Effor.com

This is from an old (sometime in the 1980’s) Dave Barry column, but I ran across it today and I still find it funny.  It’s about the difference between Democrats and Republicans.  Unfortunately for our country, it’s pretty close to the truth….

“The Democrats seem to be basically nicer people, but they have demonstrated time and again that they have the management skills of celery. They’re the kind of people who’d stop to help you change a flat, but would somehow manage to set your car on fire. I would be reluctant to entrust them with a Cuisinart, let alone the economy. The Republicans, on the other hand, would know how to fix your tire, but they wouldn’t bother to stop because they’d want to be on time for Ugly Pants Night at the country club.”

Republicans spend too much on defense, bailouts of inept corporations, and in new programs designed to show people that they’re really good guys, like the prescription drug bill.  Democrats spend too much on everything.  Neither is willing to raise taxes enough to pay for their spending.  The only time in the last 50 years that spending has been kept somewhat in check is when we had a Republican congress and a Democrat as president.

For 6 years – from January 1995 through January 2001 – Republicans controlled congress and Clinton was president.  Spending was kept in check and we almost had a balanced budget.  I know Clinton claimed surpluses, but he lied.  The “surplus” came from Social Security payments and the total federal debt increased each and every year, so there wasn’t actually a surplus – but it was as close as we’re ever likely to see from here on.

Obama is making Bush’s budget busting spending look like child’s play.  This year alone, we’re spending twice as much as we’re collecting in taxes.  We’re effectively borrowing money from the Chinese to make interest payments to the Chinese.  It’s the same as using your Visa card to make minimum payments on your MasterCard.  How long do the idiots on Capital Hill think they can continue this Ponzi scheme?

gk

Share on Facebook

This will be a different type of post.  Over the past few days, I have had an exchange of comments on MarketWatch.com, and the format there doesn’t lend itself to that type of discussion, so I’m going to continue it here.

I have no idea if “Marsden” will reply or not, but I hope so, because he seems to be different from my normal antagonists on that site, mainly because he is making an attempt to use facts to support his opinions.

I strongly disagree with some of his opinions, and the disagreement stems from my post a few days ago (A deficit dummy) where I took Robert Frank to task because of numerous errors and half truths in a NY Times article.

Marsden started his reply with “Robert Frank is brilliant and so was his essay.”  So of course I couldn’t leave it alone.    The rest of his reply was actually thoughtful, and I actually agree with most of it.

Here’s part of his reply: People trade time for things. Precious, irreplaceable time, for useless cr@p which makes them feel better for only a short while. Then, to get even more, they leverage, borrowing from their own (and their children’s) future. This needs to be shouted from the mountaintops imho. Meanwhile we tax production instead of consumption, getting it exactly backwards.

I don’t have any disagreement with that at all – it’s common sense – and if more people thought that way we wouldn’t be in this mess.

Anyway, I replied to the Frank is brilliant part, saying: You may think he’s brilliant, but his editorial is factually wrong. Since he’s an economist and presumably should know economic history, I have to assume that he intentionally lied in order to make his points.  That’s not my concept of “brilliant.”

Marsden replied: All you have done is to repeat your assertions (”wrong!” “lies!” etc). If you want to make a point, feel free to do so. But it will take something concrete by way of example, particularly if you expect to convince anyone.

I assumed (mistakenly) that he was referring to my “deficit dummy” post on here, which I had taken care to document all my opinions with facts.  Plain facts, straight from the source, no news stories or opinion pieces.  So I went a bit overboard in my reply.  I said….

Did you bother to read the link I provided? My “assertions” are documented, complete with source data that documents the facts to show that Robert Frank has his facts wrong. I fail to understand how “brilliant” people think they can base policy positions and decisions on incorrect data, then blame others when their decisions turn out to be wrong.

(I inserted the chart of Hoover’s increased spending here)

Claiming that Hoover cut spending while the facts are that Hoover increased spending by 63% in 4 years is a “concrete” example of my “assertion” that Robert Frank lies as needed to make a point.

I freely admit that this was a bit over the top for a comment on MarketWatch – the misunderstanding will become clear in a moment.

Marsden replied with a lengthy comment that I will respond to here.  I’ll break it up and respond to each area of disagreement.  Hopefully this will make the multiple points of contention more clear.

Marsden starts with I not only didn’t read your link, I didn’t even see it. Definitely my mistake! That explains my over the top response to his comment – we were talking about different things, so of course we disagreed.

He continues About Hoover however, everywhere I turn I see the contention that he cut spending as a mistaken response to the financial collapse. So is this some nefarious plot by Democrats in your view, to misrepresent history?

No, I don’t think it’s a plot by Democrats, and nowhere did I mention political parties.  I do think that it’s a common misconception – reinforced by ignorant economists and journalists such as Mr. Frank so that you see it everywhere you turn – that Hoover cut spending and FDR’s New Deal reversed that and brought us out of the Great Depression.  I merely stated the facts.

Marsden then quotes an Encarta article that simply repeats the lie about Hoover cutting spending – as if by quoting another source which was also mistaken, it wiped out the facts about Hoover’s spending that I had presented.

He continues Meanwhile, do you really think that cutting spending is the proper move when private investment has collapsed?

No I don’t – as long as you have money to spend.  But when the US has to borrow from China, and even resort to printing money (as happened this week when they purchased $7.5 billion of debt on Wednesday, and another $7.5 billion today)  we don’t have money to spend.

I believe that too much debt – public and private – is what caused this crisis.  Borrowing more money and going deeper into debt isn’t going to solve it.  If more government deficit spending actually stimulated the economy, why didn’t the Bush 66.5% spending increase (from $1.79 trillion in 2000 to $2.98 trillion in 2008) prevent the problem in the first place? (Source is CBO, link will open an Excel spreadsheet, and doesn’t include Bush’s 2009 spending.)

Marsden continues Please note, btw, that I am generally violently opposed to deficit spending of any kind, and particularly the kind we’ve engaged in for the past eight years. Also note that I am not one of the people who believe that FDR rescued this nation from the Great Depression. In a way, Hitler did, but in a different way from the way in which he rescued his own nation years before.

I agree with him on that.

Here’s where we start disagreeing. There’s a lot to argue in that link. Is it your writing? For example, the author declares that the budget has never been balanced in his lifetime.
Yes, it’s mine.   And you’re disagreeing with something I never said.  I never said the “budget has never been balanced in my lifetime.”  I said “Politicians and economists have been saying that they’ll balance the budget and start paying down the debt for as long as I can remember – and I’m 47.  It has not happened in my lifetime.  Not once.

Read on, I’ll provide the actual numbers to prove this further down.

But there’s this: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/ (from the year 2000)

“President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year’s record surplus of $122.7 billion.”

And even more to the point (same link): “Instead, the president explained, the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years — $223 billion this year alone.

This represents, Clinton said, “the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States.”

Since the author says he’s 47 years old, he ought to be aware of that. Or is it more “lies”?

Then he declares: “The last time the US reduced the national debt was 1957. (Source is the US Treasury.)”
The author then provides a link which includes the years up to 1999, but not 2000. How convenient. You should call that a “lie” shouldn’t you?

To be blunt, yes, it’s more lies.  Here are the facts straight from the US Treasury here and here.  (Sorry, they split the data between 1999 and 2000, so I have to use two links.  I should have provided that in my original post so you wouldn’t have wasted your time thinking that I left out a debt reduction year in 2000.)

So when CNN says  “Instead, the president explained, the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years — $223 billion this year alone.” and This represents, Clinton said, “the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States.” they are lying.  Look at the freaking numbers!

The facts are that the national debt increased each and every year of the Clinton administration. Show me where the debt was reduced by even $1 during Clinton’s 8 years.  You can’t because it simply did not happen. 

Look at the facts! Clinton – and CNN – simply lied.  What else can you call it?  What they said and the actual facts -straight from the government, no editing – are simply not compatible.  I call it lying, you may have a more pleasant euphemism, but it’s certainly not the truth.

As to my statement that the national debt has not been reduced during my lifetime, I stand by it.  Again, look at the facts.  Go to the Treasury site and actually look at the numbers. 1950 – 1999 are here.  2000 – 2008 are here. Find the last year in which the actual debt was lower than the previous year.

You’ll see that until you get back to 1957, each and every year the debt was larger than the year before.  In 1957, the national debt was $270,527,171,896.43,  down from $272,750,813,649.32  in 1956.

I was born in 1962.  That’s after 1957, so I stand by my statement.

One last point to make.  Marsden says Finally, with respect to your major point, Frank was careful not to say explicitly that Hoover cut spending. He said:   “In 1929, President Herbert Hoover thought that the best response to a collapsing economy was to balance the federal budget. With incomes and tax receipts falling sharply, that meant cutting federal spending. But as almost all economists now recognize, President Hoover was profoundly mistaken.”

And there are no errors there, much less “lies”, unless you contend that one may balance the budget by cutting taxes and increasing spending. Oh where have we heard THAT before?!

I actually answered that in my original post.  You are correct in that Mr. Frank did not EXPLICITLY say that Hoover cut spending, but I ask you that if he wasn’t saying that, WTF was he saying?  How was Hoover “profoundly mistaken” if he didn’t reduce spending?

Since Hoover actually increased spending, was that his profound mistake?  I don’t think that’s what Mr. Frank was trying to say, and I don’t think you believe that either.  Otherwise you wouldn’t have quoted the Encarta article that states “Hoover sought to cut government spending and raise taxes”.

I have never stated, implied, or otherwise insinuated that you can cut taxes and increase spending and balance the budget.  That’s a straw-man argument that I won’t bother to refute.

Marsden – I appreciate your considered response to my comments on MarketWatch.  Feel free to respond here by posting a comment.  I’ll reply in a like manner and we can discuss anything else you’d like.

I think we pretty much agree on everything except our opinion of Robert Frank.  Once you see the facts I’ve presented about, there will be no disagreement about the debt.

Since you made a reasoned response on MarketWatch, I have high hopes that you’ll agree with me once you see the actual facts, and not some CNN/FoxNews/NY Times/etc distortion of the facts.  Check out a few of the site on my blogroll (especially mises.org) to understand why “almost all economists” are almost always wrong.

Keynesian economic theory simply doesn’t work, yet “almost all economists” – including Mr. Frank – persist in trying to make it work.  They are failing, and I fear they are taking us all down with them.  Read a few other posts here to understand why I feel they are wrong.

Thank you,

gk

Share on Facebook

The story is all over the news tonight.  Here’s the Washington Posts’ take.  A few choice quotes:

“But he (McCain)declined to embrace the kind of government intervention for individuals and institutions favored by Clinton and Obama, arguing that “it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers.”

It’s about time someone said that the government shouldn’t bail out stupid people.  However, I don’t agree with McCain on who is deserving of being bailed out.  McCain also said “We have a responsibility to take action to help those among them who are deserving homeowners.”

Many (probably most) of those facing foreclosure were never “deserving homeowners”, they were idiots who lived beyond their means, they took out interest only or adjustable rate loans, and they somehow act surprised when the bill for their overspending comes due.  See my post earlier tonight for a prime example of this.

So obviously I disagree with McCain on the details, but at least he’s saying that not everyone should be bailed out.  On the other hand, Obama and Clinton seem to be in a contest to see who can give away more taxpayer money.

The same story attributes this to Clinton: ”McCain’s plan, she said, does virtually nothing to ease the credit or housing crisis. “It seems like if the phone were ringing, he would just let it ring and ring and ring,” she said.”

Cool – the less the government does to “ease” the credit and housing “crisis” the better I feel about it.

And – in what has to be one of the most futile efforts ever – Obama today “outlined what he called a second stimulus package that would cost about $30 billion and include assistance to individuals and areas hard hit by the housing crisis.”

Idiot. The Fed loaned $38 billion today, and is approaching $500 billion in new money give aways since September.  That much money hasn’t headed off the current credit and housing problems – and the $160 billion stimulus package coming soon to a mailbox near you won’t make a dent in it either – so why would Obama think $30 billion will have any impact?

Let’s put it this way:  All three major candidates are wrong on these issues.  The only consolation is that McCain is less wrong than Obama and Clinton.  But none of them have a clue, and I don’t see any hope that they’ll get smarter before election day.

gk

Share on Facebook