Barak - expectations revisited

[bam]

You can't cut interest payments,

Sure you can. That's when you call up your bond investors and tell them you're thinking about defaulting. They'll be happy to meet with you to renegotiate a new rate rather than risk default.

Anyway, it's sad to think that there are people out there who think a sitting US president could possibly be a socialist. It's important to get your information from reputable sources. Most Americans haven't a clue what socialism is which is why it's so easy to label people socialists. I guess nowadays a socialist is someone you don't agree with.

[Ironman]

It's not mathematically wrong. It's the number I cited, and non-interest budget is a perfectly useful thing to look at. You can't cut interest payments, it's a consequence of the method of funding being used. So, as economists frequently do, you set that part aside to focus on the actual spending that's going out.

No you claimed that doesn't change anything, I showed mathematically that it does. I don't know why you seem to think waiting a week is going to make people forget about what you actually said. Interest payments are spending. So again, what the hell is your point? Besides that, all of this is a minor tangent out of what I said in the post you are replying to.

[frogbyte]

(Forgive the slow responses, but I haven't had time to check in as often as I used to.)

Surely you're not serious, bam, about the theory of threatening to default on bonds. That would of course cause immediate hyperinflation and a virtual obliteration of the economy.

Ignoring interest takes everything down by the same factor. It changes the scalar values, yes, but the important thing is the relative percentages to each other of the actual budget expenditures, and those ratios do not change. Therefore, it's a perfectly valid thing for economists to look at - I'm certainly not the one that started this.

And yes the original point was merely that more than half the budget was for social programs, which is true. You can argue about whether it's important or not, but it is true.

[Ironman]

Bonds: It's very amusing when you talk about economics. For starters no economic development is going to do the same thing to all bonds. How exactly could it cause hyperinflation?

Budget: If you meant ratios to each other, you should have stated that to begin with. It also doesn't matter what might be valid in some other situation, you are using for spin.

Sure, and like I said, define social program. You are conflating welfare, with all social programs. So please define exactly what you mean by that.

[frogbyte]

He's talking about Federal Reserve Bonds. Defaulting on them is simply not an option. What -is- an option, although it's a really really horrible option, is QE2, which they did in the time since my last post.

(As for the budget statement, I think I was quite clear from the go, but whatever.)

If you don't understand how bonds work, here's a good place to start: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTUY16CkS-k - this is my favorite youtube video of all time - it's awesomeness cannot be overstated. It should be shouted from the rooftops.

[hoosegow]

So, 6 months from the elections...

How are we on all this?

[Ironman]

Well, I haven't been happy with everything he has done, but he has done a lot of things I am happy with. He probably did the best he could with the sort of opposition he faced. Time will tell if the half-measure healthcare plan is worth the conservative $h1t storm it stirred up. Despite that he did do the most to slow government spending, with the exception of Clinton.



But I don't think Republicans are generally interested in that kind of conservatism. But if he is a Socialist than what was Bush2, a hardline Communist? That would put me off the charts.

As for the economy, he did everything he possibly could, and got the recovery going as well as is possible without having any capital in the hands of consumers. People with capital and unmet demand is what drives growth, and the president can't do anything about it without congress.

[Matt Z]

I wonder how much of this is due to the wars in Iraq and Afganistan slowing down. It seems like Obama has increased domestic spending dramatically, but this may be offset somewhat by the drop in military spending. Conversely, George W. Bush cut funding to many domestic programs while spending a fortune on two wars.

[hoosegow]

I would like to read what the source ironman. I'm not doubting it, I just want to read it. What are you excited about that he's done?

Curiously, what opposition did he face when he had two years of a filibuster proof Senate? Was it from his own party that caused all the problems, because they could have done anything?

[Ironman]

I wonder how much of this is due to the wars in Iraq and Afganistan slowing down. It seems like Obama has increased domestic spending dramatically, but this may be offset somewhat by the drop in military spending. Conversely, George W. Bush cut funding to many domestic programs while spending a fortune on two wars.

While Bush did cut funding to some programs, he created medicare part D, which was a massive social spending increase, and not very well implemented from what I understand.

If you believe the hype Obama not only increased spending dramatically, but turned us into the former USSR. However none of that is true. He did increase it in some areas, but made cuts in others. Strangely his cuts to subsidies and corporate welfare was killed by Republicans, as were many of his Defense Department-approved military cuts.

[Ironman]

I would like to read what the source ironman. I'm not doubting it, I just want to read it. What are you excited about that he's done?

Curiously, what opposition did he face when he had two years of a filibuster proof Senate? Was it from his own party that caused all the problems, because they could have done anything?

Source is just US budgets from those years.
The two year "filibuster proof Senate" is a myth. Sixty Democrats, does not a filibuster proof Senate make. This included blue dog Democrats, these are people who would usually be moderate Republicans, but coming from conservative states, they have to run as Democrats to win a primary. Frequently those are the only Democrats that can win in such states too.

All that got us was a half-assed health plan, and a far too little too late "stimulus".

That said, his opposition did increase after the mid-term elections. I was however happy to see all the blue dogs lose their jobs. Two years of more conservative Republicans is well worth it for that.

By the way, don't read to much into my preference for Democrats. I think they're mostly a bunch of corporate whores too. A lot of them are spineless cowards as well. It's all we have though due to the two party monopoly, which ensures the power remains with the interests who have it.

[JasonJones]

Up here in the frozen, socialist North, the prevailing opinion I hear is "squandered opportunity." I don't know too many people who are pleased, most are disappointed (I've always been a critic, so at least in my pessimism I am secure in my opinion )

Also, we'd appreciate it all the labels of socialism could be put away. Obama is right of our Conservative government. I personally would rather not have socialism tarnished so. We voted Tommy Douglas the greatest Canadian of all time, afterall, so we're serious about our socialism up in here ;)

[Oscar_Actuary]

While Bush did cut funding to some programs, he created medicare part D, which was a massive social spending increase, and not very well implemented from what I understand.
.

That and an Education and a Farmer bill.
I blame Karl Rove and the Triagularization strategy. Trying to co-op the Dems' issues.

When I hear Barak (or liberals in general), I think that I need the gov't from cradle to grave; that most of us are unable to take care of ourselves. When I hear Conservatives, I think, individuals are empowered to pursue wealth. It is my faith that tells me to share that wealth.
Now in practice, and blow hearts speak, we get a distorted view. But I think its pretty well established among the populus that liberals believe in more redistribution.

[JasonJones]

But I think its pretty well established among the populus that liberals believe in more redistribution.

I'm a liberal by American standards — although I do often vote Conservative in Canada — and it's not so much that I'm interested in redistribution as I am in pragmatic solutions to problems that I can't solve as an individual. Universal healthcare means my trainers don't have to miss as much time due to illness. (Properly run) homeless shelters (would) reduce crime and panhandling in my neighbourhood. Better education means that people serving me in restaurants, hotels and stores will be more likely to do so well. Employment insurance and benefits for the disabled and the handicapped benefits me directly in the same fashion.

I'm entirely self motivated here, but it seems to me that my quality of life* and ability to utilize my disposable income safely is bolstered by the government dealing with problems that I either can't, or won't, and in many cases in an entirely efficient way. I don't mind giving up some of my income for cleaner and safer streets for me and my family.

That said, I speak only for myself, and I'm not particularly interested in a "tax the wealthy" series of solutions. I'd rather a stringent review of outdated services first, and I think that up here in the land of hockey and lacrosse it's sorely needed.

_____
*UN human development index

[Ironman]

I would say that liberals redistribute to a point, in order to offset a portion of the redistribution that occurs in other areas. Conservatives completely ignore all redistribution except that which is tax-related, they ignore the pragmatic side or convince themselves of some alternate economic reality.

I also notice that according to conservatives, or at least republicans, (they're more corporate whore than conservative really) liberals want to enact something like Denmark. However if you look at what liberals say, they are well to the right of Denmark on economic issues. Even I am to the right of Denmark.

So the "cradle to grave" thing is really just a straw man, and redistribution is a dysphemistic half-truth.