4 ms·

I think he was talking more about the gold-hawking, "hyperinflation is coming" types -- the ones who were flat out, obviously wrong, in that their predictions f

I think he was talking more about the gold-hawking, "hyperinflation is coming" types -- the ones who were flat out, obviously wrong, in that their predictions from 2008-2012ish were 100% the opposite of what actually unfolded. Nobody cares that they were wrong because they're not trying to get it right. They're propagandists. You never heard a peep from them during Bush, then the sky was imminently going to fall as soon as Obama was elected. Now they're quiet again. If they were actually deficit hawks, they'd have loved Bill Clinton and Obama, and hated Bush and Trump. I was talking more about Brooking Institute types who are supposed to be trying to get it right.

IncRnd 8y ago
> If they were actually deficit hawks, they'd have loved Bill Clinton and Obama, and hated Bush and Trump. You have a subtle bias there. Both Bush and Obama essentially doubled the _debt_.
- cromwellian 8y ago
  Technically, the debt was caused by government revenues dropping through the floor and automatic stabilizers kicking in in 2008-2009 (e.g. Bush's final 2008 FY budget had a $1 trillion hole). Obama did not appreciably change the structural fiscal situation, he maintained the status quo (making Bush tax cuts permanent, mostly continuing global war on terror). The real damage was caused by a) Bush tax cuts b) Medicare Part D (unpaid for, $100b per year) c) 2 unfunded wars. Still, Obama ended office with a 40 year low average budget deficit per GDP. I don't really see this as bias, but as fact telling. The Tea Party was intensely 'interested' in budget deficits during Obama's reign, despite the fact that he mostly governed as a center-right, he made permanent Bush's tax cuts, had a stimulus package that was almost half business tax cuts, and accepted austerity (sequester). By contrast, Bush massively increased government spending and liabilities, which mean when the bottom dropped out of the economy in 2008, the debt was going to increase tremendously. Where was the Tea Party in 2000-2008? Somehow they were unable to see $1.1 trillion being flushed down the toilet in Afghanistan and Iraq, and didn't seem to care about the Pentagon not even being able to account for hundreds of billions of 'misplaced' dollars lost in their balance sheet. This makes the principled 'fiscal conservatism' of Republicans look feigned and disingenuous, and merely used as a scare tactic to rally around when they are in opposition in order to attack government. Magically, deficit concerns disappear once they get into power, like the $1+ trillion deficit they just created with their latest tax cut package.
- yourbandsucks 8y ago
  It's not biased at all. Debt is a trailing indicator. Deficit is the rate at which you create/paydown debt. If you want to change the debt level, you change the deficit and then apply time. $X/year * Y years = (X*Y) difference in debt. It's literally the only way to do so. Is that honestly controversial or hard to understand? We're talking 8th grade algebra here.. you don't even need to generalize it into calculus.

IncRnd 8y ago

> If they were actually deficit hawks, they'd have loved Bill Clinton and Obama, and hated Bush and Trump. You have a subtle bias there. Both Bush and Obama essentially doubled the _debt_.

cromwellian 8y ago
Technically, the debt was caused by government revenues dropping through the floor and automatic stabilizers kicking in in 2008-2009 (e.g. Bush's final 2008 FY budget had a $1 trillion hole). Obama did not appreciably change the structural fiscal situation, he maintained the status quo (making Bush tax cuts permanent, mostly continuing global war on terror). The real damage was caused by a) Bush tax cuts b) Medicare Part D (unpaid for, $100b per year) c) 2 unfunded wars. Still, Obama ended office with a 40 year low average budget deficit per GDP. I don't really see this as bias, but as fact telling. The Tea Party was intensely 'interested' in budget deficits during Obama's reign, despite the fact that he mostly governed as a center-right, he made permanent Bush's tax cuts, had a stimulus package that was almost half business tax cuts, and accepted austerity (sequester). By contrast, Bush massively increased government spending and liabilities, which mean when the bottom dropped out of the economy in 2008, the debt was going to increase tremendously. Where was the Tea Party in 2000-2008? Somehow they were unable to see $1.1 trillion being flushed down the toilet in Afghanistan and Iraq, and didn't seem to care about the Pentagon not even being able to account for hundreds of billions of 'misplaced' dollars lost in their balance sheet. This makes the principled 'fiscal conservatism' of Republicans look feigned and disingenuous, and merely used as a scare tactic to rally around when they are in opposition in order to attack government. Magically, deficit concerns disappear once they get into power, like the $1+ trillion deficit they just created with their latest tax cut package.
yourbandsucks 8y ago
It's not biased at all. Debt is a trailing indicator. Deficit is the rate at which you create/paydown debt. If you want to change the debt level, you change the deficit and then apply time. $X/year * Y years = (X*Y) difference in debt. It's literally the only way to do so. Is that honestly controversial or hard to understand? We're talking 8th grade algebra here.. you don't even need to generalize it into calculus.