Yes, you are. You just said you wanted the elimination of housing subsidies. That would raise taxes on people who own houses. The biggest housing subsidy is the mortgage tax deduction. Removing that would raise taxes.

 

At least we know how well you take your own joke line.

 

I'll be honest, I figured i was some left wing blog, so I didn't even click it. The joke was wasted.

I'll be honest, I figured i was some left wing blog, so I didn't even click it. The joke was wasted.

 

Besides, who the F do you think pays for a subsidy

Besides, who the F do you think pays for a subsidy

The same people who benefit when there's a tax cut.

The same people who benefit when there's a tax cut.

 

right. Subsidies are free. But taxes aren't...

I'll be honest, I figured i was some left wing blog, so I didn't even click it. The joke was wasted.

I did say it was pay.gov repeatedly.

I did say it was pay.gov repeatedly.

 

Your first post, not the six after it.

Btw, for reference I am not defending the current housing subsidy scheme or saying that gse reform isn't needed. I just thought you were due for that one.

Btw, for reference I am not defending the current housing subsidy scheme or saying that gse reform isn't needed. I just thought you were due for that one.

 

It would have gone over better if you didn't have to raise taxes to pay subsidies.

It would have gone over better if you didn't have to raise taxes to pay subsidies.

Right now we just increase the evil deficit to pay this subsidies.

And the person in the private sector benefits from the smaller government because he can come up with models saying that Housing prices never go down and convince all sorts of fools to invest trillions based on those models then walk away with a severance package worth millions while never having to worry about being investigated for financial fraud.

 

Oh, and the economy is screwed for a decade. Sorry.

 

I'm enjoying this.

 

 

Or you could be the CEO of Fannie Mae, or vice chairwoman of Fannie Mae, cook the books, and collect close to $100 million and 26 million respectively and have nothing happen to you. They made Enron look like peanuts but yet nobody says boo.

Or you could be the CEO of Fannie Mae, or vice chairwoman of Fannie Mae, cook the books, and collect close to $100 million and 26 million respectively and have nothing happen to you. They made Enron look like peanuts but yet nobody says boo.

Enron? That's your comparison? I think you need to update the scale of your financial fraud to reflect the private mortgage market implosion.

 

I guess it's decent since Aig, Lehman, Bear, JPM, and Goldman made the gses look like peanuts. They dumped trillions of their junk on the federal reserve so that it could be cleared off their books.

Except it's not really cleared off the books yet (or ever). It just got transferred somewhere else.

Except it's not really cleared off the books yet (or ever). It just got transferred somewhere else.

Hence why it's a much bigger S***pile than what the GSEs took on. But those banks get rewarded by the taxpayer and it's all ok.

Well, if the Republicans in here are right, the economy is going to grow like gangbusters starting here, because you're getting your enormous cutbacks.

Well, if the Republicans in here are right, the economy is going to grow like gangbusters starting here, because you're getting your enormous cutbacks.

 

I'm going with something on the order of less than 2% of expected spending in the next decade not being "enormous".

I'm going with something on the order of less than 2% of expected spending in the next decade not being "enormous".

Spending in the next decade is projected to be $150 trillion?

Spending in the next decade is projected to be $150 trillion?

 

WTF are you talking about?

 

There's no "enormous" cuts happening. At all.

 

This whole thing was about our 'hysterical', er, 'historical' president saving face and swooping in to save the day at the very end. He's so underdogish and SOOOO above the political fray (waits for NSS and some others to talk about how he's the teflon guy and can't be blamed for anything bad). He got everything he wanted, because the baseline spending is jacked WAY up thanks to our wonderful stimulus 2 years ago and Obamacare a year ago. So the spending is hugely out of proportion and he didn't have to pay a f***ing thing politically. And we're "cutting" off of something that's jacked up so high that we can't possibly cover it.

WTF are you talking about?

 

There's no "enormous" cuts happening. At all.

 

This whole thing was about our 'hysterical', er, 'historical' president saving face and swooping in to save the day at the very end. He's so underdogish and SOOOO above the political fray (waits for NSS and some others to talk about how he's the teflon guy and can't be blamed for anything bad). He got everything he wanted, because the baseline spending is jacked WAY up thanks to our wonderful stimulus 2 years ago and Obamacare a year ago. So the spending is hugely out of proportion and he didn't have to pay a f***ing thing politically. And we're "cutting" off of something that's jacked up so high that we can't possibly cover it.

Baseline spending is higher because we have 9% unemployment, and when you go from employed to on Medicaid and unemployment benefits, that pumps up baseline spending.

 

 

The stimulus basically has entirely ended, a small amount of stuff still hasn't been built, but almost everything else is there. That graph shows that Medicaid and unemployment benefits has made up 2 percentage points in the rise of the spending to GDP ratio. The stimulus briefly pumped that up quite a bit, but the ratio of spending to GDP has dropped by another 2 percentage points this year as it expired.

 

The remainder of the change in that ratio is due to the fact that the economy was destroyed and still hasn't recovered. Smaller economy = lower spending to GDP ratio.

 

In other words...right now, almost the entire "Spending spree" is maid up of extra dollars spent because people are unemployed. And don't worry, the unemployment benefits are already expiring, conveniently just as the economy stopped recovering. Just like it's supposed to.

 

Oh, wait, you mean that supply side actually works? More people working? Hmf, who would have thought it?

 

/waits for the unemployment would be 55% if the Demmys wouldn't have saved or created all those jobs, and Obama just needs more time to fix it all.

Medicaid and unemployment benefits going up = supply side? WTF man?

That's what we need right now, more supply!

Less regulations = more demand, then more supply to meet said demand. But then again, the government is perfect, and knows how to spend money better then any other entity in the history of the world. Whatever.

 

 

Less regulations = more demand, then more supply to meet said demand. But then again, the government is perfect, and knows how to spend money better then any other entity in the history of the world. Whatever.

Yeah, because that last decade of limited regulation...that was awesome growth!

Yeah, because that last decade of limited regulation...that was awesome growth!

 

 

Yea, because government is going to fix it!

 

You need regulations where it matters, not just to cover some Barney's Frank.

Yea, because government is going to fix it!

 

You need regulations where it matters, not just to cover some Barney's Frank.

Oh, so you're in favor of more regulation now. Hippie!