A simulation from the Center for a Responsible Federal Budget.
If you are wont to believe in unicorns and incredibly large supply side responses to tax cuts, don’t try this.
More, see CBO.
A simulation from the Center for a Responsible Federal Budget.
If you are wont to believe in unicorns and incredibly large supply side responses to tax cuts, don’t try this.
More, see CBO.
If those tax provisions were extended, revenues would be lower than they are in CBO’s baseline projections, and larger reductions in spending would be needed to balance the budget.
Remember when Reagan complained about spend&spend and tax&tax. He changed that to spend&spend and borrow&borrow.
The MAGA Republicans are worse. But they have pulled out the Paul Ryan magic wand – balance the budget by fantasy simulations.
Seemed pretty easy to me – first cut defense spending – especially for surface ships – that can be taken out by a few “cheap” missiles – cut farm subsidies – why pay farmers to ship soybeans – livestock feed – and alfalfa hay to other countries (USDA mission is to ensure domestic food/feed security) and then the areas where we can really make a difference but the GOP gets fainting spells when you talk about it – increase corporate taxes to commonsense levels and increase taxes on the wealthy. This will help with our inequality problem and we can increase education and healthcare benefits and Social Security for everyone. Problem solved.
By the way – the ultra wealthy are afraid they might lose a few pennies and I am sure the GOP will praise/go along with this harmful dingbat. https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/elon-musk-says-bidens-desire-to-tax-the-ultra-rich-would-upset-a-lot-of-donors/ar-AA1cLC8u
James, there’s liberal crazy and then you to go beyond even those bounds: ” cut farm subsidies – why pay farmers to ship soybeans – livestock feed – and alfalfa hay to other countries (USDA mission is to ensure domestic food/feed security)”. If it was easy to predict farming production impacts, they you’d prefer seeing those outside our country starve? Or if the easy farming production predictions failed those in our own country starve.
You’d also prefer to see fewer farms/farmers to fulfill our and only our needs until there were way too few? What kind of ignorant mind is the liberal?
The ignorant liberal mind is an amazement. Remember they are as good at predicting the year’s weather as they are predicting climate.
CoRev defends farm price supports that most conservative economists would tell us is bad policy? The retarded faux conservative mind of CoRev is hilarious!
The fool believe he’s against socialism. But he has no problem with guarantees to growers—including many large corporations—whether subsidies are needed or not.
Congressman Doug La Malta, CA 1, has pocketed well over $5 Million cash from the government for simply being a rice grower. That while serving in CA legislature and Congress with six figure salaries and decent benefits for himself and his family. And, the government also covers a large portion of his crop insurance premium.
As a self proclaimed “real deal conservative” he also has no problem reducing SNAP benefits. He doesn’t mind the government subsidizing those who grow rice , but he’s all in on cutting subsidies to those with limited incomes who eat it.
Yes, he has much in common with the fool.
Ole Bark, bark & Noneconomist, You’d also prefer to see fewer farms/farmers to fulfill our and only our needs until there were way too few? What kind of ignorant mind is the liberal?
Preferring SNAP subsidies for food over farm subsidies for the FOOD producers is the most foolish of foolish policies. A sign down in my area of the country says: “THANK A FARMER THREE TIMES A DAY”.
The clueless foolish liberal mind is an amazement
If he could read—and if wasn’t quick to mouth slogans— the fool would have a clue as to the actual recipients of large amounts of the near $460 Billion handed out since 1995.: large, wealthy farmers and corporations, not smaller or the stereotypical family farms who, according to the Environmental Working Group, have collected less than 10% of those payments.
Being happily clueless, he also is unaware of the large amounts going to commodities like corn, soybeans, and cotton with most of those crops not used for food. (Note: the fool once considered himself this site’s resident soybean expert, exposing himself to much well deserved correction and derision)
Also of note: growers are eligible for subsidies no matter what, if they have a profitable year, they’re still eligible for federal cash. And, like Rep. LaMalfa, they may also earn six figure salaries at the same time while cash still flows and their crop insurance premiums are covered.
But the fool believes he’s a staunch foe of socialism. That’s why he saw no problem when subsidy payments tripled under Donald Trump to compensate for Trump’s I’ll conceived tariffs.
Fools are happily ignorant. This site’s resident fool continually proves no different.
“The guns-and-butter curve is the classic economic example of the production possibility curve, which demonstrates the idea of opportunity cost. In a theoretical economy with only two goods, a choice must be made between how much of each good to produce. As an economy produces more guns (military spending) it must reduce its production of butter (food), and vice versa.”
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gunsandbutter.asp
Unfortunately guns vs. butter has been outside the Overton Window for decades, as evidenced by Dick Cheney’s noting that “deficits don’t matter” followed by Congress’ decision to go to war in Iraq while cutting taxes. Now some seem to have come to the conclusion that deficits actually do matter and funding tradeoffs need to be made.
Here’s one tradeoff worth considering–Congress appropriated over $100 billion for Ukraine in 2022 alone. Meanwhile homelessness could be ended for $20 billion. And Bernie estimated that free tuition would amount to $75 billion.
Isn’t a serious discussion of guns vs. butter long overdue, particularly on a macroeconomics and public policy blog?
https://www.globalgiving.org/learn/how-much-would-it-cost-to-end-homelessness-in-america/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64656301
“\’Unfortunately guns vs. butter has been outside the Overton Window for decades, as evidenced by Dick Cheney’s noting that “deficits don’t matter'”
Why do you insist on saying such stupid and asinine things. Cheney was a political hack that no economist ever agreed with. Guns and butter was how economists described this tradeoff during Vietnam, during the Reagan fiscal fiasco, and the Bush43 redux of the late 1960’s. But little Jonny boy has to declare that economists do not consider such things because little Jonny is a complete jacka$$.
Little Jonny boy thinks he alone has figured out “guns and butter” but the adults here know this term was used in the 1960’s during the LBJ era of fighting Vietnam plus implementing the Great Society programs. And Greg Mankiw used this term in his 1st Macroeconomic text to blast Reagan’s fiscal policy that increased defense spending as he cut taxes for the rich.
I did not know that this term was first coined as a critique of the 1916 National Defense Act. But here is a neat paper that our little Jonny boy never read:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23016277
The Party Politics of “Guns versus Butter” in Post-Vietnam America
JUNGKUN SEO
Journal of American Studies
Vol. 45, No. 2 (May 2011), pp. 317-336 (20 pages)
Published By: Cambridge University Press
Yea little Jonny thinks he knows things but in truth he is most clueless troll ever created.
“homelessness could be ended for $20 billion.”
Ms. Adler wrote that over 3 years ago. What’s the matter Jonny boy – still not reading past the headlines. Or do you not get that immigration has increased so there is a lot more homelessness in NYC today than back then. And yea we New Yorkers will take care of our neighbors even if it costs more than $20 billion a year.
But little Jonny boy wants to play this on the cheap. Faux progressive.
That $20 billion amou ts to roughly 2% of a single year’s private residential fixed investment. Seems low to me. And it ignores the infrastructure investment needed to support the housing investment.
It’s a shame Johnny can’t treat a serious problem seriously. It’s shame he’s just using the homeless as a prop in his support for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Let’s take the 2 key paragraphs from Jonny’s link (neither of which he read or understood):
‘Popular alternative solutions to end homelessness, such as permanent supportive housing, focus on helping people access permanent housing and coordinated services like mental health treatment and financial assistance. Permanent supportive housing costs $12,800 per person per year on average. But more on the solutions to end homelessness later.
How many people are experiencing homelessness in America?
At least 580,000 people experienced homelessness on a given day in January 2020. And for the fourth year in a row, America’s homeless population grew. The 2% increase in 2020 was actually less than the 3% uptick reported between 2018 and 2019, but many homelessness advocates argue that these numbers fail to account for the true scope of the homelessness crisis in the US.’
Just over $1000 per month for “permanent supportive housing” appears low but read the link which indicates what little this figure covers, which confirms your point. That is per person multiplied by 580 people to get his low ball $20 billion per year but the number of homeless is likely higher than that ACCORDING to Jonny boy’s own link, which of course Jonny boy never read.
“And Bernie estimated that free tuition would amount to $75 billion.”
Jonny cannot provide a link. He can’t even say whether this is free tuition for all. If so, this $75 billion would be way too low. But now for a serious discussion of a more limited proposal:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2021/09/15/free-community-college-progress-is-being-made-but-pitfalls-remain/#:~:text=In%20a%20nutshell%2C%20the%20America%E2%80%99s%20College%20Promise%20Act,then%20gradually%20moves%20the%20state%20share%20to%2020%25.
Having passed a budget that funds free tuition for low-income community college students—subject to final negotiations this month—Congress turns next to legislation setting out details. This begins with Part F of the bill, America’s College Promise, which is now before the House Committee on Education and Labor. In a nutshell, the America’s College Promise Act (ACPA) makes public community college tuition and fees free for low-income students by having the federal and state governments pick up the tab; the feds pick up the tab in the first year and then gradually moves the state share to 20%. (The Senate may wish to spend more than the House, which will lead to negotiations over the next month or so.) Somewhat over 5 million students attend public community colleges, and the hope is that the ACPA will increase that number while simultaneously reducing student debt. This is a more moderate proposal than what was outlined in Biden’s election platform, which would have provided support for four-year college students as well. The benefit of such moderation is that this bill will cost taxpayers less.
Now some in the GOP freaked out that this would cost $400 billion over a TEN year period (which of course inflates the per annum cost). Take a read as this is an interesting discussion, which of course little Jonny boy could not be bothered with.
“Here’s one tradeoff worth considering–Congress appropriated over $100 billion for Ukraine in 2022 alone.”
Ahhh – Jonny boy was stripped from the privilege of watching the citizens of Ukraine be raped and murdered by his fellow war criminals in the Kremlin. Poor little Jonny boy.
“Here’s one tradeoff worth considering–Congress appropriated over $100 billion for Ukraine in 2022 alone. Meanwhile homelessness could be ended for $20 billion. And Bernie estimated that free tuition would amount to $75 billion.”
Here’s why little Jonny boy flunked government financing and basic accounting. Even if this $20 billion + $75 billion were accurate representations of the annual cost of both ideas. Over the next decade, the cumulative cost would be nearly $1 billion.
The $100 billion figure is a one time payment. Of course I’m assuming Putin is not stupid enough to continue his disgusting war crimes in Ukraine forever. You never know since his pet poodles like JohnH are getting off at the cruelty to the Ukrainians.
But we do know Jonny boy does not know the difference between an income statement (continuing flow) and a balance sheet (one time expenditure). Which is why Jonny boy had to major in basket weaving. Basic accounting was over his head.
As regards “defense” spending the CRFB tool provides only a limited set of choices. Why just roll defense budgets back only to 2022? Why not to 2020? Or 2018?
And what about cutting the “defense” programs that are conducted outside of DoD, such as the $600 billion nuclear modernization program? I mean, how many nukes do you really need to blow up the earth?
The CRFB tool is a good start, but it lowballs the savings that could be had by a sane foreign policy that deemphasized pointless and futile wars.
As for getting the debt back to 100% of GDP, it is really pretty easy. The big hitters include cutting “defense” spending, increasing the corporate tax rate to 28%, lifting the Social Security payroll tax cap, and [drum roll] introducing an ultra millionaire tax.
Of course, none of that is possible with a political establishment as corrupt as ours. But, who knows, maybe the billionaire class would be willing to agree to ending pointless and futile wars in return for avoiding an even higher corporate tax or even higher ultra millionaire taxes.
One thing for certain, if elites want more war, they should be forced to pay for it…
“The big hitters include cutting “defense” spending, increasing the corporate tax rate to 28%, lifting the Social Security payroll tax cap, and [drum roll] introducing an ultra millionaire tax.”
All of these were proposed by President Obama and re-proposed by President Biden. But little Jonny boy thinks only he has come up with these ideas. Yea – little Jonny boy is about ten years behind the curve.
pgl’s right…I didn’t come up with these ideas. CRFB was the organization that listed them in their tool.
So pgl should be chastising the CRFB that “thinks only it has come up with these ideas.”
But pgl didn’t look into the tool, so he has no idea what alternatives were identified by CRFB…just pgl’s usual trolling.
How do you know I did not look into this tool? Oh wait – I had to as I commented on how limited its options were well before you did.
Jonny boy seems to be mad at me of late. I guess it is because I have called him out on his incessant lies. Poor little Jonny boy!
Why just roll defense budgets back only to 2022? Why not to 2020? Or 2018?
Jonny boy does not even know the data:
Federal Government: National Defense Consumption Expenditures and Gross Investment/Gross Domestic Product
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=lCGE
Defense spending in 2022 was LOWER than defense spending under Trump. And Jonny boy thinks going back to Trump’s defense spending is going to lower it? Yea – Jonny boy is THAT STUPID!
Actually the 2022 “defense” budget was higher than the 2021 budget. And the 2023 budget is 28% higher than the 2018 one.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historical-tables/
But you can’t expect pgl to do his homework and know that.
I was noting how Trump exploded defense spending. Yea after falling in 2021, the decision to help Ukraine out meant defense spending went back up. Which of course angered little Jonny boy as he loves to see Ukrainians killed by his boss Putin.
Table 6.1
In millions of current dollars:
Wait? Jonny boy did not read his own evidence. Nominal increases during a period of high inflation.
Yea – Jonny boy is the dumbest troll God ever created.
BTW – your own link shows that defense spending fell in nominal terms from 1989 to 1998. In real terms it fell even more.
But Jonny boy told us DoD avoided reductions in defense spending after the end of the Cold War.
Jonny boy lies so much one needs a program to keep up with his lies.
BTW Jonny boy – that same Excel file sheet where you abused nominal defense spending numbers also shows real defense spending numbers. And they fell from 2020 to 2021 and fell again from 2021 to 2022. They fell a LOT during the 1990’s but you said we had no peace dividend.
Thanks again for providing a link that you utterly failed to read properly as your own link proves what I said was true and what you said was a lie.
Maybe you should learn to READ before your next utterly stupid comment.
Actually pgl is stupider than I thought…he claims to have linked to a graph the showed “defense” spending when it actually showed something entirely different.
Leave it up to pgl to lie and mislead!
The graph I linked showed defense spending/GDP. Now nominal spending can rise even as real spending fell. But little Jonny boy does not know that as economics has never been his thing.
the $600 billion nuclear modernization program?
Why no link Jonny boy? Oh yea – you are lying again:
https://armscontrolcenter.org/fact-sheet-u-s-nuclear-weapons-modernization-costs-constraints/
Fact Sheet: U.S. Nuclear Weapons Modernization: Costs & Constraints
Updated May 2023
Annual Costs
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) plans to spend $16.5 billion to maintain and update the U.S. nuclear arsenal in fiscal year 2023. This money is specifically designated for weapons activities, including modifications and life extension programs for nuclear warheads. The Pentagon will spend more than $34.4 billion this fiscal year to modernize the triad’s delivery systems, including warplanes and submarines, and their command, control, and communications systems. The most recent report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects the cost of modernization to be $188 billion through 2030.
Or maybe Jonny boy was referring to how much the PRC is spending on nukes.
Here’s how “defense” budgets work: “And count on one thing: national security spending is likely to increase even more, thanks to a huge (if little-noticed) loophole in that budget deal, one that hawks in Congress are already salivating over how best to exploit. Yes, that loophole is easy to miss, given the bureaucratese used to explain it, but its potential impact on soaring military budgets couldn’t be clearer. In its analysis of the budget deal, the Congressional Budget Office noted that “funding designated as an emergency requirement or for overseas contingency operations would not be constrained” by anything the senators and House congressional representatives had agreed to.
As we should have learned from the 20 years of all-American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the term “overseas contingency” can be stretched to cover almost anything the Pentagon wants to spend your tax dollars on. In fact, there was even an “Overseas Contingency Operations” (OCO) account supposedly reserved for funding this country’s seemingly never-ending post-9/11 wars. And it certainly was used to fund them, but hundreds of billions of dollars of Pentagon projects that had nothing to do with the conflicts in Iraq or Afghanistan were funded that way as well. The critics of Pentagon overspending quickly dubbed it that department’s “slush fund.”
https://www.salon.com/2023/06/21/ultimate-all-american-slush-fund-budget-loophole-could-send-pentagon-spending-soaring-even-higher_partner/
Budgeting for “defense” is as slippery as auditing the DOD.,,the basic budget numbers tell only part of the story.
All that babble and no apology for another one of your blatant lies? Same old Jonny boy!
Johnny, according to your logic, we would not want to support Ukraine against Russian aggression because of budgetary rules. if china were to invade an independent Taiwan, same rules apply. china gets Taiwan because the usa should not break its budgetary rules. and hitler could have taken over the rest of the world, because, the usa has some infallible budget rule that an idiot like Johnny says we are not allowed to break. despots the world over simply need to follow the usa budget to determine when they can get away with murder. yeah, really smart logic Johnny.
Johnny, it is clear you simply try to impose restrictive rules on the usa (with no similar rules for china or Russia) in an effort to produce negative outcomes for the usa. I will ask you again, Johnny, why do you hate the usa so much?
“Unfortunately guns vs. butter has been outside the Overton Window for decades”
Jonny boy loves to use big terms as a substitute for actual thinking but something tells me that this clown does not even know what the Overton Window even means. Let’s go back to the 2016 when Gerald Friedman wrote the left wing version of the free lunch – the antithesis of guns and butter. Friedman and the Bernie Bros (which Jonny boy want to latch onto so badly) got mad at economists who reminded Gerald Friedman that there was indeed such a thing as the Production Possibility Frontier.
In fact one of the best economic bloggers on this topic was Dr. Chinn whose excellent posts I often noted. Did Jonny boy not understand the simple point? Or has this clueless clown forgot? Jonny boy has become a Jonny come lately to this idea of a full employment constraint as he dishonestly claims the rest of us ignore the concept.
Yea Jonny boy is that dishonest, dumb, and utterly confused.
Where’s the beef? pgl makes lots of allegations with nothing to back them up.
“Defense spending ” has been outside the Overton window that represents the range of policies politically acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time. It is also known as the window of discourse. It has been that way ever since the end of the Cold War, when politicians refused to give the American public a peace dividend. And the merchants of death want to keep it that way.
As Smedley Butler once said, “war is a racket.” And pgl is doing his best to keep the racket going.
“pgl makes lots of allegations with nothing to back them up.”
Seriously dude – this is such a weak reply. But hey – at least you get that you are a pathetic lying little boy.
‘As Smedley Butler once said, “war is a racket.” And pgl is doing his best to keep the racket going.’
We’ve gone over this before but let’s remind folks. During Vietnam I protested the war in the streets of Atlanta but Jonny boy did nothing. In 2003 I was protesting the Iraq War in the streets of LA but we never saw Jonny boy. After all his reaction of seeing an anti-war protest was to duck into an eating establishment for dinner.
But Jonny boy has finally decided to take a stand now as he sits in the Kremlin and cheer on Putin’s war criminals. You see – Jonny boy gets off watching Ukrainians tortured and killed. What a guy!
What a wonderful way to escape reality and experience a fantasy land like no other!
JohnH keeps chirping that auditing defense spending will magically lead to reductions in defense spending. Well it seems this audit had the opposite effect:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/pentagon-s-accounting-error-means-an-extra-6-2-billion-in-aid-for-ukraine/ar-AA1cPUwu
he Pentagon said Tuesday that it overestimated the value of the weapons it has sent to Ukraine by $6.2 billion over the last two years — about double earlier estimates — resulting in a surplus that will be used for future security packages. Pentagon spokeswoman Sabrina Singh said a detailed review of the accounting error found that the military services used replacement costs rather than the book value of equipment that was pulled from Pentagon stocks and sent to Ukraine. She said final calculations show there was an error of $3.6 billion in the current fiscal year and $2.6 billion in the 2022 fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30.
More spending in assistance of Ukrainians defending themselves against war crimes is going to make Jonny boy’s boss Putin really angry. Poor little pet poodle Jonny – his masters at the Kremln are going to cut off his doggy treats.
Now I have one problem with this story as I would argue that replacement cost should be used as opposed to book value. Of course such accounting matters are WAY over Jonny boy’s little head.
I do not get the point of these exercises. Under current tax policy, total spending would have to be 35% less than current projections and then they write this?
‘If some categories of noninterest spending were not subject to those reductions, the cuts in other types of spending would have to be larger.’
Some categories not subject to a 35% reduction as in the elephant in the room – defense spending? Why not just write that we would have to eliminate all Federal nondefense spending? That would be more honest.
Let’s go back to the days of President Clinton and House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Newt and his right wing ilk want us to believe they worked with Clinton to balance the budget. But the truth is that there were two reasons why the Reagan/Bush41 deficits were reduced to near zero:
(1) The 1993 tax increase that every Republican voted against; and
(2) Reductions in defense spending that Republicans severely criticized.
Of course Bush43 threw all of that away by increasing defense spending paid for Reagan style … tax cuts.
Don’t forget capital gains taxes from the internet bubble.
Who knows? Maybe the AI bubble will help balance the budget. What’s a little financial destabilization between friends?
“For the sake of the country, our party, and a basic respect for the truth, it is time that Republicans come to grips with the hard truths about President Trump’s conduct and its implications,” Barr wrote. “Chief among them: Trump’s indictment is not the result of unfair government persecution. This is a situation entirely of his own making. The effort to present Trump as a victim in the Mar-a-Lago document affair is cynical political propaganda.”
this is a republican talking about trump and his maga supporters. but we still will not forgive barr for enabling the president to begin with. nobody associated with trump during his time in office should participate in government activity going forward, as atonement for the heinous act of giving a platform to the most corrupt president in us history. barr had a change to help remove trump from office, but passed. there should be a price for failing to act. his integrity is in shambles now.
Peevish Supreme Court Justice Alito pens a pre-buttal published by the compliant Wall Street Journal to front-run an expose by ProPublica.
The hilarious part is his excuse for accepting a seat on a private jet to an Alaska resort provided by billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Singer, who not coincidentally had billions of dollars in cases at stake before the Court.
Alito opines: “I was asked if I would like to fly in a seat that, as far as I am aware, would have otherwise been vacant.”
Brilliant! The sort of excuse you might expect from a six-year-old. These are best and brightest minds on the highest court in the land?
These are the best kinds of bribes:
1) Absolutely no extra cost to the briber — what a bargain — a bribe that cost Singer nothing because the “seat would otherwise been vacant”.
2) Since the bribe has no effective cash value, it doesn’t have to be reported by the bribee. A win-win!
This is the sort of tortured logic we’ve come to expect from the Leonard Leo constructed Supreme Court.
Alito must have been trying to explain how empty seats = zero marginal cost. Of course had you or I been offered to take that seat for a mere $10 – it would have been taken. Yea Alito is as bad at economics as JohnH.
both alito and thomas both believe that billionaires routinely offer up extra vacation spots to random strangers, just because they are good guys. i am eagerly awaiting my next invitation in the mail to join elon musk in a cruise round the world, because billionaires offered these perks to folks like me all the time. and i am no different than your average joe supreme court justice…
Maybe these billionaires should buy Alito and Thomas on the next cruise trip to the Titantic!
Alito claims that the seat would have otherwise gone vacant. That can’t be true. If Alito had refused it would have gone to Clarence Thomas.
One interesting question would be to ask these judges how many billionaires they were pals with before they became Supreme Court Justices. None? I wonder what changed.
When it’s the norm to fail audits with impunity, it’s pretty easy to pull a few $billion out of thin air…
Mighty funny from someone who flunked accounting 101. Your failures are in the trillions of dollars but hey no surprise since you are truly the dumbest troll ever.
pgl sure makes his priorities clear…more war over helping homeless Americans!
Ahhh – I think I hurt little Jonny boy’s little feelings. So what do we get? Another dishonest tirade from the angry little baby. Hey – could someone please change this baby’s diaper. Damn!
BTW Jonny boy – Macroduck is calling you cheap with your $20 billion idea. Of course you never bothered to READ what your own link said so no wonder you went cheap.
pgl can’t provide any facts so he just goes on his usual hysterical rant!
So what if ending homelessness costs more than $20 billion? Shouldn’t there at least be a public debate about which is more important–ending homelessness or fighting a proxy war in Ukraine? Those enamored with saving the American Empire…like pgl,..don’t care how much Americans must suffer to achiheve the goal of superpower primacy.
Facts? From the liar who claimed we are spending $600 billion a year on nuclear weapons? Try $16 billion a year which I documented.
Dude – everyone here knows you are a serial liar. Quit pretending you are convincing a single person because your reputation for brazen dishonesty is apparent to everyone. So maybe you should take your incessant lying over to John Cochrane’s right wing blog where you would fit right in.
Guns Versus Butter: A Disaggregated Analysis
Alex Mintz
The American Political Science Review
Vol. 83, No. 4 (Dec., 1989), pp. 1285-1293 (9 pages)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1961669
Another paper on the guns and butter issue which JohnH claims never existed. So much useful research that little Jonny boy denies exists!
Guns and Butter: The Pre-Korean War Dispute over Budget Allocations: Nourse’s Conservative Keynesianism Loses Favor against Keyserling’s Economic Expansion Plan
Lester H. Brune
The American Journal of Economics and Sociology
Vol. 48, No. 3 (Jul., 1989),
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3487378‘
Guns and butter under Truman before the Korean War! A debate within the CEA with Kerseyling making a military Keynesian argument. I bet that argument looked silly once we geared up for the Korean War. Then again – we are referring to two economists in the original CEA so we are far beyond the Economic Know Nothing JohnH come lately.
Hilarious! You have to be astounded at his lack of logic, which suggests that economists are talking a lot about guns vs. butter. The proof? They were talking about the issue 70 years ago!!!
That’s the kind of nonsense pgl comes up with when he can’t find any contemporaneous economic commentary on the issue!
So typical of pgl…
70 years ago. Under Truman, Under LBJ. During Bush43’s years. And now.
Come on Jonny boy – we get you are STUPID but DAMN!
pgl must think that this blog is called Historybrowser, and so he insists on bombarding us with references to ‘guns vs. butter’ debates that occurred once upon a time in the distant past.
Hello? pgl? Are you going to show us any very serious pundits talking about the $1.7 Trillion of “defense” cuts that could be realized according to the CRFB? No, of course not, pgl can’t show any current mainstream media discourse about the benefits of significantly cutting “defense” spending. That’s because cutting “defense” spending is off the table…outside the Overton window.
The origins of a term you do not even remotely understand is not relevant. Seriously dude? Try something you might get like basket weaving.
“he can’t find any contemporaneous economic commentary on the issue!”
What did you find? An Investopedia reference? Yea – you are beyond pathetic.
Let’s see – I point out that guns and butter was discussed in 1916, before the Korean War, during the Korean War, during the Vietnam war, in response to St. Reagan, and even when Trump massively increased defense spending (which little Jonny boy seems to have forgotten since he think defense spending under Trump was low).
And Jonny boy notes only one of my links even as he just ignores all of the others? Oh yea – you have always been a lowest little lying troll. Way to make my point once again – LIAR!
pgl must think that this blog is called Historybrowser, and so he insists on bombarding us with references to ‘guns vs. butter’ debates that occurred once upon a time in the distant past.
Hello? pgl? Are you going to show us any very serious pundits talking about the $1.7 Trillion of “defense” cuts that could be realized according to the CRFB? No, of course not, pgl can’t show any current mainstream media discourse about the benefits of significantly cutting “defense” spending. That’s because cutting “defense” spending is off the table…outside the Overton window.
it is not outside the Overton window, it is outside of the Johnny window. you illogically give importance to your desires, in a way that others should give a sh!t. let me clue you in, Johnny, the rest of the country does not give any credibility to your desires. if what you advocated for was important to the people, and further more would be effective, then it would get spoken about. the fact that it is not spoken about is not because of some big conspiracy theory, or lack of knowledge of economists-as you so often propose. it is because the rest of the world thinks your ideas are nothing but a pile of sh!t. it is time you let that reality settle in.
JohnH reverts to tragicomedy from time to time by wailing about futile and pointless wars but has no problem defending the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He’s spent so much time here defending that futile and pointless Russian initiated bloodbath that he’s earned recognition as “Putin’s Pimp.”
Even more comical, he parades around here promoting himself as an an anti war icon, a joke if ever there was one.
He’s a fraud. We know it. He knows it. As I said before, if he was a character in a 1940’s western, the Indians could truthfully say “JohnH speak with forked tongue.” Always.
Why pick only one? Both are great ideas. And only a 15 cent raise in the gas tax? Try $1.50 or more.
“Address Highway Funding (select one)
Increase the Gas Tax by 15 Cents, Then Grow It in Future Years $310B
The Highway Trust Fund is financed in part by an 18.4 cents gas tax, a rate that has not been changed since 1993. This option would increase the gas tax by 15 cents to 33.4 cents and index it so that the tax grows each year with inflation.
Limit Highway Spending to Current Revenue $430B”