PDA

View Full Version : Stimulus and TARP worked



Henry V
07-29-2010, 10:17 AM
Darn, and to think we could have been in a “Greater depression” rather than slowly recovering from the great recession. Perhaps President's Bush and Obama were right.......

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/07/the-stimulus-wo.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/business/economy/28bailout.html?_r=2

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/07/stimulus_0

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/collections.cfm?collect=12

Funny, this stuff is a few days old an no one posted;)

Buzz
07-29-2010, 11:39 AM
I'm sure we'll hear from a host of arm chair economists on this.

YardleyLabs
07-29-2010, 11:54 AM
I'm sure we'll hear from a host of arm chair economists on this.
Their assessment is consistent with reports from most of the major economists that credits 2-4% in economic growth directly attributable to the stimulus program. The open question is whether the benefits were purely transitory, meaning that we will sink further as the programs expire, or if the benefit either got us through to a point where natural growth can take over or actually stimulated natural growth.

ducknwork
07-29-2010, 11:58 AM
Their assessment is consistent with reports from most of the major economists that credits 2-4% in economic growth directly attributable to the stimulus program. The open question is whether the benefits were purely transitory, meaning that we will sink further as the programs expire, or if the benefit either got us through to a point where natural growth can take over or actually stimulated natural growth.

You mean kinda like the home buyer tax credit?

Or cash for clunkers?

Or the appliance credit? I know what has happened to the hours in my factory since that one expired!

menmon
07-29-2010, 12:02 PM
I'm sure we'll hear from a host of arm chair economists on this.

They worked. There is an oversupply of commercial and residential real estate that has to be absorbed before we see a robust construction market again, thus dampening this part of the job market, but there are positive signs and it will fix itself over the next couple years. This is why the stimulus is so important for government construction jobs that allow these people to hang on until the over-supply is absorbed.

Personal saving is increasing, given the loss of easy credit, but as people reduce their debt burdens and increase their savings we will see consumer spending improve but I bet this time people are smarter than to over burden themself with debt.

Long and short is the financial system did not collaspe and things are improving, but it will take time, and no politician can fix it for you. So it is best not to get sucked into the political rhetoric of blaming.

First arm-chair economist response.

Franco
07-29-2010, 12:03 PM
I think the bailouts helped the economy more than the stimulus money by helping to ease the credit to some extent.

Lets don't forget the current administration is trying to get all the positive information they can out before the mid-terms, even if that info in manufactored.

Hew
07-29-2010, 12:07 PM
Impeccable timing, Henry.

From today's AP:



The U.S. economic recovery will remain slow deep into next year, held back by shoppers reluctant to spend and employers hesitant to hire, according to an Associated Press survey of leading economists. The latest quarterly AP Economy Survey shows economists have turned gloomier in the past three months. They foresee weaker growth and higher unemployment than they did before.


And kudos to Obama for spending taxpayer money to the tune of $100k+ for every job he created. What a bargain.

Henry V
07-29-2010, 12:26 PM
Impeccable timing, Henry.

From today's AP........

And kudos to Obama for spending taxpayer money to the tune of $100k+ for every job he created. What a bargain.

The $100K per job is an overly simple way to look at things and you know it. That money also bought a heck of a lot of infrastructure, etc, that also needs to be in the analysis but that would distract from this right wing talking point .

It is easy to take shots. Please enlighten us. What was your preferred alternative to these programs? Give us some speculation, reasoning, or evidence that they would have worked better in the long run or at least not have resulted in a plunge into a recession.

Edit: on your first point, please note that I said "... rather than slowly recovering from the great recession". There is no doubt the road to recovery will be bumpy. There are conflicting signs/indicators published every week.

road kill
07-29-2010, 12:43 PM
Darn, and to think we could have been in a “Greater depression” rather than slowly recovering from the great recession. Perhaps President's Bush and Obama were right.......

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/07/the-stimulus-wo.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/business/economy/28bailout.html?_r=2

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/07/stimulus_0

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/collections.cfm?collect=12

Funny, this stuff is a few days old an no one posted;)

Yep....Things is awesome right now!!:D




rk

badbullgator
07-29-2010, 12:44 PM
This thread is useless without graphs and charts

road kill
07-29-2010, 12:49 PM
This thread is useless without graphs and charts

How much I had----$5.00
How much I got-----$1.00



There, does that work??



rk

Hew
07-29-2010, 12:53 PM
There are conflicting signs/indicators published every week.
And just as many conflicting signs/indicators that contend that the stimulus package didn't stimulate squat and/or did not produce nearly enough bang for its buck. And we'll be paying for its buck for generations to come.

Henry V
07-29-2010, 01:04 PM
This thread is useless without graphs and charts
There is a good one here, but it can't be posted in.
http://therationalmiddle.com/2010/07/28/bailouts-and-stimulus-what-the-heck/
Feel better now?

Henry V
07-29-2010, 01:07 PM
And just as many conflicting signs/indicators that contend that the stimulus package didn't stimulate squat and/or did not produce nearly enough bang for its buck. And we'll be paying for its buck for generations to come.
Again, what was your alternative solution? Don't just take shots.
Also, please send me links to your favorite articles that provide evidence that the stimulus and TARP did not work to stabilize the economy from free fall.

Marvin S
07-29-2010, 01:09 PM
look That money also bought a heck of a lot of infrastructure, etc, that also needs to be in the analysis.

Please enlighten us - one of the major criticisms of "PORKULUS" has been it's major investment in non-value added items.

Though I did hear of a bridge in Whatcom County that got replaced 10 years ahead of schedule because they had plans in place :rolleyes:.

This load of government debt & the resulting actions by the Fed in keeping interest rates down is counterproductive to those who are savers.

road kill
07-29-2010, 01:12 PM
Please enlighten us - one of the major criticisms of "PORKULUS" has been it' major investment in non-value added items.

Though I did hear of a bridge in Whatcom County that got replaced 10 years ahead of schedule becauyse they had plans in place :rolleyes:.

This load of government debt & the resulting actions by the Fed in keeping interest rates down is counterproductive to those who are savers.

"Shovel Ready" projects galore!!!;-)



rk

troy schwab
07-29-2010, 01:12 PM
There is a good one here, but it can't be posted in.
http://therationalmiddle.com/2010/07/28/bailouts-and-stimulus-what-the-heck/
Feel better now?

That whole article .... and its graph..... are a bunch of unfounded sentences...... its been picked apart already......

The funniest thing is that article specifically states " The stimulus plan clearly worked...." LOL for who?????? The government?? Yes, I would have to agree......

YardleyLabs
07-29-2010, 01:13 PM
There is a good one here, but it can't be posted in.
http://therationalmiddle.com/2010/07/28/bailouts-and-stimulus-what-the-heck/
Feel better now?

Here are the images:

http://therationalmiddle.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/debt-projection.jpg

http://therationalmiddle.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/recovery-trend.gif

road kill
07-29-2010, 01:13 PM
That whole article .... and its graph..... are a bunch of unfounded sentences...... its been picked apart already......

The funniest thing is that article specifically states " The stimulus plan clearly worked...." LOL for who?????? The government?? Yes, I would have to agree......

Well, they are the only organization hiring!!


rk

road kill
07-29-2010, 01:16 PM
Here are the images:

http://therationalmiddle.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/debt-projection.jpg

http://therationalmiddle.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/recovery-trend.gif


The CBO disagrees with your graphs.
But hey, what do they know???

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/07-27_Debt_FiscalCrisis_Brief.pdf


rk

Henry V
07-29-2010, 01:21 PM
Come on Jeff, that figure 1 just can't be right. It clearly indicates that the stimulus is only a tiny fraction of the current deficit and that tax cuts for the rich actually contribute greatly to the deficit. This clear presentation of data from the CBO simply can't be true;)

troy schwab
07-29-2010, 01:30 PM
This clear presentation of data from the CBO simply can't be true;)

Thats funny right there!!!! Seriously, if you think this is a clear representation of our future deficit...... you need your head checked.......... You think Fannie and Freddie is over with???? HA HA HA HA This is good stuff...... BTW, you might want to read RK's post on the updated position of the CBO.......

(Insert foot, close mouth)

You cant post charts and graphs...... they are all crap....... way too many unknowns..... it not like our economy is stable......

Waiting for the next government surprise....regards

Gerry Clinchy
07-29-2010, 02:12 PM
From RKs link:




More generally, persistent, large deficits that are not
related to economic slowdowns—like the deficits that
CBO projects for coming decades—have a number of
significant negative consequences. Therefore, the sooner
that policymakers agree on credible long-term changes to
government spending and revenues, and the sooner that
those changes are carried out without impeding the economic
recovery, the smaller will be the damage to the
economy from growing federal debt.





One impact of rising debt is that increased government
borrowing tends to crowd out private investment in productive
capital, because the portion of people’s savings
used to buy government securities is not available to fund
such investment. The result is a smaller capital stock and
lower output and incomes in the long run than would
otherwise be the case.


Paul Ryan commented on this very fact ... govt $ crowding out private investment in an interview I heard yesterday.




To be sure, slowing the growth of government debt to
hold down future interest payments would require
increases in taxes or reductions in government benefits
and services anyway. However, earlier action would permit
the changes in policy to be smaller and more gradual,
and it would give people more time to adjust to the
changes—although it would also require more sacrifices
by current generations to benefit future ones.





In the United States, the level of federal debt a few years
ago gave the government the flexibility to boost spending
and cut taxes to stimulate economic activity, to provide
public funding to stabilize the financial sector, and to
continue paying for other programs, even as tax revenues
dropped sharply because of the decline in output and
incomes. If the amount of federal debt (relative to output)
stays at its current level or increases further, the government
would find it more difficult to undertake similar
policies in the future.

YardleyLabs
07-29-2010, 02:13 PM
The CBO disagrees with your graphs.
But hey, what do they know???

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/07-27_Debt_FiscalCrisis_Brief.pdf


rk
Actually, if you read the article you referenced, it does not disagree with the graphs I posted (They are not mine. They are based on CBO data and all I did was put them up from the article Henry referenced because he had problems doing it.). In the article you posted, the CBO presents an alternate view that shows the deficit and national debt skyrocketing so far out of control that it could destroy our economy. What is the primary assumption behind that alternative forecast? It is based on the assumption that the Bush tax cuts are extended.

There is no way to pay for extending the Bush tax cuts based on any reasonable level of spending cuts or based on any unreasonable level of spending cuts that has been proposed by anyone advocating such an extension. Republicans and some Democrats are calling for an extension with no more plan of how to balance the budget afterward than Bush has in 2001 and 2003.

Buzz
07-29-2010, 02:20 PM
The CBO disagrees with your graphs.
But hey, what do they know???

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/07-27_Debt_FiscalCrisis_Brief.pdf


rk

I looked at your paper. I only spent a few minutes looking at it, but I didn't see where they refuted those graphs. In fact there is a graph that shows projected debt as a percentage of GDP. Going forward they make two different assumptions about extension of the tax cuts of the early 2000's and the debt.

Can you point me to where they address the curves that were posted? I'm a little too busy to read that whole paper today.

Sheesh Jeff, looks like you posted about the time I started typing... ;-)

troy schwab
07-29-2010, 02:32 PM
There is no way to pay for extending the Bush tax cuts based on any reasonable level of spending cuts or based on any unreasonable level of spending cuts that has been proposed by anyone advocating such an extension. Republicans and some Democrats are calling for an extension with no more plan of how to balance the budget afterward than Bush has in 2001 and 2003.

Americans dont pay for tax cuts...... they pay for spending.... The government is spending money is doesnt have.... PERIOD! The fact that the bush tax cuts will contribute to the deficit is proportional to government spending. If we spend less, we need less???? GET IT?? Im not sure if we can let the tax cuts expire..... it will cripple the middle class.... LITERALLY. Not sayin I want them extended either.....BUT ........... SOMEBODY'S gotta pay OBAMAS TAB! Government spending is what built this mess...... NOTHING ELSE!!!!!!

Also, they contribute the exploding deficit (in the article RK posted) to the rising health care debacle. Baby boomers are going to increase medicare/medicaid spending substantially........ and the moneys not there........ SHOCKER!!!!! Its not like they didnt know that the baby boomer generation existed...... THEY SPENT ANYWAY!!!! Lets not get into the increasing millions who take the government cheese....... that line not gonna get any shorter...... SEE WHERE THIS LEADS???????? NEED A FREAKIN MAP??????? C'mon people wake the heck up!

road kill
07-29-2010, 02:37 PM
I looked at your paper. I only spent a few minutes looking at it, but I didn't see where they refuted those graphs. In fact there is a graph that shows projected debt as a percentage of GDP. Going forward they make two different assumptions about extension of the tax cuts of the early 2000's and the debt.

Can you point me to where they address the curves that were posted? I'm a little too busy to read that whole paper today.

Sheesh Jeff, looks like you posted about the time I started typing... ;-)
No, you will have to take 3 minutes and read the CBO report, or take 10 minutes and read Yardley's revision and spin.

Pretty sure I know what will happen here!!:rolleyes:



rk

mjh345
07-29-2010, 02:56 PM
Sure it worked.
But at WHAT COST!!!

Franco
07-29-2010, 02:56 PM
I think an appropriate label for the current administration would be, "The Smoke and Mirrors" administration.

One would have the be gulible to believe anything coming out of DC today. Consumers are scared to death with what is going on and that is why people won't spend and are holding on to every penny they have.

What we have is major mistrust in government and the current boobs have only made it worse.

Hew
07-29-2010, 04:14 PM
Again, what was your alternative solution? Don't just take shots.
Also, please send me links to your favorite articles that provide evidence that the stimulus and TARP did not work to stabilize the economy from free fall.
Here ya go:


Economists: The stimulus didn't help

3 out of 4 economists say it didn't help. Yeah, I know, they're economists in the private industry and probably not nearly as smart as all those government and academic economists, but that's the best I could come up with on short notice.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/26/news/economy/NABE_survey/

As for my alternative...I don't think I would have spent more than $100k of someone else's money for every single job I created. Hey, I'm not a libertarian...if the government can spend a trillion dollars to earn two trillion then I'm all for it. Instead, and as many predicted, they're spending a trillion dollars to earn a million. We've been on Obamanomics for almost 19 months, spending money out the ass, and current economic conditions are no better than when he started. And per that AP article I linked earlier, economists don't see it getting appreciably better for yet another year. Hell, we likely could have done nothing and the economy would have corrected itself (just like all the other times). Yeah, that requires a crystal ball...but so too does your peeps claims that we would have all burst into flames had Obama not mortgaged our childrens' childrens' future.

road kill
07-29-2010, 04:26 PM
From RKs link:





Paul Ryan commented on this very fact ... govt $ crowding out private investment in an interview I heard yesterday.

I am stunned.
Someone actually read the report.

It is not pretty and contradicts what the White house boasts.

Thanks Gerry,


stan b

Buzz
07-29-2010, 04:44 PM
Here ya go:



3 out of 4 economists say it didn't help. Yeah, I know, they're economists in the private industry and probably not nearly as smart as all those government and academic economists, but that's the best I could come up with on short notice.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/26/news/economy/NABE_survey/

As for my alternative...I don't think I would have spent more than $100k of someone else's money for every single job I created. Hey, I'm not a libertarian...if the government can spend a trillion dollars to earn two trillion then I'm all for it. Instead, and as many predicted, they're spending a trillion dollars to earn a million. We've been on Obamanomics for almost 19 months, spending money out the ass, and current economic conditions are no better than when he started. And per that AP article I linked earlier, economists don't see it getting appreciably better for yet another year. Hell, we likely could have done nothing and the economy would have corrected itself (just like all the other times). Yeah, that requires a crystal ball...but so too does your peeps claims that we would have all burst into flames had Obama not mortgaged our childrens' childrens' future.


I checked their two most recent surveys, March and July 2010. The word stimulus does not appear in the July survey results. It does in the March results.


The March 2010 National Association for Business Economics (NABE) Policy Survey reveals that two-thirds of the
respondents believe that Federal Reserve monetary policy is appropriate at the moment. However, a majority believes
that a rise in interest rates is both likely and appropriate in the next several months.
“Although the poll of our economists reveals different opinions on a number of policy options, the view of the
importance of Federal Reserve independence is nearly unanimous,” according to NABE President Lynn Reaser, who is
also chief economist for Point Loma Nazarene University.
Less than half of the respondents, but a significantly higher share than in last August’s survey, believe that fiscal policy
is appropriate at present. Eight out of ten respondents do not believe another stimulus package is warranted at this
time. In the event that a jobs initiative were to be adopted, the top policy choice for effective job creation would be
the elimination of capital gains taxes on small business.
Fiscal concerns are evident in this latest polling of economists, with eight out of ten suggesting that the long-term
imbalance of the federal budget might impact the country’s ability to borrow. The top choice for fiscal improvement
on the tax side is tax simplification and loophole reduction. On the spending side, the leading recommendation is
Social Security reform through a further increase in the eligibility age for benefits.
Relative to the health-care debate, fewer than half of the respondents feel that the current proposals would maintain
quality while broadening coverage and reducing costs.
Finally, a review of opinions on a range of financial market reforms finds mixed views, with the exception that nearly
two-thirds of respondents believe that greater explicit subsidization of the government sponsored enterprises would
not be beneficial in improving the long-run health of the mortgage market.


And then:


Fiscal Policy
Forty-four percent of survey participants report that the stance of current fiscal policy is “about right,” an increase from
the 35 percent who held that view in August 2009 and the highest percentage since 2007. Among those who
disagree, a much larger proportion think that policy is too stimulative (39 percent) compared to those who feel that it is
too restrictive (16 percent). Forty-eight percent of respondents indicate that fiscal policy should be more restrictive over
the next six months, while 68 percent expect that fiscal policy will be more restrictive two years from now.
Given the answers regarding the appropriate stance of fiscal policy, it is perhaps not surprising that 71 percent of the
NABE Economic Policy Survey Panel do not believe that another fiscal stimulus package is warranted at this time.
Eighty-three percent believe that GDP is currently higher than it would have been without the 2009 stimulus package
(ARRA). However, only 53 percent of respondents view the 2009 stimulus package as a positive factor for the economy
over the longer term, likely reflecting the negative impact of substantial and growing federal budget deficits and debt.
One of the more significant fiscal policy decisions to be decided by the current Congress is the treatment of tax
provisions (included under the tax-cut legislation enacted earlier this decade), which are due to expire at the end of this
year. A substantial majority of economists in the survey believe that Congress will act to extend many of these
provisions for middle-income households but will allow taxes to increase for those in the top income bracket. At the
same time, most survey respondents do not view this outcome as best for the US economy, with the majority of the
panel expressing a preference for retaining the current levels of personal marginal tax rates, as well as those on
dividends and capital gains.

Maybe there is another that came out in july that isn't on their website yet. But I'm not sure I could have written this story based on what is in the March survey report.

YardleyLabs
07-29-2010, 05:13 PM
Here ya go:



3 out of 4 economists say it didn't help. Yeah, I know, they're economists in the private industry and probably not nearly as smart as all those government and academic economists, but that's the best I could come up with on short notice.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/26/news/economy/NABE_survey/

...
"NABE conducted the study by polling 68 of its members who work in economic roles at private-sector firms." Wow! There's a dramatic audience of experts.

Hew
07-29-2010, 05:23 PM
"NABE conducted the study by polling 68 of its members who work in economic roles at private-sector firms." Wow! There's a dramatic audience of experts.
Not enough pointy-headed Ivy Leaguers for your taste?

That's 64 more experts than were polled in all of Henry's linked articles combined.

Nor_Cal_Angler
07-29-2010, 07:27 PM
"NABE conducted the study by polling 68 of its members who work in economic roles at private-sector firms." Wow! There's a dramatic audience of experts.


Not enough pointy-headed Ivy Leaguers for your taste?

That's 64 more experts than were polled in all of Henry's linked articles combined.

Hey thats 8 more and 4 more "experts" than it took to totally go againts the majority of Americans and SPEND our way into this mess...

Stimulus, Bailout, Healthcare "Expert" regards

NCA

road kill
07-29-2010, 07:53 PM
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!

Another dissenting opinion;

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ioRXliVfpQrwlEITOiWDGlofCQfAD9H8FSJ80




rk

Gerry Clinchy
07-29-2010, 08:05 PM
I do wonder at economists, whether govt or private. Why are they so surprised that people who are still working, but fear losing their jobs are trying to save some $ rather than spend?

Duh? Every financial counselor will tell their clients to have 6 to 12 mos of "savings" to cover routine expenses in the event of the "unexpected" ... illness, job loss, etc.

So, if you have just 1/2 a brain & your neighbors have been losing their jobs, and you've still got one ... what would you do? Obviously, Americans are not as dumb as the economists or politicians think they are.

Mike W.
07-29-2010, 09:03 PM
Socialism works great until you run out of other people's money.

Marvin S
07-29-2010, 09:28 PM
Just read an article which stated "1/3 of the money in "PORKULUS" was spent to continue the jobs of public employees at their present wage rates".

Gerry Clinchy
07-29-2010, 10:27 PM
Just read an article which stated "1/3 of the money in "PORKULUS" was spent to continue the jobs of public employees at their present wage rates".

PA used at least some of its money to help balance its budget. Dumb, dumber, dumbest. It did not "create" jobs at all used in that way. And next year that $ will not be there & the state budget will be in even worse shape. Who left that loophole in the legislation?

Buzz
07-29-2010, 11:02 PM
Just read an article which stated "1/3 of the money in "PORKULUS" was spent to continue the jobs of public employees at their present wage rates".

I read an article the other day that stated 5 million people in state and local government jobs were slated to lose their jobs by the end of 2011. I think the reason was the end of stimulus dollars. I'll have to see if I can dig it back up again.

ducknwork
07-29-2010, 11:03 PM
Just read an article which stated "1/3 of the money in "PORKULUS" was spent to continue the jobs of public employees at their present wage rates".

The famous quote was 'jobs saved or created', remember?:rolleyes: Kinda hard to keep track of jobs saved, isn't it? Perhaps by design? Couldn't be...

Buzz
07-29-2010, 11:06 PM
The famous quote was 'jobs saved or created', remember?:rolleyes: Kinda hard to keep track of jobs saved, isn't it? Perhaps by design? Couldn't be...

As I stated in my last post, it might be abundantly clear at the end of another year just how many jobs were "saved."

ducknwork
07-29-2010, 11:07 PM
As I stated in my last post, it might be abundantly clear at the end of another year just how many jobs were "saved."

They'll pass another stimulus package by then.:rolleyes:

Buzz
07-29-2010, 11:16 PM
They'll pass another stimulus package by then.:rolleyes:

Personally, I wish they had passed a bigger one and put more into infrastructure. Sadly, there will not be the political will to pass another. Actually when they passed the first stimulus, Krugman argued that it was way too small and focused too heavily on tax cuts and not enough on infrastructure projects. And he predicted that the political will wouldn't be there to go back again. Looks like he was right. Why would we invest in stuff that'll be around and important to our economy in another 50 years?

A couple years ago I had a spreadsheet of every bridge in the country that is in danger. It was mind blowing. They were listed by county, a very comprehensive list. I went and looked at some of them in my county. Hopefully we don't experience another collapse like the one in Minneapolis. Osama got what he wanted. He put fear into Americans and got us to support the spending of over a trillion on fighting wars. Meanwhile, Rome burns...

Brent McDowell
07-29-2010, 11:22 PM
way too many unknowns..... it not like our economy is stable......

Waiting for the next government surprise....regards

This is the real issue. To put this into dog terms, what if you had no idea what the rules would be for a HT or FT in 18 months and subsequently had no idea what to train for? Would you spend time and money training and investing in a competition dog with that much uncertainty in the game? Probably not. Now multiply the time and money in our game exponentially and viola - our current economy.

Those with the money don't really care what the rules are, just so long they know the rules and can put a plan together to make money at the game. In the last 18 months, we've had an explosion in deficit spending, a game changing healthcare bill, and now finreg, and general lack of regard for the electorate by the politicians in charge - all of which changed the rules of the game as it has been played for the last 200+ years. No one among us is willing to bet any money on just what the next shoe to fall might be, and as a result, we're all sitting and waiting until things change.

See you at the polls in November regards,

Buzz
07-29-2010, 11:51 PM
When in our history has there been any certainty about the future?

I spent most of my life working for electrical manufacturers in R&D and in new product development. Over the last 30 years there have been many government mandates on efficiency. Initially we were appalled at the money that the government was going to cost us in redesigns, tooling, process changes, increased material costs, etc. And to add insult to injury, they were taking forever to write the rules after legislation passed (I was involved in that frustrating process to as a NEMA representative to the government). We could not sit on our hands and wait for the government to give us "certainty" by getting the rules published. We had years of work to do in order to comply. So, we rolled up or sleeves, got to work, and discovered that in most products we could provide our customers dramatically improved efficiency, performance, product lifetime, at a lower cost.

Anyone who would curl up in the corner and wait for certainty should not be running a business.

Hew
07-30-2010, 01:08 AM
When in our history has there been any certainty about the future?
According to billionaire businessman, loyal Democrat and Obama supporter Mort Zuckerman up until Obama there had been more than enough certainty to have a robust and powerful economy. Now, he says, no so much...


<H1>Obama's Anti-Business Policies Are Our Economic Katrina

His gratuitous and overstated demonization of business is exactly the wrong approach

By Mortimer B. Zuckerman (http://politics.usnews.com/Topics/tag/Author/z/mortimer_zuckerman/index.html)
The growing divide and tension between the Obama administration and the business world is a cause for national concern. As Clive Crook wrote in the Financial Times, Obama is "a president under business attack." He is certainly under sharp criticism and for good reason: He has lost the confidence of much of the business community, whose worries over taxes, the dramatically increased costs of new regulation, and a general perception that the administration is hostile toward them and may take yet harsher steps, are holding back investment and growth. In the midst of a weak economy (http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/mzuckerman/articles/2010/07/16/obamas-anti-business-policies-are-our-economic-katrina.html#) accompanied by levels of unemployment unprecedented since the Great Depression, it is critical that the government in Washington appreciate that confidence is an imperative if the business community is to invest, take risks with start-ups, and altogether get the economy going again to put the millions of unemployed back to productive work.

http://s0.2mdn.net/viewad/817-grey.gif (http://ad.doubleclick.net/click;h=v8/39e7/0/0/%2a/h;44306;0-0;0;48719702;32414-468/648;0/0/0;;~okv=;kw=mortimerzuckerman;kw=edit;kw=sec;kw=ho usingmarket;kw=congress;kw=recession;kw=economy;kw =hurricanekatrina;kw=obama;kw=barack;~aopt=2/0/4f/0;~sscs=%3f)

This is what businessmen do when they are free to conduct business. For example, in the two decades of the 1980s and 1990s, the United States created 73 million new private sector jobs—while simultaneously losing some 44 million jobs in the process of adjusting its economy to international competition. That was a net gain of some 29 million jobs. A stunning 55 percent of the total workforce at the end of these two decades was in a new job, some two-thirds of them in industries that paid more than the average wage. By contrast, continental Europe, with a larger economy and workforce, created an estimated 4 million jobs in the same period, most of which were in the public sector (and the cost of which they are beginning to regret).

</H1>Now here's the part where you insert Paul Krugman hackery to attack any Democrat who deigns to depart from the orthodoxy of tax and spend:_______________

kjrice
07-30-2010, 02:11 AM
The housing stimulus plans are a joke. It is not controlled and strictly on a volunteer basis for lenders. In the end, only 27% of all modified loans succeed. There is little rhyme or reason between lenders. The modifications are determined solely by the lender too. It makes me think there is some agreement that as long as they write enough modifications, the gravy money from the Fed rolls in.

cotts135
07-30-2010, 06:31 AM
Americans dont pay for tax cuts...... they pay for spending.... The government is spending money is doesnt have.... PERIOD! The fact that the bush tax cuts will contribute to the deficit is proportional to government spending. If we spend less, we need less???? GET IT?? Im not sure if we can let the tax cuts expire..... it will cripple the middle class.... LITERALLY. Not sayin I want them extended either.....BUT ........... SOMEBODY'S gotta pay OBAMAS TAB! Government spending is what built this mess...... NOTHING ELSE!!!!!!

Also, they contribute the exploding deficit (in the article RK posted) to the rising health care debacle. Baby boomers are going to increase medicare/medicaid spending substantially........ and the moneys not there........ SHOCKER!!!!! Its not like they didnt know that the baby boomer generation existed...... THEY SPENT ANYWAY!!!! Lets not get into the increasing millions who take the government cheese....... that line not gonna get any shorter...... SEE WHERE THIS LEADS???????? NEED A FREAKIN MAP??????? C'mon people wake the heck up!

First you are going to have a hard time convincing anyone who taxes go up that they are not paying for tax cuts, if those tax cuts expire. Second this is a two sided equation Spending- Revenue and both sides need to be addressed. The reality is that we are deeply in debt and that we need to pay for it by cutting spending and increasing the revenue stream.

ducknwork
07-30-2010, 07:14 AM
Personally, I wish they had passed a bigger one

How much of the original one still hasn't been spent?

road kill
07-30-2010, 07:20 AM
WI just received a HANDSOME sum of Federal dollars($46.7 million of the $810 million allocated for the project) for the construction of "Hi-Speed" rail.

It runs from Watertown WI to Madison WI.:confused:

That is not a tax cut, that is an expense we don't want, don't need and is useless.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/99554659.html


$810 million dollars could do a lot of good for infrastructure and small businesses.
WI, as stated in the article, faces a $2.5 BILLION deficit in 2011.

But hey, if it makes the progressives feel good!!!:D


Hey, JDogger, proofread this for me.............


rk

Gerry Clinchy
07-30-2010, 07:45 AM
With or without allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, failure to fix the AMT flaws will automatically increase taxes for millions earning $50-100K. I have only noted one media mention of this problem for middle-class earners.

road kill
07-30-2010, 07:52 AM
With or without allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, failure to fix the AMT flaws will automatically increase taxes for millions earning $50-100K. I have only noted one media mention of this problem for middle-class earners.


Gerry,
Here is a good read about your subject matter;


http://www.cnbc.com/id/38467149

Not pretty, can you see Obama asking for an extension for tax cuts for the "RICH?"

Hahahahahaha!!!!!:D



rk

Buzz
07-30-2010, 07:56 AM
According to billionaire businessman, loyal Democrat and Obama supporter Mort Zuckerman up until Obama there had been more than enough certainty to have a robust and powerful economy. Now, he says, no so much...

</H1>Now here's the part where you insert Paul Krugman hackery to attack any Democrat who deigns to depart from the orthodoxy of tax and spend:_______________


Apparently you've already read it? I guess I'll insert it for those who haven't. We'll see if he's a hack or not when we fall into a deflationary spiral. At least some in the Fed are starting to take that possibility seriously.

I wonder which orthodoxy is more threatening to our future. Tax and spend, or tax cut and spend??? I think we should get into a couple more wars and spend another trillion or two there. And maybe we can spend another trillion trying to round up and deport 11 million mexicans. Then we can spend another trillion or two putting an army on the southern border. Then why stop there, maybe another trillion to station one along the northern border with Canada.

Paul Krugman



July 27, 2010, 8:14 AM
[B]Ma! He’s Looking At Me Funny!

That’s basically the thrust of Mort Zuckerman’s op-ed accusing Obama of “demonizing” business.

The op-ed contains the usual — false claims that Fannie and Freddie caused the financial crisis, false claims that fear of government policy — as opposed to weak demand — is holding back investment and hiring. But I was struck by this passage:


The predilection to blame business was manifest in one of President Barack Obama’s recent speeches. He was supposed to be seeking the support of the business community for a doubling of exports over the next five years. Instead he lashed out at “unscrupulous and underhanded businesses, who are unencumbered by any restriction on activities that might harm the environment, take advantage of middle-class families, or, as we’ve seen, threaten to bring down the entire financial system.”
This kind of gratuitous and overstated demonisation – widely seen in the business community as a resort to economic populism on the part of Mr Obama to shore up the growing weakness in his political standing – is exactly the wrong approach.

That sounded odd, since Obama is not, in fact, given to random business-bashing. So what’s the context? Here’s what Obama actually said:


Too much regulation or too much spending can stifle innovation, can hamper confidence and growth, and hurt business and families. A government that does too little can be just as irresponsible as a government that does too much — because, for example, in the absence of sound oversight, responsible businesses are forced to compete against unscrupulous and underhanded businesses, who are unencumbered by any restrictions on activities that might harm the environment, or take advantage of middle-class families, or threaten to bring down the entire financial system. That’s bad for everybody.

Kind of different, isn’t it? That’s only business-bashing if you believe that there’s no such thing as businesses who cut costs by ignoring the environmental impact of their activities, or take risks that end up endangering the financial system. If so, I wish I lived on your planet.

I think this is telling. This is the only actual example of Obama’s alleged demonization of business that Zuckerman offers — and it’s essentially a mini-Breitbart, a quote taken out of context to make it seem as if Obama was saying something he wasn’t. That’s typical of the whole argument.

Oh, and one more thing: are there no copy editors at the FT? When I quote someone in my column, I supply the source material, and my copy editor checks, not just to be sure that the quote is accurate, but that it’s not taken out of context. But I guess such rules don’t apply if you’re a conservative.

troy schwab
07-30-2010, 08:28 AM
PA used at least some of its money to help balance its budget. Dumb, dumber, dumbest. It did not "create" jobs at all used in that way. And next year that $ will not be there & the state budget will be in even worse shape. Who left that loophole in the legislation?

Dont blame the plan, blame our moronic state congress....... Government just continues to dissappoint....... BTW, I think Rundell is an idiot.

Gerry Clinchy
07-30-2010, 08:29 AM
Gerry,
Here is a good read about your subject matter;


http://www.cnbc.com/id/38467149

Not pretty, can you see Obama asking for an extension for tax cuts for the "RICH?"

Hahahahahaha!!!!!:D
rk

It would appear that they could fix AMT in separate action from the Bush tax cuts ... but that is not totally clear from this article (nor from the source that I originally found the mention of the AMT). It is possible that both are in the same legislation, so would have to take separate action (new legislation) to fix the AMT?

Hew
07-30-2010, 08:41 AM
I wonder which orthodoxy is more threatening to our future. Tax and spend, or tax cut and spend??? I think we should get into a couple more wars and spend another trillion or two there. And maybe we can spend another trillion trying to round up and deport 11 million mexicans. Then we can spend another trillion or two putting an army on the southern border. Then why stop there, maybe another trillion to station one along the northern border with Canada.
I thought you and Krugman wanted to spend even more money? You know, prime the pump, stimulate you some economy and all that? Money spent securing the border is bad stimulation and money spent building $3.4 million dollar Porkulus turtle tunnels is good stimulation? Fence builders in Arizona are not as important as turtle tunnel builders in Florida? I guess I'm still trying to figure you Kenyan economists out.

Henry V
07-30-2010, 10:21 AM
Please enlighten us - one of the major criticisms of "PORKULUS" has been it's major investment in non-value added items.

Though I did hear of a bridge in Whatcom County that got replaced 10 years ahead of schedule because they had plans in place :rolleyes:.

This load of government debt & the resulting actions by the Fed in keeping interest rates down is counterproductive to those who are savers.
You want to know where the money went, go to www.recovery.gov. Interests rates have been down for many many years and the vast majority of economists are supportive of the feds actions. We just avoided a depression.

Consumer savings rates are actually quite high right now. Some say they should be lower to drive economic growth. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-savings-rate-inches-higher-in-may-2010-06-28

Henry V
07-30-2010, 10:31 AM
Thats funny right there!!!! Seriously, if you think this is a clear representation of our future deficit...... you need your head checked.......... You think Fannie and Freddie is over with???? HA HA HA HA This is good stuff...... BTW, you might want to read RK's post on the updated position of the CBO.......

(Insert foot, close mouth)

You cant post charts and graphs...... they are all crap....... way too many unknowns..... it not like our economy is stable......

Waiting for the next government surprise....regards
Let me translate...
blah, blah, blah, fannie and freddie ..ha, ha, ha.... suggest you read RK's CBO report (which does not at all refutiate the graph)........
.... I never let the facts get in the way of what I know is true .... I think our economy was just as stable two years ago even though all the evidence today suggests otherwise....you can't believe the evidence because economics is not an exact science ...... can't wait to blame the government for the next bad thing to happen now that the democrats are in control...this had nothing to do with an all out supply side approach to economics for eight years .....

Henry V
07-30-2010, 10:35 AM
Just read an article which stated "1/3 of the money in "PORKULUS" was spent to continue the jobs of public employees at their present wage rates".
Yes, that is how many states chose to spend the money. From what I read, much of it went to keep teachers employed.

Henry V
07-30-2010, 10:53 AM
Here ya go:


3 out of 4 economists say it didn't help. Yeah, I know, they're economists in the private industry and probably not nearly as smart as all those government and academic economists, but that's the best I could come up with on short notice.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/26/news/economy/NABE_survey/

As for my alternative...I don't think I would have spent more than $100k of someone else's money for every single job I created. Hey, I'm not a libertarian...if the government can spend a trillion dollars to earn two trillion then I'm all for it. Instead, and as many predicted, they're spending a trillion dollars to earn a million. We've been on Obamanomics for almost 19 months, spending money out the ass, and current economic conditions are no better than when he started. And per that AP article I linked earlier, economists don't see it getting appreciably better for yet another year. Hell, we likely could have done nothing and the economy would have corrected itself (just like all the other times). Yeah, that requires a crystal ball...but so too does your peeps claims that we would have all burst into flames had Obama not mortgaged our childrens' childrens' future.
I cite a study of the effects of TARP and the stimulus you present results of a poll of some private economist on just the stimulus. OK.
Your alternative apparently was to let the economy free fall into what was likely going to be a depression. To say that overall economic conditions are not better now than 18-30 months ago disregards the facts. Are deficits a problem that need to be dealt with, absolutely.
On a related topic here is a good article about the slow recovery of jobs. http://www.businessinsider.com/second-great-depression-2010-7

Hew
07-30-2010, 11:33 AM
I cite a study of the effects of TARP and the stimulus you present results of a poll of some private economist on just the stimulus. OK. Oh, Henry, smarmy does not become you. Three of the four links you linked discussed exclusively the stimulus; not TARP. I guess dumb ol me thought you wanted to shake your pompoms about the stimulus and I responded accordingly. You then asked me to provide you articles showing that the stimulus and TARP didn't work. I provided you with one stimulus article that you have not bothered to comment on or even acknowledge reading. Now you know why I didn't waste my time finding one of the many articles available that claim TARP is also a gd boondoggle. So let's not pretend that I haven't addressed your questions/comments just because you didn't like my answers.

Your alternative apparently was to let the economy free fall into what was likely going to be a depression. You asked what my alternative was and I told you and you've yet to comment on it (other than to misrepresent what I said). Do you really want to have a discussion or would you like me to just vote you Cheer Captain and move on to another thread? To say that overall economic conditions are not better now than 18-30 months ago disregards the facts. Are deficits a problem that need to be dealt with, absolutely.
On a related topic here is a good article about the slow recovery of jobs. http://www.businessinsider.com/second-great-depression-2010-7
....................

Marvin S
07-30-2010, 11:33 AM
Yes, that is how many states chose to spend the money. From what I read, much of it went to keep teachers employed.

Are you saying what the states did was wise? Secondly, are you saying that it's a good thing to spend money on an area which already has more than enough money, whose contribution to education is questionable?

road kill
07-30-2010, 01:18 PM
Let me translate...
blah, blah, blah, fannie and freddie ..ha, ha, ha.... suggest you read RK's CBO report (which does not at all refutiate the graph)........
.... I never let the facts get in the way of what I know is true .... I think our economy was just as stable two years ago even though all the evidence today suggests otherwise....you can't believe the evidence because economics is not an exact science ...... can't wait to blame the government for the next bad thing to happen now that the democrats are in control...this had nothing to do with an all out supply side approach to economics for eight years .....


You know who is famous for using that non word right??

Do ya???


HUH????



Sarah Palin, though McCain is credited for inventing it in 2008.:D




RK
(is that better NorCalAngler??)

troy schwab
07-30-2010, 03:26 PM
For all of you who think the stimulus worked..... please explain something to me. Do you think that the government at ANY time could spend money and fix the economy?? Because thats what we did..... If you dont think so, please explain why. The problem doesnt lie in the past.... it is specifically current spending that has dug this enormous, GROWING hole....... YES, I realize a war was started prior to this administration and that has effected many factors. But I REALLY DONT UNDERSTAND how ANYONE can defend the spending of this administration..... He is setting a record pace....... But so many people on here defend this bozo....... I just dont get it.....

road kill
07-30-2010, 05:25 PM
UHHHHH....if it worked, then why do we need another 3/4 of a TRILLION?????

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-30/imf-says-u-s-banking-system-might-need-as-much-as-76-billion-in-capital.html







RK

Buzz
07-30-2010, 05:40 PM
UHHHHH....if it worked, then why do we need another 3/4 of a TRILLION?????

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-30/imf-says-u-s-banking-system-might-need-as-much-as-76-billion-in-capital.html







RK

I don't know. This is what some hack had to say about it last year.


The Obama Gap


By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: January 8, 2009
“I don’t believe it’s too late to change course, but it will be if we don’t take dramatic action as soon as possible. If nothing is done, this recession could linger for years.”

So declared President-elect Barack Obama on Thursday, explaining why the nation needs an extremely aggressive government response to the economic downturn. He’s right. This is the most dangerous economic crisis since the Great Depression, and it could all too easily turn into a prolonged slump.

But Mr. Obama’s prescription doesn’t live up to his diagnosis. The economic plan he’s offering isn’t as strong as his language about the economic threat. In fact, it falls well short of what’s needed.

Bear in mind just how big the U.S. economy is. Given sufficient demand for its output, America would produce more than $30 trillion worth of goods and services over the next two years. But with both consumer spending and business investment plunging, a huge gap is opening up between what the American economy can produce and what it’s able to sell.

And the Obama plan is nowhere near big enough to fill this “output gap.”

Earlier this week, the Congressional Budget Office came out with its latest analysis of the budget and economic outlook. The budget office says that in the absence of a stimulus plan, the unemployment rate would rise above 9 percent by early 2010, and stay high for years to come.

Grim as this projection is, by the way, it’s actually optimistic compared with some independent forecasts. Mr. Obama himself has been saying that without a stimulus plan, the unemployment rate could go into double digits.

Even the C.B.O. says, however, that “economic output over the next two years will average 6.8 percent below its potential.” This translates into $2.1 trillion of lost production. “Our economy could fall $1 trillion short of its full capacity,” declared Mr. Obama on Thursday. Well, he was actually understating things.

To close a gap of more than $2 trillion — possibly a lot more, if the budget office projections turn out to be too optimistic — Mr. Obama offers a $775 billion plan. And that’s not enough.

Now, fiscal stimulus can sometimes have a “multiplier” effect: In addition to the direct effects of, say, investment in infrastructure on demand, there can be a further indirect effect as higher incomes lead to higher consumer spending. Standard estimates suggest that a dollar of public spending raises G.D.P. by around $1.50.

But only about 60 percent of the Obama plan consists of public spending. The rest consists of tax cuts — and many economists are skeptical about how much these tax cuts, especially the tax breaks for business, will actually do to boost spending. (A number of Senate Democrats apparently share these doubts.) Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center summed it up in the title of a recent blog posting: “lots of buck, not much bang.”

The bottom line is that the Obama plan is unlikely to close more than half of the looming output gap, and could easily end up doing less than a third of the job.

Why isn’t Mr. Obama trying to do more?

Is the plan being limited by fear of debt? There are dangers associated with large-scale government borrowing — and this week’s C.B.O. report projected a $1.2 trillion deficit for this year. But it would be even more dangerous to fall short in rescuing the economy. The president-elect spoke eloquently and accurately on Thursday about the consequences of failing to act — there’s a real risk that we’ll slide into a prolonged, Japanese-style deflationary trap — but the consequences of failing to act adequately aren’t much better.

Is the plan being limited by a lack of spending opportunities? There are only a limited number of “shovel-ready” public investment projects — that is, projects that can be started quickly enough to help the economy in the near term. But there are other forms of public spending, especially on health care, that could do good while aiding the economy in its hour of need.

Or is the plan being limited by political caution? Press reports last month indicated that Obama aides were anxious to keep the final price tag on the plan below the politically sensitive trillion-dollar mark. There also have been suggestions that the plan’s inclusion of large business tax cuts, which add to its cost but will do little for the economy, is an attempt to win Republican votes in Congress.

Whatever the explanation, the Obama plan just doesn’t look adequate to the economy’s need. To be sure, a third of a loaf is better than none. But right now we seem to be facing two major economic gaps: the gap between the economy’s potential and its likely performance, and the gap between Mr. Obama’s stern economic rhetoric and his somewhat disappointing economic plan.

gman0046
07-30-2010, 05:52 PM
10% unemployment tells the story on Obongolo's stimulus plan. The latest White House BS is it might take until 2016 until the unemployment is under control.

depittydawg
07-30-2010, 07:12 PM
And kudos to Obama for spending taxpayer money to the tune of $100k+ for every job he created. What a bargain.

Not bad compared to the 800K per job that the Bush tax cuts gave us.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/bush_tax_cuts1.pdf

thunderdog
07-30-2010, 08:02 PM
What kind of new math is this. How can you say it cost the gov't 800 k per job if the gov't never took in the money because of tax cuts. If 5.5 millions jobs were created, how much in taxable income was produced by those jobs. Maybe the left needs to go back to school and learn some regular math.

Gerry Clinchy
07-31-2010, 10:24 AM
Hey, Henry V, thanks for the website to see how stimulus funds affected individual areas.

The area where I live:
2 local school districts: $635,000 for "education"
1 local boro: $83,000 for infrastructure (they worked on sidewalks on Main St)
1 local twp: $500,000 for energy conservation
total a bit over $1.2 million
Total Jobs created: 0
Penn Dept of Transportation: $11+ million
Jobs created: 15 (were these just temporary though?)

It's possible that some of the PDOT $ went to that little boro, since I think their Main Street is a state road. On side streets in this boro, when a home is sold, the sidewalks are inspected by a boro rep & either buyer or seller must pay for fixing the sidewalks as noted by the boro rep.

Suspect that Henry V is correct that at least some of the $635,000 given to the school districts were to retain teaching positions. But what will happen to school taxes next year, if the districts don't take some action?

Have no love for Rendell ... he did come from Philadelphia & we know what kind of condition Philadelphia is in!

road kill
07-31-2010, 10:27 AM
I don't know. This is what some hack had to say about it last year.

He may have said that last year, he may have been right.

But we are being told how successful THIS Stimulus was, yet we need to spend 3/4 of a Trillion more?

Then I guess it wasn't all that successful, huh??





RK

gman0046
07-31-2010, 10:41 AM
Ask the over 450,000 people out of work how Obongolo's stimulus plan is working for them.

M&K's Retrievers
07-31-2010, 08:05 PM
Not bad compared to the 800K per job that the Bush tax cuts gave us.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/bush_tax_cuts1.pdf

Center For American Progress. Now there is an unbiased organization to be quoting.:rolleyes:

Buzz
07-31-2010, 10:18 PM
He may have said that last year, he may have been right.

But we are being told how successful THIS Stimulus was, yet we need to spend 3/4 of a Trillion more?

Then I guess it wasn't all that successful, huh??





RK

Given that I agreed with him last year, you won't get an argument from me.

depittydawg
08-01-2010, 12:24 AM
What kind of new math is this. How can you say it cost the gov't 800 k per job if the gov't never took in the money because of tax cuts. If 5.5 millions jobs were created, how much in taxable income was produced by those jobs. Maybe the left needs to go back to school and learn some regular math.

It's pretty simple math. The tax cuts supposedly put money into the hands of capitalists to invest in america. Since the Republicans also increased instead of decreased spending, the tax cuts created a federal deficit of what, several trillion dollars over their lifetime, so far. The previous figure I remember at the time was 600k per job. No funny math at all. Just simple arithmetic.

M&K's Retrievers
08-01-2010, 12:58 AM
It's pretty simple math. The tax cuts supposedly put money into the hands of capitalists to invest in america. Since the Republicans also increased instead of decreased spending, the tax cuts created a federal deficit of what, several trillion dollars over their lifetime, so far. The previous figure I remember at the time was 600k per job. No funny math at all. Just simple arithmetic.

One must consider the source.

troy schwab
08-02-2010, 08:16 AM
It's pretty simple math. The tax cuts supposedly put money into the hands of capitalists to invest in america. Since the Republicans also increased instead of decreased spending, the tax cuts created a federal deficit of what, several trillion dollars over their lifetime, so far. The previous figure I remember at the time was 600k per job. No funny math at all. Just simple arithmetic.

Depitty,
No... that there is some very funny math......... Where does it say in the constitution, that I OWE my government money........... Did the republicans institute the tax cut, YEP. Did they increase spending..... well, thats arguable, but overall, yes. Did the democrats have the opportunity to cut spending and reduce the deficit, YEP, same opportunity the Republicans had. But instead, this administration is "makin it rain" with all there crap programs. Many of you on this forum, make it out that I owe my government the tax money I pay. That isnt how it works. Maybe you should read up on govenrment economics. The government only needs money to fund plans for the benefit of the people. Pretty sure the $500 mil that went to pakistan, a few weeks ago, isnt gonna help me, the taxpayer. The deficit is a simple relation to spending versus income..... nothing else. Not former presidents, or administrations. You have this much, you can spend this much. There is your simple math. Apparently Obongo, missed govt. economics. What a joke.

YardleyLabs
08-02-2010, 08:32 AM
Depitty,
..... Where does it say in the constitution, that I OWE my government money..............
Article 1, Section 8 and the 16th Amendment.

troy schwab
08-02-2010, 08:45 AM
to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

Yes, I am aware of this....... Gee thanks Yardley........ Now where does is say that I must pay Obama's Bar tab???????? Cmon...... You cant be that ignorant.

YardleyLabs
08-02-2010, 08:52 AM
to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

Yes, I am aware of this....... Gee thanks Yardley........ Now where does is say that I must pay Obama's Bar tab???????? Cmon...... You cant be that ignorant.
General welfare is decided by Congress, and paying bar bills has been part of the deal since Benjamin Franklin was first sent to Paris as Ambassador for the United States of America. The Constitution imposes almost no limits on the ability of the Congress to pass laws or to raise taxes. That is a job left to the people using their votes.

troy schwab
08-02-2010, 09:11 AM
The Constitution imposes almost no limits on the ability of the Congress to pass laws or to raise taxes. That is a job left to the people using their votes.

That is correct, and is exactly my point. Why not let the people vote on these issues rather than have corrupt representatives speak for the lied to people. Elections are BULL$HIT..... and you must know that by now. Special interest controls everything, but common america is left wondering what happened to the candidate they elected, including OBAMA. You said yourself that Obama was too wishy washy anymore. What happened to the campaign promises?????? Anyone????? I pray to God that big government fails miserably, and the people take over their country like it was meant to be. The Arizona situation is a perfect example. Let the Arizonian's (?), vote on that issue. Then lets see what happens. I am just sick and tired of government deciding whats best for me, when they know nothing about me. Im done ranting now...... Lord, I hate Mondays......... LOL

YardleyLabs
08-02-2010, 09:17 AM
That is correct, and is exactly my point. Why not let the people vote on these issues rather than have corrupt representatives speak for the lied to people. Elections are BULL$HIT..... and you must know that by now. Special interest controls everything, but common america is left wondering what happened to the candidate they elected, including OBAMA. You said yourself that Obama was too wishy washy anymore. What happened to the campaign promises?????? Anyone????? I pray to God that big government fails miserably, and the people take over their country like it was meant to be. The Arizona situation is a perfect example. Let the Arizonian's (?), vote on that issue. Then lets see what happens. I am just sick and tired of government deciding whats best for me, when they know nothing about me. Im done ranting now...... Lord, I hate Mondays......... LOL
Our forefathers and our Constitution wisely chose to implement a representative Republic, not a town hall meeting style democracy. In fact, they were very worried about having a government that would be too easily influenced by the passions of the moment and created a legislative structure with staggered terms in the Senate to make that more difficult. Given that public opinion on major issues is routinely known to reverse itself withi a matter of months, I think that insulation remains critical.

Buzz
08-02-2010, 09:21 AM
I pray to God that big government fails miserably, and the people take over their country like it was meant to be.

You hope the country fails so you can have the country that YOU think we should have?

You been listening to Rush too much.

troy schwab
08-02-2010, 09:26 AM
You hope the country fails so you can have the country that YOU think we should have?

You been listening to Rush too much.

Buzz, you and Yardley been hanging out?????? I said nothing of our country failing..... the people (I hope) wont let that happen. I did mention big government though........ maybe you just missed it. BTW, I think Rush is a belligerent idiot, if you need to know.

troy schwab
08-02-2010, 09:29 AM
Our forefathers and our Constitution wisely chose to implement a representative Republic, not a town hall meeting style democracy. In fact, they were very worried about having a government that would be too easily influenced by the passions of the moment and created a legislative structure with staggered terms in the Senate to make that more difficult. Given that public opinion on major issues is routinely known to reverse itself withi a matter of months, I think that insulation remains critical.

I agree Yardley (cant believe I just said that). That being said, I feel that our forefathers couldnt have imagined a government ruling from 3000 miles away, with corrupted representatives. Back then your word and oath meant something, and you were held accountable. Nowadays, politicians are rarely held to their oath or word.

YardleyLabs
08-02-2010, 09:39 AM
I agree Yardley (cant believe I just said that). That being said, I feel that our forefathers couldnt have imagined a government ruling from 3000 miles away, with corrupted representatives. Back then your word and oath meant something, and you were held accountable. Nowadays, politicians are rarely held to their oath or word.
There are many things our forefathers probably never imagined. I suspect that they never imagined a country with 300 million people, or one linked by so many forms of near instantaneous communication. They certainly never imagined a corporate structure such as that we now have, or a government that would consider assigning privileges to corporations similar to those assigned to people. The types of massively concentrated wealth that we now see would also have been beyond conception. That was part of what they got rid of by eliminating the monarchy. Fortunately, our forefathers also understood that our country and our needs would change. They established a process for amending the Constitution that was difficult, but not insurmountable. They also created an independent judiciary responsible for applying the laws within the context of an evolving world. Had they not done these things, our nation probably would not have lasted as long as it has, and would certainly not survive that long again.

luvmylabs23139
08-02-2010, 09:43 AM
AS long as people who pay ZERO federal income taxes can vote to STEAL taxpayers money we will be doomed as a country.
Nobody on either side will stand up to this crud.

troy schwab
08-02-2010, 09:46 AM
There are many things our forefathers probably never imagined. I suspect that they never imagined a country with 300 million people, or one linked by so many forms of near instantaneous communication. They certainly never imagined a corporate structure such as that we now have, or a government that would consider assigning privileges to corporations similar to those assigned to people. The types of massively concentrated wealth that we now see would also have been beyond conception. That was part of what they got rid of by eliminating the monarchy. Fortunately, our forefathers also understood that our country and our needs would change. They established a process for amending the Constitution that was difficult, but not insurmountable. They also created an independent judiciary responsible for applying the laws within the context of an evolving world. Had they not done these things, our nation probably would not have lasted as long as it has, and would certainly not survive that long again.


Yardley, So when the democrats get slaughtered this Nov., you will feel confidence in the system that it in place?? Just curious.