Michael Flynn is totally nuts.

hoot1

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
15,808
2,412
113
The Clinton surpluses constitute proof of the success of Keynesian economics. It was the right time for higher revenues and lower spending because it was precisely the time when the economy didn't need any stimulus from the government.
Goat, a conservative economist Bruce Bartlett agrees with you,.

Yes, a conservative economist agrees with you Goat. Claims Keynes was actually a conservative and completely misunderstood by supply siders. Also a big fan of VAT taxation.

 
Last edited:

DANC

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2001
12,516
16,905
113
The balanced budget was a result of declining defense spending and robust tax revenues from a booming economy. Welfare reform was practically irrelevant to the big picture. Even your own link makes that clear.
My link notes the decline in domestic spending Even you should have been able to figure out what domestic spending is.
 

DANC

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2001
12,516
16,905
113
DANC, appreciate your providing a link to back up your opinions.

The link didn't mention cuts in welfare spending. Instead it talked about military spending cuts. It states as follows..

With many hundreds of thousands of jobs lost in the Department of Defense (military and civilian) in the defense-related industries, we had a boom.

i highlighted the "we had a boom" portion of the link to offer further proof that we had a good economy in spite of raising taxes.

Having said that, I considers booms in the economy often to be a matter of luck and not necessarily the policies of any given president.
One of the pillars was the decline in domestic spending, of which Welfare spending is a part.

How much did the defense budget decline?
 

DANC

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2001
12,516
16,905
113
"Just barely" was a key component of that. It was effectively flat, especially compared to defense spending, which actually went down in nominal terms, and as compared to GDP, went down dramatically.
Which is impressive, considering how it was growing before the Congress cut the rate of growth.

Defense spending went down a whole $5 billion. Hardly enough to balance the budget.
 

hoot1

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
15,808
2,412
113
One of the pillars was the decline in domestic spending, of which Welfare spending is a part.

How much did the defense budget decline?
Welfare reform turned the problem over to the states.

DANC, do not know about your state but here in Indiana Medicare spending (welfare) is second on the list of spending only behind education with much of the Medicare spending going to private nursing homes.
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
57,885
31,077
113
Margaritaville

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
57,885
31,077
113
Margaritaville
You really need to look at rates of growth.
What does that even mean? Welfare spending grew while defense spending did not, but you are somehow trying to credit welfare reform with balancing the budget!

The budget was balanced because of increased tax revenues and slowdowns in spending, primarily in defense.
 

hoot1

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
15,808
2,412
113
What does that even mean? Welfare spending grew while defense spending did not, but you are somehow trying to credit welfare reform with balancing the budget!

The budget was balanced because of increased tax revenues and slowdowns in spending, primarily in defense.
Defense spending wasn't a big deal under Clinton even among hardliners thanks to the end of the Cold War.

The terrorist threat after 9/11 changed all that, Now with the China threat the military industrial complex is back in business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark

Stuffshot

All-American
Feb 20, 2008
8,982
4,009
113
Did you vote for Bush? Because Trump was indisputably more Conservative than Bush.

Granted you have that holier than though arrogance that a lot of the Bush Neo-Cons have (had). To you, being a Republican is more about your demeanor and not offending sensibilities than what the administration actually accomplishes.
Did Trump accomplish repeal and replacement of the ACA? No.

Did Trump accomplish improvement of the health care system? No

Did Trump accomplish construction of a border wall? No

Did Trump accomplish rebuilding of the infrastructure?

Did Trump accomplish strengthening of America's foreign relations?

Did Trump accomplish a sweeping tax cut and revamping of the federal income tax system? No (just some tax cuts until tax increases kick in in 2021, 2023, 2025 and 2027)

Did Trump accomplish simplification of the federal income tax returns? No

Did Trump accomplish control of the national debt? No

Did Trump accomplish mobilization of the populace to combat Covid? No

Did Trump accomplish making money for his hotels and resorts by requiring government activities there ? Yes

Did Trump accomplish making money for his children and in-laws by appointing and hiring them? Yes

But you say you consider what "the administration actually accomplishes."

So do we all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: outside shooter

Crayfish57

Junior
Sep 18, 2013
1,331
1,408
113
Did Trump accomplish repeal and replacement of the ACA? No.

Did Trump accomplish improvement of the health care system? No

Did Trump accomplish construction of a border wall? No

Did Trump accomplish rebuilding of the infrastructure?

Did Trump accomplish strengthening of America's foreign relations?

Did Trump accomplish a sweeping tax cut and revamping of the federal income tax system? No (just some tax cuts until tax increases kick in in 2021, 2023, 2025 and 2027)

Did Trump accomplish simplification of the federal income tax returns? No

Did Trump accomplish control of the national debt? No

Did Trump accomplish mobilization of the populace to combat Covid? No

Did Trump accomplish making money for his hotels and resorts by requiring government activities there ? Yes

Did Trump accomplish making money for his children and in-laws by appointing and hiring them? Yes

But you say you consider what "the administration actually accomplishes."

So do we all.
HAS BIDEN ACCOMPLISHED ANYTHING? NO

WILL BIDEN EVER ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING? NO
 

Spartans9312

All-Big Ten
Nov 11, 2004
3,137
2,280
113
Progressives that I know hold up the Netherlands and modern Germany as a benchmark for their ideal. Market based economies but with a strong welfare system including a universal healthcare system (actually the majority of advanced governments have some kind of universal healthcare system).

It's not communist China and no, that doesn't scare me if the progressives took over the country compared to the extreme right.

Probably because I'm a lefty but again, I don't see the extreme right based on policy. It's based on grievance.

They hate the left but they won't write down thier policy mission.

The RNC last year didn't even put out a policy position for the first time in it's history which should be a giant red flag IMO.

The Democratic Socialists (Sanders, AOC, etc..) base their "style" on the Swedish model or Nordic style.
Gunnar & Alva Myrdal, the grandfather & grandmother of the high tax welfare state, understood that without eugenics (to minimize overuse=getting rid of the "unfit") you cannot have a Nordic style high tax welfare state. It's that simple and brutal. Abhorrent
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crayfish57

Crayfish57

Junior
Sep 18, 2013
1,331
1,408
113

The Democratic Socialists (Sanders, AOC, etc..) base their "style" on the Swedish model or Nordic style.
Gunnar & Alva Myrdal, the grandfather & grandmother of the high tax welfare state, understood that without eugenics (to minimize overuse=getting rid of the "unfit") you cannot have a Nordic style high tax welfare state. It's that simple and brutal. Abhorrent
These idiots just see what they want to see and then call it racism. Japan is very strict to no immigration, Nordic countries, just curious are people coming across their borders from Mexico,Guatemala, etc ? You can't have it both ways. You can't expect to let everyone in from everywhere and then be able to compare especially healthcare to countries that don't. So are these countries doing good or are they in fact racist for not having immigrants from everywhere and also the money the governments get from oil isn't factored in either. Said it it in another thread this morning already, liberals as a group are the dumbest people on earth. They see what they want to see and don't understand anything they don't want to understand and think they are superior to everyone else.
 

Crayfish57

Junior
Sep 18, 2013
1,331
1,408
113
Perfect response !! Thank you !!

You came up with just as many Trump accomplishments as I did.
You didnt do anything , like the idiot you voted for, another piece of liberal trash . Do you actually do anything in life or is bitching your profession?
 

Stuffshot

All-American
Feb 20, 2008
8,982
4,009
113
You didnt do anything , like the idiot you voted for, another piece of liberal trash . Do you actually do anything in life or is bitching your profession?
Of course I did -- I proved my point (which you conceded) and it got under your skin in a big way. Now you're obsessed with it. Have a good day.
 

Spartans9312

All-Big Ten
Nov 11, 2004
3,137
2,280
113
These idiots just see what they want to see and then call it racism. Japan is very strict to no immigration, Nordic countries, just curious are people coming across their borders from Mexico,Guatemala, etc ? You can't have it both ways. You can't expect to let everyone in from everywhere and then be able to compare especially healthcare to countries that don't. So are these countries doing good or are they in fact racist for not having immigrants from everywhere and also the money the governments get from oil isn't factored in either. Said it it in another thread this morning already, liberals as a group are the dumbest people on earth. They see what they want to see and don't understand anything they don't want to understand and think they are superior to everyone else.
Do you know one of the reasons the Swedish high tax welfare state lasted for so long? Harsh Lutheran morals shunning single motherhood and the unemployed. Welfare office always situated in the city square. Add to that a 40 year eugenics program 1934-1974.
"The plan for the 'new family' has little to do with caring for people. Myrdal's believed in a being whose interests were above that of the individual. This creature was a cross between the ethno-nationalist and communist collective organisms: the 'Volk' and 'society', respectively. Consequently, the couple's declared motive was two fold: to improve the human stock and abolish the economic class differences."
"But basically behind the fear of the death of the Swedish peoples lay: 'The great political question about the organization of society's production results among the citizens now no longer applies only to the question of how our people should live, but to the far more fateful question of our people must live at all. This is the deeper meaning of the population policy view of social policy'."
"Was Sweden so poor that the entire population was dying? No, the talk of life and death reveals the myth of the collective organism. The death the couple feared is the same as Swedendemocrats [populist party] fears: the organism's demographic and cultural death."
 

hoot1

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
15,808
2,412
113

The Democratic Socialists (Sanders, AOC, etc..) base their "style" on the Swedish model or Nordic style.
Gunnar & Alva Myrdal, the grandfather & grandmother of the high tax welfare state, understood that without eugenics (to minimize overuse=getting rid of the "unfit") you cannot have a Nordic style high tax welfare state. It's that simple and brutal. Abhorrent
According to this article Sweden is ranked number 19 as a capitalist country. So it is possible to have a welfare state alongside private ownership.
 

DrHoops

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Sep 7, 2001
19,796
5,645
113
So, lock/goose step compliance is better than disagreement within a political party? I guess that's a lesson the GOP is learning the hard way (see Liz Cheney.

The GOP is in huge brain drain mode as college educated voters are leaving the Republican Party in droves.

microsoftteams-image_8.png


The numbers have completely flipped since 2000.
 

BradStevens

Benchwarmer
Silver Member
Mar 16, 2021
393
511
93

The Democratic Socialists (Sanders, AOC, etc..) base their "style" on the Swedish model or Nordic style.
Gunnar & Alva Myrdal, the grandfather & grandmother of the high tax welfare state, understood that without eugenics (to minimize overuse=getting rid of the "unfit") you cannot have a Nordic style high tax welfare state. It's that simple and brutal. Abhorrent
That's a fascinating article. Thanks for posting.

They also don't have much of a defense budget, do they? If we didn't have to be the world's policeman (I'm not suggesting we should abandon that role since I'm not sure any other nation can or would do it), imagine what we could do domestically.
 

Spartans9312

All-Big Ten
Nov 11, 2004
3,137
2,280
113
According to this article Sweden is ranked number 19 as a capitalist country. So it is possible to have a welfare state alongside private ownership.
Myrdal's book led to a vast sterilization program. "The task of prophylactic social policy is to develop better human material. "Ideally, on that path [sterilization], you want to eradicate all kinds of physical and mental inferiority in the population."
 

DrHoops

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Sep 7, 2001
19,796
5,645
113
All of it. Starting the moment they began using Covid to change voting rules last spring. Emails, draft regs, absentee and mail ballot applications, instructions re signature verification, the one sided batch tabulations, the mail ballots without mail creases, the voting machine chain of custody records, the ballot chain of custody records, the same day registration records and on and on.

Chris Krebs, a lifelong Republican who was hand picked by Donald J. Trump as head of election security said 2020 has been the most secure election in US History.

 

DANC

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2001
12,516
16,905
113
What does that even mean? Welfare spending grew while defense spending did not, but you are somehow trying to credit welfare reform with balancing the budget!

The budget was balanced because of increased tax revenues and slowdowns in spending, primarily in defense.
It means if the rate of growth is slowed and tax revenue increases, it lowers the deficit.

It's simple math.

Domestic spending took up a higher percentage of GDP than the Defense budget did. Getting a handle on domestic spending - of which welfare is a big component - was the main driving force behind balancing the budget.
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
57,885
31,077
113
Margaritaville
It means if the rate of growth is slowed and tax revenue increases, it lowers the deficit.

It's simple math.

Domestic spending took up a higher percentage of GDP than the Defense budget did. Getting a handle on domestic spending - of which welfare is a big component - was the main driving force behind balancing the budget.
According to your own link, defense spending dropped 1.8% of GDP, accounting for a full 2/3 of the overall decrease budget-wide. Domestic spending dropped 0.1%.
 

hoot1

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
15,808
2,412
113
According to your own link, defense spending dropped 1.8% of GDP, accounting for a full 2/3 of the overall decrease budget-wide. Domestic spending dropped 0.1%.
TANF (welfare reform) replaced the federal ADFC program in 1966 and gave the states the authority to set the rules. Along with the authority went block grants from the federal government, so the savings in the federal budget was somewhat limited as Goat points out.
 

DANC

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2001
12,516
16,905
113
According to your own link, defense spending dropped 1.8% of GDP, accounting for a full 2/3 of the overall decrease budget-wide. Domestic spending dropped 0.1%.
And, as I said but you didn't understand, you have to look at the rate of growth before Gingrich was Speaker.

I'm done with this discussion. I can't discuss with anyone who doesn't understand how the rate of growth in domestic programs is the main driver of the budget deficit.
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
57,885
31,077
113
Margaritaville
And, as I said but you didn't understand, you have to look at the rate of growth before Gingrich was Speaker.

I'm done with this discussion. I can't discuss with anyone who doesn't understand how the rate of growth in domestic programs is the main driver of the budget deficit.
I already demonstrated that welfare spending grew significantly from 1990-1993, which were the years you were discussing. Come back with something specific we can discuss, instead of just dismissing what I've said.
 

DANC

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2001
12,516
16,905
113
TANF (welfare reform) replaced the federal ADFC program in 1966 and gave the states the authority to set the rules. Along with the authority went block grants from the federal government, so the savings in the federal budget was somewhat limited as Goat points out.
TANF was created in 1997.
 

DANC

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2001
12,516
16,905
113
I already demonstrated that welfare spending grew significantly from 1990-1993, which were the years you were discussing. Come back with something specific we can discuss, instead of just dismissing what I've said.
Gringrich didn't become Speaker until 1992. The 1993 budget was determined prior to his Speakership.

Is that specific enough for you?

I already provided the specifics you are arguing about. You just refuse to understand where the majority of growth and spending is in the US budget.
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
57,885
31,077
113
Margaritaville
Gringrich didn't become Speaker until 1992. The 1993 budget was determined prior to his Speakership.

Is that specific enough for you?

I already provided the specifics you are arguing about. You just refuse to understand where the majority of growth and spending is in the US budget.
Then why were you using 1990-1993 in your post? I was just going with your years.

I'm not going to do your research for you. I'm been offering specific responses to what you actually posted. If you intended to post something else, do that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cosmickid

cosmickid

All-American
Oct 23, 2009
9,246
4,824
113
Do you know one of the reasons the Swedish high tax welfare state lasted for so long? Harsh Lutheran morals shunning single motherhood and the unemployed. Welfare office always situated in the city square. Add to that a 40 year eugenics program 1934-1974.
"The plan for the 'new family' has little to do with caring for people. Myrdal's believed in a being whose interests were above that of the individual. This creature was a cross between the ethno-nationalist and communist collective organisms: the 'Volk' and 'society', respectively. Consequently, the couple's declared motive was two fold: to improve the human stock and abolish the economic class differences."
"But basically behind the fear of the death of the Swedish peoples lay: 'The great political question about the organization of society's production results among the citizens now no longer applies only to the question of how our people should live, but to the far more fateful question of our people must live at all. This is the deeper meaning of the population policy view of social policy'."
"Was Sweden so poor that the entire population was dying? No, the talk of life and death reveals the myth of the collective organism. The death the couple feared is the same as Swedendemocrats [populist party] fears: the organism's demographic and cultural death."
I think you're a little too hung up on Sweden when claiming they are the model for people like AOC and Bernie. I think Bernie has actually expressed his preference for the Danish model, but in reality, I think he'd say he favors incorporating all of the good elements of the various Nordic (Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, and Finns) countries as well as other bastions of increased social welfare like Netherlands and Belgium in Europe, and even countries like Canada, Australia, and NZ...

Sweden has a "leftist" Govt, but they were also the laxest country in the Nordic region (if not Europe as a whole) when it came to Covid policy. And many people feel they made a mistake because there were no observable benefits to their policy when compared to results over neighbors like Norway and Denmark. Just more deaths in Sweden...
 

cosmickid

All-American
Oct 23, 2009
9,246
4,824
113
Then why were you using 1990-1993 in your post? I was just going with your years.

I'm not going to do your research for you. I'm been offering specific responses to what you actually posted. If you intended to post something else, do that.
I'm guessing you're speaking with someone who doesn't even know that The Gingrich Revolution included a guy like Joe Scarborough...
 

Spartans9312

All-Big Ten
Nov 11, 2004
3,137
2,280
113
I think you're a little too hung up on Sweden when claiming they are the model for people like AOC and Bernie. I think Bernie has actually expressed his preference for the Danish model, but in reality, I think he'd say he favors incorporating all of the good elements of the various Nordic (Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, and Finns) countries as well as other bastions of increased social welfare like Netherlands and Belgium in Europe, and even countries like Canada, Australia, and NZ...

Sweden has a "leftist" Govt, but they were also the laxest country in the Nordic region (if not Europe as a whole) when it came to Covid policy. And many people feel they made a mistake because there were no observable benefits to their policy when compared to results over neighbors like Norway and Denmark. Just more deaths in Sweden...
That's what the Democratic Socialists/Progressives don't understand. You can't have a large high tax welfare state without strict government control of overuse. Harsh social controls can't work in a multicultural society that doesn't have shared moral values. Why Sweden's now crashing
 
  • Like
Reactions: INRanger27

DANC

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2001
12,516
16,905
113
Then why were you using 1990-1993 in your post? I was just going with your years.

I'm not going to do your research for you. I'm been offering specific responses to what you actually posted. If you intended to post something else, do that.
Where did I mention 1990-1993? My discussion was around Gingrich and his balancing the budget. He wasn't Speaker until 1992.