impacted the overall outcome in 2010.

Having not done those things, you cannot claim to have made a serious argument. I did the math for a 5 point increase in Millenial turnout. The impact was negligible. It was less than a 1 point improvement for the Democrats.

You prove that things didn't go as I see them. I see a return of conservative-leaning voters in 2010 who might still be around in 2012 -- but I also see a huge liberal-leaning Millennial vote in 2012.

See my next post, read it, and weep, JPT.

No really, I was completely wrong. You all are right. The Democrats just suffered the biggest House loss in 72 years because they weren't left wing enough. The way for them to get back to winning is to be more like Brian Rush. I agree totally. Please continue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/bu...cast&st=Search

Remember -- the big boys use econometrics, and the others merely guess.

Strategies
A Forecast That Obama Could Love
By JEFF SOMMER
Published: November 20, 2010



THINGS are looking up for Barack Obama.

Jennifer S. Altman for The New York Times

Ray C. Fair, the Yale professor (and a marathoner), sees better economic conditions in the next two years.

You might not think so, given the flow of news lately. His foreign policy has met with limited success, at best. And, back home, unemployment is mired at 9.6 percent. Earlier this month, in a major political blow, Democrats lost more than 60 seats and control of the House of Representatives.

So what is there for Mr. Obama and his supporters to cheer about?

Try this: Based on the facts at hand right now, Mr. Obama is likely to win the 2012 election in a landslide. That, at least, is the prediction of Ray C. Fair, a Yale economist and an expert on econometrics and on the relationship of economics and politics.

What’s the basis of this forecast? In a nutshell: “It’s the economy, stupid.”

That’s the smart-alecky slogan that James Carville, the Democratic strategist, used to focus the 1992 presidential election campaign and propel Bill Clinton to victory. But after many years of study, Professor Fair has found that it embodies a certain truth: The state of the economy — which includes the wealth effect produced by rising and falling asset prices — has a dominant influence on national elections.

Paradoxically, even if the super-rich get the tax cuts that they want but President Obama opposes, the President derives political benefit:

What about fiscal policy? Barring another major economic crisis, the Republican election victory might seem to have ruled out another large fiscal stimulus. But Republicans are pushing hard to extend all the Bush-era tax cuts, not just those for lower- and middle-income taxpayers. If they get their way, Professor Fair said, a result may be a short-term budget deficit well above $1 trillion.

“That amounts to a highly stimulative fiscal policy,” he said.

His presidential prediction doesn’t depend on the accuracy of his own macroeconomic projections, which, he says, “look quite optimistic compared to the consensus right now.”

His model forecasts real annualized growth in gross domestic product of 3.69 percent for the first three quarters of 2012. A survey of leading economists by Blue Chip Economic Indicators shows an average forecast of 3.2 percent growth in real G.D.P. in 2012, while the Congressional Budget Office estimates 3.4 percent. Plug either of these estimates into his election algorithm and the result is the same: President Obama wins.

In the quarter that just ended, however, the economy was growing at a rate of just 2 percent. If that sluggish pace continued — or, more ominously, if there were a double-dip recession or a steep plunge in the markets — that forecast would change.

Under those circumstances, regardless of other issues or the identity of President Obama’s opponent, the model shows the president losing.

And there’s another problem. Professor Fair makes no claim to being able to predict “exogenous events,” like a financial crisis — he didn’t predict the 2008 crisis, for example — or a major war or an oil shock, which could radically change the landscape.

Here's the model. Plug away. Fair's model picks both the vote for President and the House of Representatives

http://fairmodel.econ.yale.edu/vote2012/computev.htm

PBrower:

I'm afraid I have to disagree with Professor Fair's rosy forecast for the economy. Here's where I believe he screws the pooch:

What about fiscal policy? Barring another major economic crisis, the Republican election victory might seem to have ruled out another large fiscal stimulus. But Republicans are pushing hard to extend all the Bush-era tax cuts, not just those for lower- and middle-income taxpayers. If they get their way, Professor Fair said, a result may be a short-term budget deficit well above $1 trillion.

“That amounts to a highly stimulative fiscal policy,” he said.

Well, no, actually it doesn't. Deficit spending doesn't automatically stimulate the economy. It depends on HOW it's spent. Tossing billions of dollars into the pockets of people who already are super-rich and have maxed out their consumption doesn't stimulate the economy at all.

So while I do think that things will be somewhat better between now and 2012, I don't really concur with the idea that they're going to take quantum leaps upward. There is too much fundamentally wrong with the economy for that.

I'll take a better look at the model, though, before making a final conclusion on it. But that error doesn't bode well for him knowing what he's talking about.

EDIT: Well, the linked "model" is only an electoral-victory model, which is fine as far as it goes. Where I'm running into problems is the prediction of really high economic growth at that time.

Originally Posted by Odin

Brian, it's no use trying to reason with him. Quit banging your head against the wall.

I'm not reasoning with him, Odin. I'm arguing against a flawed narrative. He doesn't have to be convinced of anything.

JPT:

Are you familiar with the difference between the evidence standards in a criminal versus a civil trial?

The criminal standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt," while the civil standard is "preponderance of the evidence." The difference is simple. In each case, a binary question applies. Is the defendant guilty (or liable), or not? But in a criminal trial, the court begins biased in favor of one side: innocence. That outcome is assumed a priori, and the burden is on the prosecution to show "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the assumption is wrong and the defendant is guilty.

In a civil trial, the court does not assume one way or the other out the starting gate. The plaintiff presents evidence of liability, and the defendant presents evidence to the contrary and/or evidence of mitigating circumstances, and the jury decides the matter based on the "preponderance of the evidence."

What you were doing above was attempting to put me in the position of a prosecutor in a criminal trial, when that's not appropriate. We do not start the discussing assuming your position a priori so that I have to prove mine, or disprove yours, "beyond a reasonable doubt." We begin with nothing assumed at all, so that if I fail to provide ironclad proof sufficient to convince even you that you were wrong (and, even more difficult, persuade you to admit it -- other than in the sarcastic fashion you just did), we do NOT assume your position as a default. We compare the evidence I present, and the evidence you present (or rather, anyone who reads this discussion does so), and decide the matter based on the "preponderance of the evidence."

I recognized your demand for absolute proof as the shell-game trick that it was, and that's why I responded the way I did. If you don't want to be flippantly dismissed, don't pull shit like that in the future.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I'm not reasoning with him, Odin. I'm arguing against a flawed narrative. He doesn't have to be convinced of anything.

JPT:

Are you familiar with the difference between the evidence standards in a criminal versus a civil trial?

The criminal standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt," while the civil standard is "preponderance of the evidence." The difference is simple. In each case, a binary question applies. Is the defendant guilty (or liable), or not? But in a criminal trial, the court begins biased in favor of one side: innocence. That outcome is assumed a priori, and the burden is on the prosecution to show "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the assumption is wrong and the defendant is guilty.

In a civil trial, the court does not assume one way or the other out the starting gate. The plaintiff presents evidence of liability, and the defendant presents evidence to the contrary and/or evidence of mitigating circumstances, and the jury decides the matter based on the "preponderance of the evidence."

What you were doing above was attempting to put me in the position of a prosecutor in a criminal trial, when that's not appropriate. We do not start the discussing assuming your position a priori so that I have to prove mine, or disprove yours, "beyond a reasonable doubt." We begin with nothing assumed at all, so that if I fail to provide ironclad proof sufficient to convince even you that you were wrong (and, even more difficult, persuade you to admit it -- other than in the sarcastic fashion you just did), we do NOT assume your position as a default. We compare the evidence I present, and the evidence you present (or rather, anyone who reads this discussion does so), and decide the matter based on the "preponderance of the evidence."

I recognized your demand for absolute proof as the shell-game trick that it was, and that's why I responded the way I did. If you don't want to be flippantly dismissed, don't pull shit like that in the future.

Uh...yeah. I provided numerous sources of data to document the points I was making. You claim I'm wrong, and you present an alternate explanation for the election, but you provide no such data. Why would you expect anyone to give any credence to what you're saying?

As for what we assume to be true, the "narrative" (i.e. reality) I'm presenting is what you will find in any pretty much any media account of what happened. I fully recognize that you are not alone in your extreme state of denial, as the re-election of Nancy Pelosi to lead the Democrats in the House proves.

Like I said, just keep going. Keep denying the facts, even when they're presented to you exhaustively (with far more effort on my part than the subject deserves, quite frankly). It will help guarantee the continuing failure of the Democratic Party, which means it's good for America.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Uh...yeah. I provided numerous sources of data to document the points I was making. You claim I'm wrong, and you present an alternate explanation for the election, but you provide no such data. Why would you expect anyone to give any credence to what you're saying?

(Emphasis added.) Start with the fact that the words in bold constitute a bald-faced, shameless lie. I did present data, data that show your interpretation of your own data to be WRONG. You know that. So does anyone reading this.

As for what we assume to be true, the "narrative" I'm presenting is what you will find in any pretty much any media account of what happened.

So what? We don't begin with the assumption that the media get it right, either. In fact, more often than not they don't. No, sorry, but we do NOT assume your position a priori, you have to provide support for it, and the fact that some talking head, or talking ass is more like it, agrees with you does not constitute support.

Like I said, just keep going.

Like I said, if you really wanted that, you'd shut up and go away. The fact that you don't, proves that this assertion of your own intentions is another lie.

No, what you want is to convince people, not I think to influence the election, but to bolster your own considerable doubt about the matter.

And one final thing. Unlike you it would seem, I don't give a flying fuck about "the Democratic party." What I care about is the well-being of this country, and that depends on the enactment of rational, progressive reform. If I believed that you were right about the electoral consequences of Democrats pursuing that reform, which of course I don't, I would STILL insist that they do so. Because there would be a chance they would succeed in enacting those reforms before losing elections -- in fact, to a certain extent they already have. And if they did not do this, there would be no chance at all.

Democratic electoral victory is a means, not an end. If they are not to pursue the end for which said victory is a means, then said victory serves no purpose and has no value.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

PBrower:

I'm afraid I have to disagree with Professor Fair's rosy forecast for the economy. Here's where I believe he screws the pooch:

Well, no, actually it doesn't. Deficit spending doesn't automatically stimulate the economy. It depends on HOW it's spent. Tossing billions of dollars into the pockets of people who already are super-rich and have maxed out their consumption doesn't stimulate the economy at all.

So while I do think that things will be somewhat better between now and 2012, I don't really concur with the idea that they're going to take quantum leaps upward. There is too much fundamentally wrong with the economy for that.

I'll take a better look at the model, though, before making a final conclusion on it. But that error doesn't bode well for him knowing what he's talking about.

EDIT: Well, the linked "model" is only an electoral-victory model, which is fine as far as it goes. Where I'm running into problems is the prediction of really high economic growth at that time.

True. I think that we would be better off if we had big projects to build infrastructure, but some incoming GOP governors seem likely to kill those on behalf of the oil companies who have those governors in their pockets. Professor Fair's model is based upon monetarist assumptions that the quantitative easing of the money supply will itself stimulate growth. Besides, it can't predict the consequences of the political decisions of elected Republicans in the House, who, should they obstruct measures likely to stimulate economic growth other than "throw money at the super-rich and expect miracles" could do far worse than the model predicts for them. With the President, the model can't predict the effects of a scandal, a diplomatic or military debacle, or the possibility of a charismatic Republican opponent.

I plugged in values consistent with above-average economic growth in 3 of 4 quarters of economic growth in 2011 (which raises the 6 to a 9) and 0.00 (stagnation) for economic growth in the first three quarters of 2012... and Obama still wins. Surprisingly the GOP loses control of the House.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

PBrower:

I'm afraid I have to disagree with Professor Fair's rosy forecast for the economy. Here's where I believe he screws the pooch:

Well, no, actually it doesn't. Deficit spending doesn't automatically stimulate the economy. It depends on HOW it's spent. Tossing billions of dollars into the pockets of people who already are super-rich and have maxed out their consumption doesn't stimulate the economy at all.

But extending all the tax cuts puts far more money in absolute terms in the hands of the middle class than in the hands of the rich. I think all the tax cuts should be rescinded because of the deficit, but I do think it fair to say extending all of them is highly stimulative. This is but one component of my optimism, but it is a component. The economy will feel far better a year from now. Whether this bodes well for Obama, we will see, but I think he will be hurt far less by the economy than the democrats were this year.

What I hope happens is that there will be some kind of partial compromise that at one time enacts another round of stimulus (of a more effective kind than in 2009) while at the same time takes steps to reduce the deficit substantially in the next 5 years. In that case, good policy would also be good politics.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

But extending all the tax cuts puts far more money in absolute terms in the hands of the middle class than in the hands of the rich.

Right, but no more of it than extending all of them except the top-bracket cut.

On careful thought, I don't believe I agree with you about letting all of the tax cuts lapse, because in fact that would probably NOT help the deficit very much. Increasing middle-class taxes at this time would have a dampening effect on the economy which would cut revenues, reducing the budget-beneficial effect. On the other hand, the top-bracket tax cut is pure deficit with no benefit to speak of.

What I hope happens is that there will be some kind of partial compromise that at one time enacts another round of stimulus (of a more effective kind than in 2009) while at the same time takes steps to reduce the deficit substantially in the next 5 years. In that case, good policy would also be good politics.

I agree with this. We do need to reduce the deficit, I just disagree that that's an immediate priority. Restoring prosperity will have to come first. Once that's done, the deficit will almost (but not quite) take care of itself.

One thing we can't do is to go back to big deficits being SOP. There are two sides to the Keynesian program and it doesn't make sense to implement only one of them -- regardless of which one it is.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Right, but no more of it than extending all of them except the top-bracket cut.

On careful thought, I don't believe I agree with you about letting all of the tax cuts lapse, because in fact that would probably NOT help the deficit very much. Increasing middle-class taxes at this time would have a dampening effect on the economy which would cut revenues, reducing the budget-beneficial effect. On the other hand, the top-bracket tax cut is pure deficit with no benefit to speak of.



I agree with this. We do need to reduce the deficit, I just disagree that that's an immediate priority. Restoring prosperity will have to come first. Once that's done, the deficit will almost (but not quite) take care of itself.

One thing we can't do is to go back to big deficits being SOP. There are two sides to the Keynesian program and it doesn't make sense to implement only one of them -- regardless of which one it is.

It's very important, I think, to keep the tax cuts on the middle class and let the cuts lapse on the wealthy (on the income over $250,000). In a consumer economy the people most likely to spend on real goods is the middle class.

But why this talk about reducing the deficit now after all those years of deficit spending? I thought deficits didn't matter? Why now, after 2 and a half years that a Democratic president is in office does it seem to be important? It just seems fishy.

Originally Posted by annla899

It's very important, I think, to keep the tax cuts on the middle class and let the cuts lapse on the wealthy (on the income over $250,000). In a consumer economy the people most likely to spend on real goods is the middle class.

But why this talk about reducing the deficit now after all those years of deficit spending? I thought deficits didn't matter? Why now, after 2 and a half years that a Democratic president is in office does it seem to be important? It just seems fishy.

The period from 2001-2010 has been a period of profligacy. Both parties have partaken of this, but I count the Republicans as more guilty as they had control of every arm of government during a time of economic prosperity and spent like crazy as Wall Street ran wild.

Its not fishy. The real conservative base has been upset and disappointed ever since Bush told everyone to go shopping. Their ire reached the boiling point when TARP passed. The true conservatives have been consistent. Its the opportunistic "conservatives" such as Tom Delay that are the evil geniuses of the past Republican ascendancy. I think/hope this current crop of Republicans may have learned its lesson.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

I think/hope this current crop of Republicans may have learned its lesson.

I don't see any sign of that, honestly. Other than Rand Paul they don't seem willing to touch defense spending, and they're pushing for making the top-level tax cuts permanent, which is a terrible move in terms of deficit reduction. And of course no one dares touch SS or Medicare, and they make a big deal out of stopping earmarks (while doing their best to redefine their favorite earmarks as non-earmarks) even though that would accomplish almost nothing if they did.

Originally Posted by annla899

It's very important, I think, to keep the tax cuts on the middle class and let the cuts lapse on the wealthy (on the income over $250,000). In a consumer economy the people most likely to spend on real goods is the middle class.

But why this talk about reducing the deficit now after all those years of deficit spending? I thought deficits didn't matter? Why now, after 2 and a half years that a Democratic president is in office does it seem to be important? It just seems fishy.

Up until the end of the Bush presidency, the deficit was going down. It was about $450B in 2007 if I recall. In the space of about 6 months, starting with TARP under Bush and then the stimulus and additional bailouts under Obama, we put ourselves on a course for a deficit as potentially large as $2 Trillion. The health care bill was purportedly "deficit neutral", but nobody actually believes that will be the case.

It was not good before, but the actions of 2008-10 have made it into a full blown crisis.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Up until the end of the Bush presidency, the deficit was going down. It was about $450B in 2007 if I recall. In the space of about 6 months, starting with TARP under Bush and then the stimulus and additional bailouts under Obama, we put ourselves on a course for a deficit as potentially large as $2 Trillion. The health care bill was purportedly "deficit neutral", but nobody actually believes that will be the case.

It was not good before, but the actions of 2008-10 have made it into a full blown crisis.

Here is a link to a financial blogger who lists the deficits/surpluses since 1940:

http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of...ted-states.php

There was a surplus in 2001. The latest deficit spending run took place from 2002 on. The largest was last year. The estimated 2010 budget will have a slightly lower deficit than 2009.

Originally Posted by annla899

Here is a link to a financial blogger who lists the deficits/surpluses since 1940:

http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of...ted-states.php

There was a surplus in 2001. The latest deficit spending run took place from 2002 on. The largest was last year. The estimated 2010 budget will have a slightly lower deficit than 2009.

So Bush actually had it down to $162B in 2007. That was the last budget the Republicans had control over, then the Democrats took over Congress, and you see what happened.

I'm tired of arguing with people here who are intellectually dishonest, brain dead partisans. I'm going to cut back.

Originally Posted by James50

The period from 2001-2010 has been a period of profligacy. Both parties have partaken of this, but I count the Republicans as more guilty as they had control of every arm of government during a time of economic prosperity and spent like crazy as Wall Street ran wild.

Its not fishy. The real conservative base has been upset and disappointed ever since Bush told everyone to go shopping. Their ire reached the boiling point when TARP passed. The true conservatives have been consistent. Its the opportunistic "conservatives" such as Tom Delay that are the evil geniuses of the past Republican ascendancy. I think/hope this current crop of Republicans may have learned its lesson.

James50

Yes, I agree that real conservatives haven't much liked the deficit. Andrew Sullivan has been talking about it forever.

But the fact that that opportunistic bunch is now yelling since a Democrat is president is sheer politics at its most destructive.

And I hope you're right about the current crop, but I doubt it.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

So Bush actually had it down to $162B in 2007. That was the last budget the Republicans had control over, then the Democrats took over Congress, and you see what happened.

I'm tired of arguing with people here who are intellectually dishonest, brain dead partisans. I'm going to cut back.

Bush and the Republican congress took a surplus and turned it into a deficit in less than one year. One year. The deficit is only bad when the other party does it.

Note the Democratic congress lowered the 2010 budget. There's plenty of blame to spread around on all sides.

Originally Posted by annla899

But why this talk about reducing the deficit now after all those years of deficit spending? I thought deficits didn't matter? Why now, after 2 and a half years that a Democratic president is in office does it seem to be important? It just seems fishy.

It IS fishy! Lots of Americans, brainwashed by trickle-down, forget that you have to spend to get out of a recession. Cutting spending will have the opposite effect. But that's what people voted for. Since the Democrats control congress until next year, and the tax cuts expire before then, there is some hope that the right thing will be done about the tax cuts, which is what you and Brian say.

Originally Posted by annla899

Bush and the Republican congress took a surplus and turned it into a deficit in less than one year. One year. The deficit is only bad when the other party does it.

Note the Democratic congress lowered the 2010 budget. There's plenty of blame to spread around on all sides.

It is true that Bush and the Republicans ran a deficit from 2001-2007. It's just that those numbers are dwarfed by what has happened in the last two years. We are now facing a deficit 10 times as large as what we had in 2007. You can't exactly draw equivalence between $162B and $1.4T. And again, that huge jump following 2007 occurred entirely under a Democrat-controlled Congress.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

So Bush actually had it down to $162B in 2007. That was the last budget the Republicans had control over, then the Democrats took over Congress, and you see what happened.

Yeah, $162 B is really getting it "down." Clinton is the one who took it down, remember?

If the deficit went up after 2007, it's because of the great recession that Bush's (and Clinton's) trickle-down policies caused.

I'm tired of arguing with people here who are intellectually dishonest, brain dead partisans. I'm going to cut back.

Pot kettle black

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

It is true that Bush and the Republicans ran a deficit from 2001-2007. It's just that those numbers are dwarfed by what has happened in the last two years. We are now facing a deficit 10 times as large as what we had in 2007. You can't exactly draw equivalence between $162B and $1.4T. And again, that huge jump following 2007 occurred entirely under a Democrat-controlled Congress.

Of course this also ignores that Obama intentionally increased the deficit in order to deal with the first potential deflationary recession in decades. Even if you disagree that that was a good idea, you can at least recognize that it is a short term plan to be ended as the economy gets better. As noted above the Democrats are already making efforts to begin its reduction which should continue and accelerate as economic conditions improve.

People like to compare the national government to home finances. To me if one insists upon doing this then one could see the earlier spending as the equivalent of borrowing and spending recklessly using credit cards and consumer loans while not performing maintenance on ones home and family business. Eventually it gets so bad that the businesses is losing money and the house is becoming unsafe. At that point someone else takes over the household finances and proceeds to get a loan for home repair and to upgrade the businesses to attract more customers. In the processes more debt is acquired than was acquired as consumer debt, but the lingering consumer debt serves to complicate the situation.

While one can argue about the merits of borrowing money at that point to prop up the businesses and repair the home it does seem reasonable to argue that this is simply a continuation to a more extreme level of bad decisions made by the prior family member.

Originally Posted by James50

The period from 2001-2010 has been a period of profligacy. Both parties have partaken of this, but I count the Republicans as more guilty as they had control of every arm of government during a time of economic prosperity and spent like crazy as Wall Street ran wild

Its not fishy. The real conservative base has been upset and disappointed ever since Bush told everyone to go shopping.

Such is the problem. Genuine conservatism implies restraint, prudence, and caution, virtues rare among Boomers of any kind except when imposed from above on the helpless and powerless. Genuine conservatism recognizes that people can't get it all and have it now ; they can at most borrow from the future with dreadful results.

Even what was most cleverly packaged as investment -- housing -- became a conduit of reckless speculation where such was possible. Reckless speculation isn't investment; it is sheer waste. Waste as a rule manifests itself in lost investments that recently appeared as assets and all too quickly appear as losses through writedowns and outright bankruptcies.

Their ire reached the boiling point when TARP passed. The true conservatives have been consistent. Its the opportunistic "conservatives" such as Tom Delay that are the evil geniuses of the past Republican ascendancy. I think/hope this current crop of Republicans may have learned its lesson.

James50

Conservatives without conscience can be just as destructive as any left-wing populists who fail to recognize that there is no free lunch. Of course, the incoming crop of Republicans seem to have learned nothing except to be more strident, doctrinaire, and ruthless, neither of which offers any solutions that won;t be hated quickly and rejected at the first opportunity.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

True. I think that we would be better off if we had big projects to build infrastructure, but some incoming GOP governors seem likely to kill those on behalf of the oil companies who have those governors in their pockets. Professor Fair's model is based upon monetarist assumptions that the quantitative easing of the money supply will itself stimulate growth. Besides, it can't predict the consequences of the political decisions of elected Republicans in the House, who, should they obstruct measures likely to stimulate economic growth other than "throw money at the super-rich and expect miracles" could do far worse than the model predicts for them. With the President, the model can't predict the effects of a scandal, a diplomatic or military debacle, or the possibility of a charismatic Republican opponent.

I plugged in values consistent with above-average economic growth in 3 of 4 quarters of economic growth in 2011 (which raises the 6 to a 9) and 0.00 (stagnation) for economic growth in the first three quarters of 2012... and Obama still wins. Surprisingly the GOP loses control of the House.

This has already happened in Wisconsin, where the newly elected governor has pledged to stop the creation of a high-speed rail line running between Milwaukee and Madison.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

So Bush actually had it down to $162B in 2007. That was the last budget the Republicans had control over, then the Democrats took over Congress, and you see what happened.

I'm tired of arguing with people here who are intellectually dishonest, brain dead partisans. I'm going to cut back.

When assets become $#!+, deflation ensues. Profits vanish as companies write off bad debts and devalued assets on an scale unprecedented in times that any active workers can then know (one would have to be at least 85 to have any knowledge of the Great Stock Market Crash of 1929). We have just faced the most dangerous spiral of deflationary pressures since 1929, and if you haven't read much of the literature of economic history you have no clue.

I suggest that you read John Maynard Keynes' General Theory so that you can discuss economic policy with people who know something.