Oh the Irony

If you exclude the civil war and the two world wars, that would be FDR, Nixon, Reagan, Bush Jr., and Obama (though all but Bush Jr. did so with strongly Democratic Congresses). Again, if we exclude the three wars I mentioned, the current spike is by far the largest. So sure, Bush Jr. set off this binge of spending, but Obama has taken it to historic levels. Also, every president who followed a profligate president has decreased the deficit...until Obama. Truman got rid of FDR's deficit. Carter somewhat reduced Nixon's. Bush Sr. somewhat reduced Reagan's. Obama managed to increase Bush's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

If you exclude the civil war and the two world wars, that would be FDR, Nixon, Reagan, Bush Jr., and Obama (though all but Bush Jr. did so with strongly Democratic Congresses). Again, if we exclude the three wars I mentioned, the current spike is by far the largest. So sure, Bush Jr. set off this binge of spending, but Obama has taken it to historic levels. Also, every president who followed a profligate president has decreased the deficit...until Obama. Truman got rid of FDR's deficit. Carter somewhat reduced Nixon's. Bush Sr. somewhat reduced Reagan's. Obama managed to increase Bush's.

---

1) Can we recognize that pre-20th century situations are more or less meaningless given how radically different the role of government was, and that of revenues?
2) FDR's deficit was the biggest modern existential crisis. Actually, arguably two of them bundled together.
3) Nixon's deficit was minimal. What are you talking about?
4) Neither Reagan's nor W's were existential crises. Not even close.
5) Obama was/is facing an existential crisis. Plus, he can't exactly reverse some of W's actions, which haven't even expired yet. So Obama is still struggling with W's legacy.

In fact, I'd say that the situation Obama was put in is exactly why it is reprehensible to spend profligately in the absence of serious threats. You may recall that I said so through the Bush years: it's negligent to spend like this. What happens if a real crisis comes up and we need to spend more than we have? Well, it happened.

So, name a bout of unjustified deficit spending (of the magnitude we're talking, not chicken feed) followed by an existential crisis that demanded deficit spending. You can't, other than the one we're just coming out of. So you can criticize Obama, but to do so you MUST acknowledge that his ability to act was severely handicapped by his predecessor. And that, as I pointed out here in 2003,4,5,6,7,8 and 9, is why it was grossly negligent for W to run up the deficit in the absence of any substantial crisis.

That he did so primarily to provide a windfall to the wealthy is nauseating. It's why I think W will be almost universally viewed in retrospect as one of the worst presidents. Not even counting the wars, I think we almost certainly would have been MUCH better had he just sat back and done almost nothing. Reagan at least had the excuse of part of the deficit being increased Cold War spending to challenge the Soviets economically. Not necessary, given that almost all economists knew the Soviets were in deep shit economically well before Reagan even took office. But it doubtlessly did accelerate things.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._President.jpg

It's my belief that on this subject one should look for two things: 1) inflection points, and 2) slopes. So far, Obama's slope hasn't changed. Given that we're in the biggest crisis since WWII, this could actually be considered impressive. Second, he hasn't had the chance for the lag period from W's policies to catch up. So we can't honestly evaluate him at all, except to say that there is no inflection point: he hasn't increased the slope. Had he not inherited a horrible financial crisis, two wars, and preposterous tax cuts, altogether demanding spending literally trillions, he'd probably look like a budget hawk, relatively speaking. Or at least map close to Clinton.

Now, where are the radical inflections points? Upwards, it's Reagan and W. I said that Reagan gets some slack, but W is inexcusable. Bush I is complicated, but I see a change in the curve there. That's why I give him credit for halting the deficit. Me, I think Clinton was just very lucky in terms of cycles, and that Bush I deserves most of the credit. It's one reason I think he was a better president than most, because he had the balls to do something politically unpopular that helped the country.

I think the jury is out on Obama, but I think anybody who is reasonable would cut him slack given the multiple train wreck he inherited. Me, I expect his curve to inflect in a few years. I expect him to win in 2012 because the recession will be over, and I expect that you'll see a big improvement. Remember, the other side of the coin with deficits is revenues, which depend largely on economic cycles when you don't have a nimrod like W playing his payoff games. Obama's deficit will continue to rise in part because of the delayed great Recession hit on revenues. This will reverse.

If I'm wrong, please make sure to rub my nose in it in a few years. Seriously. Lord knows I've rubbed the nose of the W partisans in W's track record, and I'll deserve it if I'm wrong. But I won't be, and I think you know that.

Debt != deficit. Using debt makes presidents who presided over high economic growth look fiscally conservative, and those that inherited large deficits look fiscally liberal.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y28...66/Deficit.png

1. Sure.
2. I don't agree. The entire world faced the great depression; most of it came out of it no worse than did the US. Not only that, but the effect of FDR's "New Deal" was minimal; it was WWII that brought about economic growth. So no, I'm not going to support FDR's wasteful economic programs just because America was in a bad state.
3. My mistake. That was Ford, not Nixon. He managed to increase the deficit from virtually nothing to about 4%. At that time, this was the largest deficit since 1935.
4. Ok.
5. Again, I don't agree. Plenty of Western countries didn't run up a massive deficit during the current economic crisis, despite this crisis hitting some of them much harder than it hit the US (Estonia's GDP went down 15%, yet its deficit is under 2%). The countries that implemented reasonable stimulus packages did not suffer any more than did the US. So please don't give me the BS about the current deficit being necessary. If the US wasn't the richest and most powerful country in the world, we'd be in the same position Greece finds itself in right now.

Most people agree spending cuts are necessary. Where do you want to cut spending Loki?

I'm aware of the difference between deficit and debt, but I like debt better because it gives a better picture of the impact of deficit spending: a deficit in the context of no debt is not dangerous at all (well, not yet). Deficit spending in the context of high debt is quite dangerous. Besides, deficits can be inferred from slope of debt.

But yes, I agree that deficit is a more direct metric of a government's spending activity.

BTW, we have to recognize that Bush's TARP goes on Obama's bill wrt graphs, at it was of roughly equivalent size to the stimulus plan. Enacted at the very end of his presidency, mostly spent out while Obama was president.

Besides, if we're looking for good signs, I like what I see in your deficit chart for Obama. A spike because of exigency, trending lower once the worst is past. That's exactly what I would want from a crisis response. Look at WWII, with a much longer crisis. Same graph shape. Of course, that doesn't fit with Chicken Little "Oh noes! Socialist end of the world" hysteria, but since that's mostly propaganda we can ignore it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

I'm aware of the difference between deficit and debt, but I like debt better because it paints a better picture of the Democratic party, whose dick I am ceaselessly sucking.

---

Fixed that up for ya...I'm sure you'd hate to be accused of dishonesty, so I pitched in to help ya out a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

Besides, if we're looking for good signs, I like what I see in your deficit chart for Obama. A spike because of exigency, trending lower once the worst is past.

---

OK, what particular "exigency" are you refering to - the years old weak economy, or the even older wars/terrorist attack?

And also, through what future-divining magiks/delusion inducing drugs do you see the deficit graph trending lower?

If anything, it's going to trend up in a nearly vertical fashion once the "free" health-care for all program starts... in 2012 (?). Oh, we've locked ourselves into quite the huge deficit by electing the well-spoken negroid from Hawaii, unless we undo all his legislation to get us to where we started. Hurray!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

Most people agree spending cuts are necessary. Where do you want to cut spending Loki?

---

Yeah :up:

Also, the input of monies needs to be re-evaluated, not just cutting spending. ie, check the royalties they should be paying to MMS (but the agency has all its legs and arms tangled together) and tax shelters or loopholes they use to avoid paying their share.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

Most people agree spending cuts are necessary. Where do you want to cut spending Loki?

---

Across the board. The 2011 proposed budget increases spending by 10% over the previous one. The 2010 budget increased discretionary spending by 13%. The 2009 one increased it by 5%. There's absolutely no need for such ridiculous increases.

Just a little update: Scientists discovered massive oil carpets underwater. Obviously, just burning the stuff is not the answer anymore (if it ever was).

http://www.mymotherlode.com/news/nat...of-Mexico.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Across the board.

---

I go for that. I'd also include across the board tax increases every year we run a deficit.

If the chemical dispersants are consuming the oxygen....isn't there something they can do about that? :noob:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

If the chemical dispersants are consuming the oxygen....isn't there something they can do about that? :noob:

---

Not with plumes of that size at that depth, no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Just a little update: Scientists discovered massive oil carpets underwater. Obviously, just burning the stuff is not the answer anymore (if it ever was).

http://www.mymotherlode.com/news/nat...of-Mexico.html

---

Finally putting some of those nukes to good use is looking like a better and better idea... I just hope they warn us ahead of time so I can arrange to get pictures!

OOO... underwater nuclear blast in 1080p.... <droooool>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Finally putting some of those nukes to good use is looking like a better and better idea... I just hope they warn us ahead of time so I can arrange to get pictures!

OOO... underwater nuclear blast in 1080p.... <droooool>

---

Yeah, right. And what exactly is a nuke supposed to accomplish when faced with an underwater oil plume of 2 by 16 Kilometers?

I'm under the impression that thousands of degrees of heat will effectively deal with the oil plume. Or, at the very least, reduce its concentration by a substantial margin. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

I'm under the impression that thousands of degrees of heat will effectively deal with the oil plume. Or, at the very least, reduce its concentration by a substantial margin. :p

---

A nuclear bomb's heat wave is deadly only in an area of single-digit kilometers - this radius will be substantially less underwater. Thus you'd need several bombs to get rid of one single plume.

I'd say that's driving out the devil with Beelzebub.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

A nuclear bomb's heat wave is deadly only in an area of single-digit kilometers - this radius will be substantially less underwater. Thus you'd need several bombs to get rid of one single plume.

---

Well, we've got over 10,000 warheads. I'm sure we can spare a few. Plus, multiple simultaneous nuclear detonations? Seriously, do we really need an excuse to try something that cool? (Not like we could really make it so much worse anyway.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

And now we're finding out that our regulatory agency, MMS, allowed wells without permits and this was one of them. They also overruled their staff biologists and engineers who raised concerns about the safety and the environmental impact of certain drilling proposals in the gulf. Why are we paying for staff to do in depth analysis?

U.S. Said to Allow Drilling Without Needed Permits

---

In case you're curious, the financial "reform" bill is lousy with vague regulatory mandates that are inviting targets for this kind of crony capitalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

crony capitalism.

---

Isn't that, uh

Redundant

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...Goldblum-6.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

If the chemical dispersants are consuming the oxygen....isn't there something they can do about that? :noob:

---

The dispersants arn't consuming the oxygen. It's the microorganisms that are actually consuming the oil that are using up the oxygen. Plus if there's a sheen of oil on the surface it impedes oxygen from getting into the water.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Finally putting some of those nukes to good use is looking like a better and better idea... I just hope they warn us ahead of time so I can arrange to get pictures!

OOO... underwater nuclear blast in 1080p.... <droooool>

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Yeah, right. And what exactly is a nuke supposed to accomplish when faced with an underwater oil plume of 2 by 16 Kilometers?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

I'm under the impression that thousands of degrees of heat will effectively deal with the oil plume. Or, at the very least, reduce its concentration by a substantial margin. :p

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

A nuclear bomb's heat wave is deadly only in an area of single-digit kilometers - this radius will be substantially less underwater. Thus you'd need several bombs to get rid of one single plume.

I'd say that's driving out the devil with Beelzebub.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Well, we've got over 10,000 warheads. I'm sure we can spare a few. Plus, multiple simultaneous nuclear detonations? Seriously, do we really need an excuse to try something that cool? (Not like we could really make it so much worse anyway.)

---

:| What an odd exhcange. It almost seems as though Ken is taking CC at face value in this.

Tar balls are washing ashore in Key West. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Tar balls are washing ashore in Key West. :(

---

I still can't believe the scope of this thing. I'd have never thought there could be a blow out like this with no way to stop it.

Found this cute little book while shelving today:
http://www.glennbeck.com/images/news...92908newt2.jpg

Even comes with a free bumper sticker (of the book cover) and a cut out membership card (American Solutions Coalition for More American Energy Now) so the book owners can feel entitled and special. :up:

Gingrich's first bullet point for "solving our energy crisis":
Change federal law to reduce restrictions on offshore drilling operations.

Whoops

OG - Do you think it should be banned altogether, that it can never be done with acceptable risk? Or do you think its an issue of making sure its done properly without cutting corners? Like in this case it seems as though there's a combination of shoddy work and corner cutting that led to the disaster. And that was enabled by an inept regulatory agency. Of course if off shore drilling was banned altogether it wouldn't have happened....

I say we ban cars to prevent 50,000 people from dying each year in the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

OG - Do you think it should be banned altogether, that it can never be done with acceptable risk? Or do you think its an issue of making sure its done properly without cutting corners? Like in this case it seems as though there's a combination of shoddy work and corner cutting that led to the disaster. And that was enabled by an inept regulatory agency. Of course if off shore drilling was banned altogether it wouldn't have happened....

---

I think everything comes with risks, so we can't just sit here with our thumbs up our ass.
But I think certain companies are unable or unwilling to do a proper job. BP is a horrible company when it comes to safety and ethical violations. A few months ago they were fined $87 million for not fixing safety violations that resulted in the deaths of 15 people in their last explosion in 2005, 270 violations that were already cited from a previous inspection and 470 new violations.
4 years to show the government they knew how not to blow people up, and they not only did nothing, they got worse.

They do not need to be sticking their dick in our Gulf. Drilling deeper than they claim, and lying about the spill rate.

Maybe the government can stop playing its thumbs and actually enforce existing regulations. :bored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I say we ban cars to prevent 50,000 people from dying each year in the US.

---

Do you equate this accident with a routine traffic accident on a US highway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

Do you equate this accident with a routine traffic accident on a US highway?

---

Are you equating this oil spill with the deaths of 50,000 people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Are you equating this oil spill with the deaths of 50,000 people?

---

Because of the oil spill 50,000 people will soon go without shrimp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Are you equating this oil spill with the deaths of 50,000 people?

---

Um, no. That's what you just did, isn't it? :huh: Why are you mixing all these apples and oranges?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

Um, no. That's what you just did, isn't it? :huh: Why are you mixing all these apples and oranges?

---

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...sisyourgod.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

Um, no. That's what you just did, isn't it? :huh: Why are you mixing all these apples and oranges?

---

:bored: Are you going to keep dodging the issue? If we banned cars, we'd save 50k lives a year. Why aren't you for such a ban?

With Cain posting again, Loki's trolling doesn't seem to hold the same punch it used to have.

Can you go back to teaching your library visitors how to play video games?

Thats on Wednesdays, 4-5pm. Also on Mondays, same time, starting June 20th. :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

With Cain posting again, Loki's trolling doesn't seem to hold the same punch it used to have.

---

They make a cute tag team, though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

:bored: Are you going to keep dodging the issue? If we banned cars, we'd save 50k lives a year. Why aren't you for such a ban?

---

Because I work in the industry and I don't care if 50k people a year die in car accidents. It's their own damn fault for not wearing seat belts and driving sober. So fuck you.

And what does this have to do with off shore drilling and whether the practice can be safe enough with proper regulation?

Because in Loki's mind, a regulation is a complete and utter ban of something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Because in Loki's mind, a regulation is a complete and utter ban of something.

---

Yeah, he's got something he wants to argue about, but it's not quite related to the thread here. . . .