Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sebster wrote:

whembly wrote:
Second up, if you actually read the report you'll find those are system efficiencies. That means spending money now in order to put in place a more efficient system for later on. So in the DoD you put in place a contracting agency with whole of department authority, and over time you replace existing contracts with ones that represent better value for money for the department (and country) as a whole.

can I just interject here with an honest to god question? Why are you thinking in absolutes here? You're on a soapbox rant basically claiming your way is the only way. Just saying... o.O

sebster tends to do this. Its almost like socialism is his church and liberlism is his god. To him any that contadict the teachings of the liberal apostles is heresy.

sebster wrote:

whembly wrote:That's the kind of thing that sane government can do. Steady, incremental reform over time.

are they sane now? NOW?

Just look at the numerous examples of the inefficiencies we've been seeing... look at the other posts. Do we really need to purchase a billion $$ worth of bullets? Does the DHS really need those MRAPs? It's not really a question of "do we have the money" but more "do we really NEED to purchase these things".

You missed the strawman whembly. Governments can and have moved swiftly to enact rapid far reaching reform. When such reforms are something sebster supports then they can not happen fast enough for him.
A case of a government quickly enacting a major cange quickly would be germanies ecological laws adopted in 1984-85. Quite sweeping and implemented quickly.


You did make a good point about waste. When you get to digging and start to see the sheer number of agencies that do basically the same jobs, one can see where meaningful cuts could be made through consolidation of various agencies.

sebster wrote:

whembly wrote:
That graph is just gakky, gakky nonsense politics.

Um... okay, if you feel that way.

sebster, your response here is a derisive dismissal without a logical argument. It comes across as an almost fanatical refusal to consider the differing point of view.

sebster wrote:

whembly wrote:
The issue is that the sequester includes only here and now cuts, direct reductions in spending today. Which is a fething stupid thing to do when the economy is still struggling.

Sure agree with you there... but there's a VERY important concept that's missing here...

Where's the government actions to help facilitate a better economic conditions for businesses? It's almost as if you believe government is the only one that can get us out the rut now.

I think that is exactly what sebster believes. After lurking and reading here for years, I've noted that there seems to be a very strong state controlled(socialist?) ideology to his arguments. Which is fine for him or any that feel/believe that way. It is his derisive refusal to consider that others opposing views are just as valid that prevent honest cmmunication.

I would hazard that it is a similar attitude that has killed any cooperative spirit inside the beltway.

sebster wrote:

Whembly wrote:
However, a substantial portion of the recent progress in lowering the deficit has been concentrated in near-term budget changes, which, taken together, could create a significant headwind for the economic recovery … Moreover, besides having adverse effects on jobs and incomes, a slower recovery would lead to less actual deficit reduction in the short run for any given set of fiscal actions."

Again... methinks you're putting waaaay too much weight on government's role here in the USofA.

sebsters not putting too much weight when you consider that he seems to be arguing from the perspective that the US should have a state run economy as opposed to a free market. Don't agree with his viewpoint, but understand that he has a differing one that is just as valid to him as mine is to me.

sebster wrote:

whembly wrote:
So you have cuts that cause immediate economic harm, while doing nothing to slow the rise of future deficits. Obama offers up an alternative plan built around cuts that will make a long term difference to budget deficits, on things the Republicans say they want (cuts to entitlement spending & reduced tax deductions), but they've backed themselves into a corner where politically they can't accept them.

There you go again.. you're sounding like an Obama-fanboi here... Obama's alternative plan was gakky... even his own party members wouldn't vote on it.

I think that the problem here is that Obama didn't present anything. Now he did attempt to "dictate" a course of action that immediately silenced all communication between the parties with the overpowering rhetoric.
Truth is neither side was willing to make a serious proposal that consisted of a fair compromise..

sebster wrote:

whembly wrote:
You don't get to do that. Government as a % of GDP is the only way in which government can be sensibly measured. Rejecting that simply makes you irrelevant to economic discussion.

Wanna bet...

oh... I just did.

Again with the his way is the only way to look at it stance. On top of this, it seems that sebsters stance is that the debt has to be x percentage of the GDP.

There is nothing wrong with a lower percentage of debt or even lowering it through balancing the books. If a nations economy won't work with a balanced budget then there are issues that need to be immediately addressed

Seb... let's back up a bit... this thread is about Sequestration.

He never officially proposed a budget recently... the one he did, his own party wouldn't vote on it.

So... to get the deal back in the day:
-First Obama proposed the sequester.
-Then he promised to veto any attempt to stop it.
-Then he pretended he never said that, and blamed Republicans for not stopping it.
-Then he predicted Sequestergeddon.
-And now, his administration is trying to ensure that his scare tactics don’t backfire on him.

That's the cliff notes of what happened.

Republicans do share the blame of the snafu that's occuring now... but, don't place it squarely on their lap. Obama & the Dems are just as culpable.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:


Empire. And if recent games are any guide, I play Empire badly

I'm a 40k brat... playing Orks and Dark Eldar. I don't my win/loss record nor do I really care. I'm there to have fun.

According to a foxnews.com article I read earlier, there is a newly leaked email that suggests that the Obama administration has been "hinting and telling" other Federal agencies to make the sequestration as painful as possible.

I know that it's fox news and all, but this is actually not the first place that I have heard this bit.

I know that basically anyone and everyone who was elected into their position in Washington shares major blame for what is going on, it would appear on some level that certain people are making things more difficult than they really need to be, and purely for political reasons.

That's politics 101. Make your opponent's backers feel the pain and not your supporters.

Why do you think those Republican Governors and Mayors suddenly got mad at their party about Sequestration. They realized it would hit them pretty hard.

 whembly wrote:
Seb... let's back up a bit... this thread is about Sequestration.

He never officially proposed a budget recently... the one he did, his own party wouldn't vote on it.

So... to get the deal back in the day:
-First Obama proposed the sequester.
-Then he promised to veto any attempt to stop it.
-Then he pretended he never said that, and blamed Republicans for not stopping it.
-Then he predicted Sequestergeddon.
-And now, his administration is trying to ensure that his scare tactics don’t backfire on him.

That's the cliff notes of what happened.

Republicans do share the blame of the snafu that's occuring now... but, don't place it squarely on their lap. Obama & the Dems are just as culpable.

Yeah, the thing to remember is that at each of the steps above, the republicans were doing the exact opposite thing. They've both been making long term plays with this trying not to be the one with the hot potato.

 Easy E wrote:
That's politics 101. Make your opponent's backers feel the pain and not your supporters.

Why do you think those Republican Governors and Mayors suddenly got mad at their party about Sequestration. They realized it would hit them pretty hard.

Mmm... yep I'm sure we'll feel it, any day now...

A real President would be looking to reduce the impact. Even a mediocre one who was interested in DOING HIS JOB.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
That's politics 101. Make your opponent's backers feel the pain and not your supporters.

Why do you think those Republican Governors and Mayors suddenly got mad at their party about Sequestration. They realized it would hit them pretty hard.

Mmm... yep I'm sure we'll feel it, any day now...

A real President would be looking to reduce the impact. Even a mediocre one who was interested in DOING HIS JOB.

It's weird how you're jaded and naive at the same time. We have had literally zero presidents that wouldn't play politics with this. You don't get that much power by letting political opportunity slide. If you're in that office at all, you're a seasoned pro and even your "not playing politics" is a type of playing politics.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
That's politics 101. Make your opponent's backers feel the pain and not your supporters.

Why do you think those Republican Governors and Mayors suddenly got mad at their party about Sequestration. They realized it would hit them pretty hard.

Mmm... yep I'm sure we'll feel it, any day now...

A real President would be looking to reduce the impact. Even a mediocre one who was interested in DOING HIS JOB.

Eh... to be fair Frazz... Obama's job is to enforce the law...

Sequestration is the law.

I was just pointing out that Everyone is culpable in DC, not just the (R)s.

Is there a reset button somewhere? We need some new folks in DC.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
That's politics 101. Make your opponent's backers feel the pain and not your supporters.

Why do you think those Republican Governors and Mayors suddenly got mad at their party about Sequestration. They realized it would hit them pretty hard.

Mmm... yep I'm sure we'll feel it, any day now...

A real President would be looking to reduce the impact. Even a mediocre one who was interested in DOING HIS JOB.

It's weird how you're jaded and naive at the same time. We have had literally zero presidents that wouldn't play politics with this. You don't get that much power by letting political opportunity slide. If you're in that office at all, you're a seasoned pro and even your "not playing politics" is a type of playing politics.

reagan had a sequester. The impact was minimized.

 whembly wrote:

Is there a reset button somewhere? We need some new folks in DC.

Would not help. These issues are systemic results of natural game theory and will arise with anyone in those jobs. Think Lord of the Flies.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Is there a reset button somewhere? We need some new folks in DC.

Would not help. These issues are systemic results of natural game theory and will arise with anyone in those jobs. Think Lord of the Flies.

I was being cheaky...

But, I don't think we have too many "career politicians"... but, then again... who'd run?

 whembly wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Is there a reset button somewhere? We need some new folks in DC.

Would not help. These issues are systemic results of natural game theory and will arise with anyone in those jobs. Think Lord of the Flies.

I was being cheaky...

But, I don't think we have too many "career politicians"... but, then again... who'd run?

That's why lord of the flies is the right comparison here. Even the friendliest and most cooperative group of people, given a few years in washington with each other, will kill piggy and ruin everything.

E: It's not all doom and gloom, though. Personally I think that instant-runoff voting would help immensely.

the thing about trying to reduce the impact of the sequestration cuts is that most agencies are very limited as to where they can make those cuts. You can't cut money you've already committed (contracts), so after you scrounge for the loose change in the various accounts, you're mostly left with the Personnel and Expenses accounts. And, at least in my agency, the Expenses account has already been cut close to the bone for several years now, so that means the Personnel account takes a hit, and so now we'll get furloughed.

I'm on the mailing list for Sen. Cornyn (sent him a form email awhile back requesting one of the space shuttles be located at, you know, NASA in Houston). His email basically blamed the Democrats, and tried to put the perspective that the cuts are like having to eat $5 less food in your monthly $250 grocery budget and minimal things like that. To that I want to ask: if I'm being required to potentially give up to 7% of my pay this year, what are you giving up Mr. Senator? I'm going to be getting unpaid days off, only to come back in the next day to work my ass off twice as hard to do two days' of work in one day.

I swear, it was true when George Carlin said it years ago and it's still true today:

 Captain Avatar wrote:
sebster tends to do this. Its almost like socialism is his church and liberlism is his god. To him any that contadict the teachings of the liberal apostles is heresy.

Don't confuse how I talk to you with how I talk to people who know what they're talking about.

sebster, your response here is a derisive dismissal without a logical argument. It comes across as an almost fanatical refusal to consider the differing point of view.

After the quoted bit I went on to explain to whembly why it was nonsense (nature of flat top level cuts and timing of those cuts). In his next quoted section whembly even agreed with me on why the graph was bad, though he argued with the general idea of stimulus.

In future, please don't drop in half way through a conversation, start grinding through quote blocks without any understanding of the greater conversation and try to score political points. It will make you look foolish, and waste my time having to explain the actual conversation to you.

I think that is exactly what sebster believes. After lurking and reading here for years, I've noted that there seems to be a very strong state controlled(socialist?) ideology to his arguments. Which is fine for him or any that feel/believe that way. It is his derisive refusal to consider that others opposing views are just as valid that prevent honest cmmunication.

I would hazard that it is a similar attitude that has killed any cooperative spirit inside the beltway.

That's not even remotely close to my political and economic views. And I'd say your half-assed effort at labeling me (complete with disingenuous 'that's fine, though, really, but it makes you politically irrelevant bs) is one of the many kinds of cheap politics that has crippled co-operation in Washington.

Just in case you actually care, and actually bother to read what I actually write, I am first and foremost a free marketeer. I look at the modern world built on the back of capitalism and think 'this might not be perfect, but holy gak this is the most amazing society humanity has ever achieved'. But where I differ from the right wing is that I've actually studied capitalism and the function of markets, and have an understanding of where they work and why, and where they fail and why.

One of the failings of a capitalist economy is when the interest rates hit the zero lower bound (interest rates are at zero, and can't drop anymore in response to excessive savings and inadequate investment). In this situation the only way to avoid a currency crisis is to stimulate aggregate demand with government spending.

Go away and read Keyne's General Theory. Unlike what nonsense you've likely been told, like me Keynes was a strong believer in markets and capitalist economics. He just knew the situations in which they stopped working.

sebsters not putting too much weight when you consider that he seems to be arguing from the perspective that the US should have a state run economy as opposed to a free market. Don't agree with his viewpoint, but understand that he has a differing one that is just as valid to him as mine is to me.

I don't believe in state planning. That's just nonsense.

There is such a massive difference between state involvement in a capitalist economy (which you already have, for feth's sake).

I think that the problem here is that Obama didn't present anything. Now he did attempt to "dictate" a course of action that immediately silenced all communication between the parties with the overpowering rhetoric.
Truth is neither side was willing to make a serious proposal that consisted of a fair compromise..

So it's clear you haven't even followed the debate. I've linked to Obama's proposal already. Please read. Learn. Know things. Stop basing opinions on things you'd like to be true.

Again with the his way is the only way to look at it stance. On top of this, it seems that sebsters stance is that the debt has to be x percentage of the GDP.

No, seriously. Some things are just true. Cars go faster than walking speed.

This debate concept in which anything that someone chooses to dispute must be treated as an equal opinion with all else is just not true. You want to talk about why beltway political debates breakdown to nothing? Well one of the reasons is that no-one is held to account by reality anymore. The Austrian school claimed the Fed's quantitative easing would lead to rampant inflation, and they were completely and utterly wrong, nothing of the sort happened at all. But despite being completely wrong, they've still got a seat at the table.

It's like the idea of looking and seeing if what someone is saying is actually true doesn't even exist anymore.

There is nothing wrong with a lower percentage of debt or even lowering it through balancing the books. If a nations economy won't work with a balanced budget then there are issues that need to be immediately addressed

Of course lower debt is better. That's about as contraversial as saying higher GDP is better. But it wasn't what was being debated.

whembly was trying to argue that looking just at government spending in isolation, without any reference to GDP was a meaningful analysis. It isn't.

 sebster wrote:


whembly was trying to argue that looking just at government spending in isolation, without any reference to GDP was a meaningful analysis. It isn't.

Well... why not? I know it really should have the adjusted GDP dollars... but just look at the right side from year 2009 to 2013. What it's doing is emphasizing the craziness of claiming "catastrophy" that the administration was expousing.

Now, what you're arguing is that it's the wrong time to do this... sure I can agree with that. But, is it truly catastrophic?

 whembly wrote:
Seb... let's back up a bit... this thread is about Sequestration.

He never officially proposed a budget recently... the one he did, his own party wouldn't vote on it.

So... to get the deal back in the day:
-First Obama proposed the sequester.
-Then he promised to veto any attempt to stop it.
-Then he pretended he never said that, and blamed Republicans for not stopping it.
-Then he predicted Sequestergeddon.
-And now, his administration is trying to ensure that his scare tactics don’t backfire on him.

You're missing what sequestration actually is. It was a deal that said 'we commit to all these cuts, unless we can come to another deal on how to make savings before that time'. The point being both parties would form deals, negotiate and look to get some kind of deal together that's smarter and better than the sequestration cuts.

The problem being that everyone came up with deals, and in the case of Obama came up with a deal that was exactly what Republicans said they wanted. And it was a deal that made good economic sense, putting in place reforms that would deliver meaningful long term savings, instead of just a small but actue cut to immediate spending.

But the Republicans don't even want to accept the deal that's got everything they said they wanted. Which brings us back to asking why?

1) What they said they wanted was lies. They said 'oh no, we don't need to raise tax rates on the wealthy, we just need to get rid of those deductions and loopholes'... but when that's actually offered up they reject it. Because that line was grade a bs, just a means to sidestep rejecting a tax increases on the rich. Now they're being called on it.
2) They backed themselves in to a corner where a deal, and deal at all, with Democrats will cost them with the true believers in their party. They fear the hard liners will throw them out in the primary if they're seen doing a deal, even a deal that gives them what they want, with the Democrats.

Pick one.

Republicans do share the blame of the snafu that's occuring now... but, don't place it squarely on their lap. Obama & the Dems are just as culpable.

For having a sequestration looming, both parties are responsible. For failing to make a deal that's better for all than the sequestration cuts? That's all GOP.

I'm a 40k brat... playing Orks and Dark Eldar. I don't my win/loss record nor do I really care. I'm there to have fun.

Yeah, me too, no idea what my win/loss record is. I'm there to have fun as well, and don't pick all powerful armies or anything (though as with everything there's a lot of subjectivity for where 'cheese' begins). But I still like to play a smart game, and a few of my last couple of games have most certainly not been that (screwing up the magic phase has kind of become my 'thing')

I used to play Orks in 40K, and loved it back when the good days of 4th, before Space Wolves started the crazy power levels back up again.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Seb... let's back up a bit... this thread is about Sequestration.

He never officially proposed a budget recently... the one he did, his own party wouldn't vote on it.

So... to get the deal back in the day:
-First Obama proposed the sequester.
-Then he promised to veto any attempt to stop it.
-Then he pretended he never said that, and blamed Republicans for not stopping it.
-Then he predicted Sequestergeddon.
-And now, his administration is trying to ensure that his scare tactics don’t backfire on him.

You're missing what sequestration actually is. It was a deal that said 'we commit to all these cuts, unless we can come to another deal on how to make savings before that time'. The point being both parties would form deals, negotiate and look to get some kind of deal together that's smarter and better than the sequestration cuts.

No... I get it... hence why I called it a "Poison Pill" sort of strategy. To me, it's no different than kicking the can down the road. Nothing new really other than this had a bite to it.

The problem being that everyone came up with deals, and in the case of Obama came up with a deal that was exactly what Republicans said they wanted.

Not exactly... he wanted to raise taxes (which honestly didn't bother me since it was closing loopholes and stuff like that).

And it was a deal that made good economic sense, putting in place reforms that would deliver meaningful long term savings, instead of just a small but actue cut to immediate spending.

Honestly, that's debateable... remember, the Bush's tax cuts expired for the wealthy (and businesses). So, he wanted to raise taxes even more.

But the Republicans don't even want to accept the deal that's got everything they said they wanted. Which brings us back to asking why?

Why do you keep saying that? Honest question here... unless I'm missing something. I did read the plans on both sides and they're different. Am I looking in the wrong year/plan? O.o

1) What they said they wanted was lies. They said 'oh no, we don't need to raise tax rates on the wealthy, we just need to get rid of those deductions and loopholes'... but when that's actually offered up they reject it. Because that line was grade a bs, just a means to sidestep rejecting a tax increases on the rich. Now they're being called on it.
2) They backed themselves in to a corner where a deal, and deal at all, with Democrats will cost them with the true believers in their party. They fear the hard liners will throw them out in the primary if they're seen doing a deal, even a deal that gives them what they want, with the Democrats.

Pick one.

Well yea... that's the nature of politics now... both parties do that. You do know that it appears that you're advocating that Obama/Dems are the Saints here and the Republicans are idjits.

Republicans do share the blame of the snafu that's occuring now... but, don't place it squarely on their lap. Obama & the Dems are just as culpable.

For having a sequestration looming, both parties are responsible. For failing to make a deal that's better for all than the sequestration cuts? That's all GOP.V\

Disagree with you here buddy. Cool?

I'm a 40k brat... playing Orks and Dark Eldar. I don't my win/loss record nor do I really care. I'm there to have fun.

Yeah, me too, no idea what my win/loss record is. I'm there to have fun as well, and don't pick all powerful armies or anything (though as with everything there's a lot of subjectivity for where 'cheese' begins). But I still like to play a smart game, and a few of my last couple of games have most certainly not been that (screwing up the magic phase has kind of become my 'thing')

I used to play Orks in 40K, and loved it back when the good days of 4th, before Space Wolves started the crazy power levels back up again.

 whembly wrote:
Well... why not? I know it really should have the adjusted GDP dollars... but just look at the right side from year 2009 to 2013. What it's doing is emphasizing the craziness of claiming "catastrophy" that the administration was expousing.

Now, what you're arguing is that it's the wrong time to do this... sure I can agree with that. But, is it truly catastrophic?

Yeah, see, I agree that catastrophe is overstating it. I mean.. okay here's the deal. Right now part of my job is finding cuts. Every year, matter of course we get a thing called an efficiency dividend, and it ranges in how much. Last year was 3%, this year is 2.5%, next year is speculated to be 1.5% (though with the election next week and all kinds of major works proposals from both sides speculation is all over the shop). This means I troll through cost centre after cost centre, line item after line item picking up waste money. Figuring out if a travel budget for our professional development program needs to be as high as it does, given the travel budgets of other similar organisations. Figuring out if the loss we make on the sub program is worth the international recognition we get for it (it doesn't, no fething way it does, but convincing executive of that is a whole other matter).

I don't have a problem with making cuts like this as a regular matter of course. That earlier GAO report, that's kind of what part of my job is (that said they do it on a whole of government level, so in a lot of ways its also very different).

But that kind of ongoing process is very different in nature to the cuts in the sequester. Because our process in part is about freeing up money to do more elsewhere. While our base operating is cut by 3%, those savings (and savings elsewhere in government) are being used to open a new campus down south. Whereas with the sequester it really is a case of 'stop what you're doing'.


And I'm not just arguing the timing is wrong, and that it's poorly implemented. I'm also saying it's political theatre about solving something that simply isn't a priority problem. The immediate deficit isn't what anyone wants, but compared to the waste inherent in the unemployment rate (imagine how much better everyone is if instead of collecting an unemployment check those people were working and contributing) and the long term rise in the deficit through health care, it's just not an issue.

Anyone who values good governance in the slightest and who understands the current political situation simply has to demand the GOP stop playing games, and go to the negotiating table to hammer out a deal that protects long term deficit growth, and avoids the sequester that threatens the still fragile economic recovery.

 sebster wrote:

Yeah, see, I agree that catastrophe is overstating it. I mean.. okay here's the deal. Right now part of my job is finding cuts. Every year, matter of course we get a thing called an efficiency dividend, and it ranges in how much. Last year was 3%, this year is 2.5%, next year is speculated to be 1.5% (though with the election next week and all kinds of major works proposals from both sides speculation is all over the shop). This means I troll through cost centre after cost centre, line item after line item picking up waste money. Figuring out if a travel budget for our professional development program needs to be as high as it does, given the travel budgets of other similar organisations. Figuring out if the loss we make on the sub program is worth the international recognition we get for it (it doesn't, no fething way it does, but convincing executive of that is a whole other matter).

I don't have a problem with making cuts like this as a regular matter of course. That earlier GAO report, that's kind of what part of my job is (that said they do it on a whole of government level, so in a lot of ways its also very different).

But that kind of ongoing process is very different in nature to the cuts in the sequester. Because our process in part is about freeing up money to do more elsewhere. While our base operating is cut by 3%, those savings (and savings elsewhere in government) are being used to open a new campus down south. Whereas with the sequester it really is a case of 'stop what you're doing'.


And I'm not just arguing the timing is wrong, and that it's poorly implemented. I'm also saying it's political theatre about solving something that simply isn't a priority problem. The immediate deficit isn't what anyone wants, but compared to the waste inherent in the unemployment rate (imagine how much better everyone is if instead of collecting an unemployment check those people were working and contributing) and the long term rise in the deficit through health care, it's just not an issue.

Anyone who values good governance in the slightest and who understands the current political situation simply has to demand the GOP stop playing games, and go to the negotiating table to hammer out a deal that protects long term deficit growth, and avoids the sequester that threatens the still fragile economic recovery.

Great response mate... I find myself nodding along here... I just think that if the electorate really believe that the GOP is "play games" with this, they'd be out of power.

It's not that simple.

If you want to find fault...it's that BOTH parties are culpable AND we don't have a strong leader right now (ie, Clinton, Reagon, Kennedy...).

I really don't know how to fix this. What we're seeing is what we're going to get... unless a true catastrophy occurs.

A shame really.

It's like this ongoing filibuster of the head of CIA position... it political theater right now and to me, it's a waste of energy.

*shrugs* I'm growing more cynical here...

 whembly wrote:
No... I get it... hence why I called it a "Poison Pill" sort of strategy. To me, it's no different than kicking the can down the road. Nothing new really other than this had a bite to it.

Except the reforms mentioned had real legislative impact. Chained CPI increases to entitlements just isn't kicking the can down the road. It's a real thing with real economic impact down the line.

Not exactly... he wanted to raise taxes (which honestly didn't bother me since it was closing loopholes and stuff like that).

Exactly, it's what Republicans said they wanted. Now that it's offered, it's kind of clear they just said they wanted it,

Honestly, that's debateable... remember, the Bush's tax cuts expired for the wealthy (and businesses). So, he wanted to raise taxes even more.

But overall still nowhere near the level they were before the Bush tax cut. And that in turn was much lower than rates before the Reagan cuts.

I've explained before how what we've seen over three decades now is two sets of cuts to income tax rates. Under the first cut the deficit blew out, and was only finally brought back to sustainability with the compromise during Clinton's administration.

Then Bush put in the second cut, and sustainability is now being battled over, with a mix of tax increases and spending cuts.

Why do you keep saying that? Honest question here... unless I'm missing something. I did read the plans on both sides and they're different. Am I looking in the wrong year/plan? O.o

When someone says the revenue reform they want is to close loopholes, and then other side offers them that and they run away, it's a good question to ask why.

Well yea... that's the nature of politics now... both parties do that. You do know that it appears that you're advocating that Obama/Dems are the Saints here and the Republicans are idjits.

The Republicans aren't idiots here. They're avoiding a deal where each part has majority support, even majority support among Republican voters, and have managed to split the political impact evenly with the other side.

That's far from being idiots. In fact that's called winning.

The point is that if people stop arguing about the horse race and which side is good and bad, and start looking at what policy proposals are actually best for the country, then it becomes clear that the best way forward is for people to start hounding the Republicans until they return to the table, and help deliver the Obama proposal. Seriously, it's a good deal, way better than sequestration.

I started when Orks were "waning" in the power list... 'cuz, I had this irrational mentality to try to prove folks wrong. But then again... I'm there to have fun.

I think that's why I score so high on gameplay 'cuz I really don't do any rules arguing... if you play it differently... *shrugs* I'll adapt and overcome.

Yeah, I don't argue rules. I mean, I like to look things up, because the rules are written really quite poorly, and it can be easy to miss a little thing that makes a situation make more sense than it should. I actually think the reputation for silliness in GW rules is actually unfair, there's frequently a sentence somewhere in there that will make a rule make sense, it's just that the rules are such a mess most players, even hardcore tournament players can go years playing a rule incorrectly.

Problem is, I'm not like I was when I was a teenager. Used to be I could look something up, learn how it was supposed to play, and remember it for next time. Maybe even remember the page number, or phrasing of the rule. These days I find myself looking up the same rules game after game. Something about having a job, a wife and a life makes stuff like miniature game rules much harder to fit in my head


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Great response mate... I find myself nodding along here... I just think that if the electorate really believe that the GOP is "play games" with this, they'd be out of power.

It's not that simple.

If you want to find fault...it's that BOTH parties are culpable AND we don't have a strong leader right now (ie, Clinton, Reagon, Kennedy...).

I really don't know how to fix this. What we're seeing is what we're going to get... unless a true catastrophy occurs.

A shame really.

It's like this ongoing filibuster of the head of CIA position... it political theater right now and to me, it's a waste of energy.

*shrugs* I'm growing more cynical here...

Clinton, Reagan, Kennedy were all attacked in there time, and all had plenty of failed policy efforts. I mean hey, Clinton failed to get a healthcare bill that his own party would even bring to the floor, Obama actually got one passed. Kennedy I would say was actually a failed presidency in a lot of ways (it took Johnson to actually deliver what Kennedy promised). And I'm almost certain you'll disagree, but I'd say the political mess in the US today, both politically and economically, is almost entirely the legacy of Reagan's transformation of the Republican party (I've actually got a fair bit of time for the pre-Reagan Republican party, absent their attacks on the New Deal).

Nor do I think people react against politicians playing games. Really that depends on how well the game is played. The Republicans played it poorly in the last round of debt ceiling increase, and had to basically give up and let the ceiling increase while gaining nothing for their own side. This time around they're playing it well, managing to walk away from a deal with strong popular support, while splitting the blame evenly.

The filibuster of nominations is... well, kind of complicated. Because there's a time and place to dispute an appointment. It goes back to Robert Bork's nomination, and well, the Dems were right in opposing his nomination (his behaviour in the Nixon administration showed a basic lack of respect for the law, so putting him on the Supreme Court is just a nightmate). But the Dems were very wrong to make their rejection such a political drama, because it opened the door to all the politically motivated opposition to appointments that has followed.

sebster wrote:
Don't confuse how I talk to you with how I talk to people who know what they're talking about.

How wonderfully arrogant and patronizing.

Really, You know not who I am yet, you make the assumption that you are superior. Hubris much?

By your previous statements in this and in many other threads, you seem to be, at best, an acedemic theorist who has never spent any time in the competitive business world. Your "the conservatives are always uneducated and wrong" but "I'm a liberal who has some college so I must know more attitude" does nothing to help foster honest communication.

The only time I ever run into this kind of blind conciet is when talking with my old class mates who couldn't hack it in the business world and became teachers/professors. You know the old saying, "Those that can,... do. Those that can't.... teach."

Captain Avatar wrote:

sebster wrote:sebster, your response here is a derisive dismissal without a logical argument. It comes across as an almost fanatical refusal to consider the differing point of view.

After the quoted bit I went on to explain to whembly why it was nonsense (nature of flat top level cuts and timing of those cuts). In his next quoted section whembly even agreed with me on why the graph was bad, though he argued with the general idea of stimulus.

In future, please don't drop in half way through a conversation, start grinding through quote blocks without any understanding of the greater conversation and try to score political points. It will make you look foolish, and waste my time having to explain the actual conversation to you.

A) Actually, you did no such thing within that post. Even if you have gone back and editted in a proper response it does not change the impact of such a statement at the time it was written. My point stands that your tone and words were derisive and detrimental to communicating openly and honestly. Maybe if you reigned in your ego, you might understand how automatically assuming that you are superior is an error.

B) As long as I am not in violation of Dakkas terms of use, I will drop in at anytime and post my perspective as I please thank you. Also want to point out that you are operating under some delusion that as to my ability to comprehend. I understand the whole of what you guys are discussing, seriously, back in my prep school days I would have been able to easily follow this discussion.

C) I'm looking follish? Looks around, then in mirror. Sees old man wearing rainbow wig and a monocle. Nope, nothing follish here, silly yes, foolish no.
Now if my comments bother you to the point that you seem compelled to "waste your time" and respond to them, I invite you to use the little ignore button in the corner of your screen. By doing such you can then ignore my statements, that seem to strike a sensitive nerve, like you do with opposing points of view.

sebster wrote:
Just in case you actually care, and actually bother to read what I actually write, I am first and foremost a free marketeer. I look at the modern world built on the back of capitalism and think 'this might not be perfect, but holy gak this is the most amazing society humanity has ever achieved'. But where I differ from the right wing is that I've actually studied capitalism and the function of markets, and have an understanding of where they work and why, and where they fail and why.

A) Claiming to be a free marketeer does not make you one. Though, with how the definition is being muddled by collectivist philosophy/socialist ideology this could degenerate into.whole seperate topic.
Lets just say from a purist classical definition, I feel that your past comments make your claim here seem debatable depensing upon individual perspective..

and

B) Wow, I mean just wow. Your last sentence just illustrated my earlier point of hubris. Here, let me copy pasta it here so that the full meaning of your words doesn't get lost in the clutter:

Quote sebster "But where I differ from the right wing is that I've actually studied capitalism and the function of markets, and have an understanding of where they work and why, and where they fail and why."

By your words here. You are making the claim to have a better understanding of capitalism than every right wing person(taken to be read as republican) in existence. That group includes a large number of the best and brightest businessmen in the world, sure you wanna make that claim.

Honestly, you're prejudice and derision toward conservatives is only serving to reinforce the conservative stereo-type of liberals being unreasonable and incapable of compromise.

sebster wrote:One of the failings of a capitalist economy is when the interest rates hit the zero lower bound (interest rates are at zero, and can't drop anymore in response to excessive savings and inadequate investment). In this situation the only way to avoid a currency crisis is to stimulate aggregate demand with government spending.

Go away and read Keyne's General Theory. Unlike what nonsense you've likely been told, like me Keynes was a strong believer in markets and capitalist economics. He just knew the situations in which they stopped working.

A) I disagree, even if we were taking about a purely capitalist economy. Thing is, the US economy is a hybrid economy. The sheer number of government regulations and socialist programs proves this.
In a hybrid economy, when the intrest rates hit zero, there are many other things that can be done aside from increased government spending..
1)The Government can ease both trade and manufacturing stifilng regualtions,
2)Clamp down on the large scale corruption that is syphoning off much needed capital
3)Cutting government spending to first balance the budget but with the goal of reducing the tax burden on the economy. This leaves more working capital for the middle class and the private sector.
4)The government can re-negotiate trade agreements with the aim to increase trade
5)Renegotiate pork lined government contracts for savings and to help employ a greater number of workers
just to name a few

Could also just sit back, do nothing and allow the economy to correct itself, you know, the way that free markets are supposed to. But thats just crazy talk, sort of like expecting our government to balance its books.

B) Funny you mention Keyes. He viewed government spending as a last resort, after lowering taxes.

Also, his theories are not accepted universally. Try reading Hunter Lewis's Where Keynes Went Wrong.

sebster wrote:I don't believe in state planning. That's just nonsense.

There is such a massive difference between state involvement in a capitalist economy (which you already have, for feth's sake).

A)If you support expanding the governments role in manipulating the economy, then you support a state planned economy.

B) Never argued such. Am fully aware of the level of both the state and federal involvement. I just disagree with both the current level and how such involvement is implemented.
(note I'm assuming by state you meant the federal government. Am clarifying because state involvement has a double meaning in the US),

Imo, the government as it is currently, is a massive hinderance to and drain upon the economy.

Captain Avatar wrote:

sebster wrote:I think that the problem here is that Obama didn't present anything. Now he did attempt to "dictate" a course of action that immediately silenced all communication between the parties with the overpowering rhetoric.
Truth is neither side was willing to make a serious proposal that consisted of a fair compromise..

So it's clear you haven't even followed the debate. I've linked to Obama's proposal already. Please read. Learn. Know things. Stop basing opinions on things you'd like to be true.

Go back and reread what I typed. Your statement about the Obama proposal completely missed the point of what I typed.

sebster wrote:
No, seriously. Some things are just true. Cars go faster than walking speed.

This debate concept in which anything that someone chooses to dispute must be treated as an equal opinion with all else is just not true. You want to talk about why beltway political debates breakdown to nothing? Well one of the reasons is that no-one is held to account by reality anymore. The Austrian school claimed the Fed's quantitative easing would lead to rampant inflation, and they were completely and utterly wrong, nothing of the sort happened at all. But despite being completely wrong, they've still got a seat at the table.

It's like the idea of looking and seeing if what someone is saying is actually true doesn't even exist anymore.

A) There you go with the black and white thinking. It is ironic that below you say that comparisons in isolation have no meaning. What, I'm getting at is that you walking vs car is generally true when but when variables, like the car being out of gas or you are climbing up a mountain, are introduced it becomes a general statement.

B)Depends upon what type of debate is occuring. Might help everyone if the parties agreed upon which rules of debate are used. Thing is, I've yet to see a debate for where a derisive dismissal without some logical argument to back it up is acceptable. If you feel that the point asserted has no merit then just ignore it. If you comment on it then explain. Derisive dismissal violates the base concept of debating

C)Absolutely agree that there is a complete lack of accoutability on both sides. Its this very reason why I feel the US should learn from our european cousins and take steps to give voice to the other political parties.

D) Bernake was completely wrong on his timeline assessment for economic recovery, yet he still has a seat at the table(his job).Couldn't resist.

Now seriously to your point. The Austrian template isn't so much wrong as it is out of date. Since 1996 inflation has slowed beyond any previous projections. Current thought as to why has to do with a decrease in labours share, increased non wage labour compensation and declnes in import prices.

Thing is that we are now seeing and feeling inflation much more than in the past decade.

E) Some truths are not universal but more perspective in nature. You try to take truths from your perspective and claim them as universal. I merely disagree with your demand that I accept your perspective as my truth.

sebster wrote:
*snip
it wasn't what was being debated.

whembly was trying to argue that looking just at government spending in isolation, without any reference to GDP was a meaningful analysis. It isn't.

Good attempt to redefine what you were debating. The original argument was whether the graph illustrated the original point that the sequester is only a minute reduction in planned spending but was not even a cut, just a reduction of the planned increase. In that regard, the graph served its point.

I will admit that you were succesful in shifting away from the original point to a different one that was about spending in relation to the GDP. But that wasn't the original point. You have changed the point by introducing a variable.
If we get to introduce variables then I would like to point out that the graph shows an after sequestration increase in spending that still exceeds current growth or maybe another that just the current spending as depicted in the chart is enough to shake consumer confidence and thus delay economic recovery. Thing is, neither of these would be the original argument.


Edit to add:

This bit of dicourse has used up my allotted free time for a while. My Business keeps me very busy so I will bow out for now. Maybe I'll have more time in a week or two.
Later

 Captain Avatar wrote:

sebster tends to do this. Its almost like socialism is his church and liberlism is his god. To him any that contadict the teachings of the liberal apostles is heresy.

I like, especially, how you elevated yourself over your claims regarding Sebster.

Truly, you claimed the moral high ground.

 Captain Avatar wrote:
Your "the conservatives are always uneducated and wrong" but "I'm a liberal who has some college so I must know more attitude" does nothing to help foster honest communication.

Are those actual quotes?

I would suggest everyone gets off the moral high ground and sticks to presentation of facts.

 Captain Avatar wrote:
How wonderfully arrogant and patronizing.

Really, You know not who I am yet, you make the assumption that you are superior. Hubris much?

I've spoken to you in a couple of threads now, and while it's possible you just came off poorly in those threads and you might understand things better than you've shown so far, I'm not going to hold my breath.

In short, I wasn't arrogant but I was patronising. I don't see that as a bad thing when the person being patronised debates as well as you have so far.

By your previous statements in this and in many other threads, you seem to be, at best, an acedemic theorist who has never spent any time in the competitive business world. Your "the conservatives are always uneducated and wrong" but "I'm a liberal who has some college so I must know more attitude" does nothing to help foster honest communication.

Your speculation is miles from my reality. Though it's fun than you think I have an academic level of knowledge. I'm just a working schlubb who's wandered through a variety of private and public jobs.

And it's not that I've been to uni that I think I know more than you (plenty get through the amount of uni and professional training I've done without getting anything like the economics background I've picked up). Mine is more a product of birth (Dad trained as an economist, and so had a lot of the classic economics texts on hand, which sparked my interest).

And note that I'm just saying I know more than you. Not all conservatives. There's plenty of very well informed conservatives out there who I would actually love to be able to just ask questions, and wouldn't even try to debate. It's just that from what I've seen of your posts so far, you're nowhere near that level of knowledge.

The only time I ever run into this kind of blind conciet is when talking with my old class mates who couldn't hack it in the business world and became teachers/professors. You know the old saying, "Those that can,... do. Those that can't.... teach."

And that's just the classic anti-intellectualism of movement conservatives. I mean, that's just lazy.

A) Actually, you did no such thing within that post.

The hell? Seriously dude, this is a text based medium. It's all there, forever.

"That graph is just gakky, gakky nonsense politics.

The issue is not the idea of cuts - Obama's own proposal includes cuts, and cuts to the things Republicans love to talk about cutting - entitlement programs.

The issue is that the sequester includes only here and now cuts, direct reductions in spending today. Which is a fething stupid thing to do when the economy is still struggling. Let me repeat, yet again, Ben Bernanke's testimony to congress;
"Significant progress has been made recently toward reducing the federal budget deficit over the next few years. The projections released earlier this month by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) indicate that, under current law, the federal deficit will narrow from 7 percent of GDP last year to 2-1/2 percent in fiscal year 2015.8 As a result, the federal debt held by the public (including that held by the Federal Reserve) is projected to remain roughly 75 percent of GDP through much of the current decade.

However, a substantial portion of the recent progress in lowering the deficit has been concentrated in near-term budget changes, which, taken together, could create a significant headwind for the economic recovery … Moreover, besides having adverse effects on jobs and incomes, a slower recovery would lead to less actual deficit reduction in the short run for any given set of fiscal actions." "

I mean, did you even go back and check. Lazy, lazy, lazy.

Even if you have gone back and editted in a proper response it does not change the impact of such a statement at the time it was written.

Did I also edit whembly's response to me, to include the additional text in further responses? How deep does the conspiracy go?!

Seriously dude, this ain't complex. I posted a line dismissing whembly's graph, and then posted an explanation why. He responded, first to my dismissal, and then to the greater answer. You dropped in, having likely not actually bothered to read the previous page of the thread, and saw his response to the first and then second parts, and jumped to a conclusion.

Whatever, that happens. But your effort to continue pretending your first impression was correct is really weird.

B) As long as I am not in violation of Dakkas terms of use, I will drop in at anytime and post my perspective as I please thank you.

Of course you are. And in turn I am free to respond, explaining to you the problems with your arguments.

Now if my comments bother you to the point that you seem compelled to "waste your time" and respond to them, I invite you to use the little ignore button in the corner of your screen.

In all honesty, if you don't like my comment then just do better. You can probably tell I love a good debate. I love it when someone gives an argument I've not seen before, or gives it in a way that makes me re-consider it.

But all I'm getting from you is the same old tired, movement conservative boiler plates, and the old bit of bizarre claim that I'm a socialist or something.

A) Claiming to be a free marketeer does not make you one.

No, but believing in the free market as the cornerstone of the economy does.

Lets just say from a purist classical definition, I feel that your past comments make your claim here seem debatable depensing upon individual perspective.

Good thing the purist classical definition hasn't been relevant for near on a hundred years.

Quote sebster "But where I differ from the right wing is that I've actually studied capitalism and the function of markets, and have an understanding of where they work and why, and where they fail and why."

By your words here. You are making the claim to have a better understanding of capitalism than every right wing person(taken to be read as republican) in existence. That group includes a large number of the best and brightest businessmen in the world, sure you wanna make that claim.

Maybe I should have said 'right wing pundits' or 'the usual collection of right winger natterers that find their way on to Dakka'. There are certainly plenty of people on the right wing of economics who've expanded the field in brilliant ways.

Though if we're going to pick out word choice and speculate on it, we can make a lot out of your decision to mention business leaders, and not say, actual people who study and work in the field of economics. Why not heads of the IMF, or various reserve banks or something? Actual economists, as opposed to business men, who have a very different skill set and knowledge base.

Honestly, you're prejudice and derision toward conservatives is only serving to reinforce the conservative stereo-type of liberals being unreasonable and incapable of compromise.

See, this is exactly what I mean. Boiler plate movement conservative lines. It's like you guys have a script like a telemarketer or something. Anyhow, it's boring as hell.

I disagree, even if we were taking about a purely capitalist economy. Thing is, the US economy is a hybrid economy. The sheer number of government regulations and socialist programs proves this.

Yeah, I know it's a hybrid economy. I just explained that to you. Are you even reading what I type?

In a hybrid economy, when the intrest rates hit zero, there are many other things that can be done aside from increased government spending..

Oh by all means, please list them. I'll contact the Nobel committee and they can start getting your name engraved.

1)The Government can ease both trade and manufacturing stifilng regualtions,
2)Clamp down on the large scale corruption that is syphoning off much needed capital
3)Cutting government spending to first balance the budget but with the goal of reducing the tax burden on the economy. This leaves more working capital for the middle class and the private sector.
4)The government can re-negotiate trade agreements with the aim to increase trade
5)Renegotiate pork lined government contracts for savings and to help employ a greater number of workers
just to name a few

Okay, so that's great. Here you are trying to argue economics, and your list of solutions to a macro problem is a bunch of micro reforms coming straight out of the 'boo government inefficiency' junk pile.

Seriously, please go and read about what macroeconomics actually is, and what the problem of excessive saving is. Learn about the business cycle, and why the inherent responses to the business cycle can sometimes fail (wage stickiness, zero lower bound).

And then realise that has nothing to do with what you posted, and that posting it made you look ridiculous.

Could also just sit back, do nothing and allow the economy to correct itself, you know, the way that free markets are supposed to.

And now we've gotten to the actual Austrian school response to recession. The approach that was found to be so naive and simplistic 80 years ago. So, now please go and read, learn about how the 'it'll all get better in the end' is not just wrong, but fething lazy.

If you can't be bothered doing that, it's because of wage price stickiness, the zero lower bound, and because just waiting for everything to get better in the long term is completely disfunctional;

"In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is past the ocean is flat again."

B) Funny you mention Keyes. He viewed government spending as a last resort, after lowering taxes.

Keynes. I mean dude, get the name right.

And yeah, Keynes argued for government spending only as a last resort. If you do ever get around to actually reading the work you're trying to debate here, you'd learn Keynes described his primarily as a conservative text, a prescription for what to do as a solution to specific, acute problems in the economy.

Of course, we've since had 80 years of quantitative economics studies that have looked at the effect of various forms of economic stimulus. The Economist published a study a while back. Guess what, tax cuts performed extremely poorly, while direct infrastructure investment performed extremely well.

Also, his theories are not accepted universally. Try reading Hunter Lewis's Where Keynes Went Wrong.

I know they're not accepted universally. Look at say, present day European economic policy, or the Republican party of the US. The point is those movements are intellectually bankrupt, and their inability to accept the complete failure of their models to respond to the GFC is remarkable.

And Hunter Lewis' text is a strange pick. Even if we're just looking at criticisms of Keynes its a very minor work (the Austrian school has produced a lot of efforts over the years). It's just a weird coincidence that of all the books I've been given over many Christmas's by my uncle, that happened to be one of them.

Anyhow, don't tell my uncle but it was a woeful book - the part where he criticises Keynes for arguing from a purely theoretical position, without reference to real world figures is staggering, showing a complete lack of awareness of both the history of economic study and the central tenants of the Austrian school itself. In fact, the one place where you could say Hayek and Keynes agreed was that sound theory was the key, neither man gave much value to quantitive studies (which largely made sense, given the poverty of good data at the time). What's staggered me in Lewis claim though, is that he tries to make this a criticism of Keynes and modern Keynesian economic, while the school evolved to lead the world in producing quantitative methods. Especially puzzling when the Austrian school still reject real world studies (which makes sense, given their models never make any decent macro predictions).

A)If you support expanding the governments role in manipulating the economy, then you support a state planned economy.

Oh my god, that's not what a state planned economy is. These words have actual meanings that you would know if you actually read things.

Never argued such. Am fully aware of the level of both the state and federal involvement. I just disagree with both the current level and how such involvement is implemented.
(note I'm assuming by state you meant the federal government. Am clarifying because state involvement has a double meaning in the US),

Dude, I also live in a country where there is a state and federal government. But in economics the term 'state' has a very clear meaning no matter where you are in the world. 'State' simply means government, as distinct from 'private'.

Imo, the government as it is currently, is a massive hinderance to and drain upon the economy.

And given the actual level of economic knowledge you've shown in this thred, I put it to you that your opinion of such is based entirely in ideology and without any actual knowledge of how private and state actions interact in a modern economy.

Go back and reread what I typed. Your statement about the Obama proposal completely missed the point of what I typed.

Only if 'here is a proposal that offers what you said you wanted' means backing someone into a corner. Which is beyond stupid.

A) There you go with the black and white thinking. It is ironic that below you say that comparisons in isolation have no meaning. What, I'm getting at is that you walking vs car is generally true when but when variables, like the car being out of gas or you are climbing up a mountain, are introduced it becomes a general statement.

Yes, the car could be out of gas. The economy could exist in a magical unicorn land where it's scale is completely independant of the country's economy.

But absent those things, we know cars go faster than people, and government is measured relative to GDP. And arguing otherwise is a thing that sensible, informed people cannot do.

B)Depends upon what type of debate is occuring. Might help everyone if the parties agreed upon which rules of debate are used. Thing is, I've yet to see a debate for where a derisive dismissal without some logical argument to back it up is acceptable. If you feel that the point asserted has no merit then just ignore it. If you comment on it then explain. Derisive dismissal violates the base concept of debating

When a thing is wrong there is no point pretending otherwise. And as long as you read only the part where I state that a thing is wrong, and skim past or just plain miss the part where I explain why the thing was wrong you'll continue to believe that I have done nothing but post a derisive dismissal, and likely moan about it.

And in doing so you'll be wasting everyone's time, especially you're own.

C)Absolutely agree that there is a complete lack of accoutability on both sides. Its this very reason why I feel the US should learn from our european cousins and take steps to give voice to the other political parties.

The issue isn't with the number of political parties, but with the quality of debate, and how easily the media lets nonsense claims through rather than actually providing a factual check.

D) Bernake was completely wrong on his timeline assessment for economic recovery, yet he still has a seat at the table(his job).Couldn't resist.

And the Austrian school claimed hyper-inflation by now. Worrying about being off on a timeline when the other side could not actually have been more wrong seems extremely selective.

And before you think you're looking clever in your dismissal of Bernanke, he's the guy who came up with 'the Great Moderation'. He was on your side (albeit one of the more moderate members, given he believed monetary policy was useful), until the GFC proved how completely wrong that side was, and he was in the position where something sensible actually had to be done.

Now seriously to your point. The Austrian template isn't so much wrong as it is out of date. Since 1996 inflation has slowed beyond any previous projections. Current thought as to why has to do with a decrease in labours share, increased non wage labour compensation and declnes in import prices.

Thing is that we are now seeing and feeling inflation much more than in the past decade.

That you'd talk about problems with the Austrian school and talk only of inflation is kind of the point. You can't just squint and look past GDP and unemployment and pretend those aren't real economic issues.

E) Some truths are not universal but more perspective in nature. You try to take truths from your perspective and claim them as universal. I merely disagree with your demand that I accept your perspective as my truth.

Sure, lots of things are up for debate, and may never be resolved. But we're at a point where the value of the Austrian school as a viable model to Keynesian economics just ain't one. It's failures are complete. It is utterly bankrupt, and produces models with simply no predictive power at all.

Good attempt to redefine what you were debating. The original argument was whether the graph illustrated the original point that the sequester is only a minute reduction in planned spending but was not even a cut, just a reduction of the planned increase. In that regard, the graph served its point.

We know what the point of the graph was. The point is that in presenting the argument as it did, it was a bad graph. First up, the impression of ever increasing government (by showing total spend) was misleading - government by a real measure against GDP is quite constant (and I wasn't redefining my debate - I wasn't even the guy who made that point, something you might know if you'd actually read the thread). Second up, there's my point, that the issue of sequester isn't 'omg less money is spent' but the nature and timing of those cuts - short terms cuts enacted right now is just stupid policy given the economic conditions and the fact that the short term budget is okay - it's into the medium and long term that you need to start making meaningful measures.

I will admit that you were succesful in shifting away from the original point to a different one that was about spending in relation to the GDP.

No seriously, that wasn't even my point.

But that wasn't the original point. You have changed the point by introducing a variable.

No, it was explaining why the argument as given was misleading. That's how debate works.

If we get to introduce variables then I would like to point out that the graph shows an after sequestration increase in spending that still exceeds current growth or maybe another that just the current spending as depicted in the chart is enough to shake consumer confidence and thus delay economic recovery. Thing is, neither of these would be the original argument.

Which is why the original argument was too simplistic, and was challenged. Again, that's how debate works.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I would suggest everyone gets off the moral high ground and sticks to presentation of facts.

I always preferred the moral low ground myself. That way they never expect it when you go for their ankles BITEBITEBITE!
And now the angry wiener dog shake of death!

Is the Angry Weiner Dog Shake of Death like the Harlem Shake?

For those of you in government, has your bosses told you when you can expect to see the "windfall" of Sequestration take effect?

Just wanted to say... I'm enjoying these back-n-forth debates.

 Easy E wrote:
Is the Angry Weiner Dog Shake of Death like the Harlem Shake?

For those of you in government, has your bosses told you when you can expect to see the "windfall" of Sequestration take effect?

I know that, while we don't get furlough days, our unit is already feeling it in many ways.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Is the Angry Weiner Dog Shake of Death like the Harlem Shake?

For those of you in government, has your bosses told you when you can expect to see the "windfall" of Sequestration take effect?

I know that, while we don't get furlough days, our unit is already feeling it in many ways.

We're getting furlough days in my agency, but we don't yet know how many. The memos sent by the administrator and CFO said it would be up to 14 days. On the other hand, "essential/core" positions probably won't get furloughed much, if at all. Sadly, I doubt my position will be classified as such. The only bright spot is that it will be only one day per pay period, and I get to choose the day (so I can at least score a 3-day weekend out of it).

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Is the Angry Weiner Dog Shake of Death like the Harlem Shake?

For those of you in government, has your bosses told you when you can expect to see the "windfall" of Sequestration take effect?

I know that, while we don't get furlough days, our unit is already feeling it in many ways.

We're getting furlough days in my agency, but we don't yet know how many. The memos sent by the administrator and CFO said it would be up to 14 days. On the other hand, "essential/core" positions probably won't get furloughed much, if at all. Sadly, I doubt my position will be classified as such. The only bright spot is that it will be only one day per pay period, and I get to choose the day (so I can at least score a 3-day weekend out of it).

They just announced for the Army, that they are cutting all Tuition Assistance for us until at least the end of the fiscal year... so no school for anyone that way :(