PDA

View Full Version : Most recent stimulus didn't stimulate


Pages : 1 [2]

epicSocialism4tw
07-07-2011, 02:27 AM
No. Its "progressive".

:Broncos:

I think that cluster____ is the new synonym for "Progressive".

cutthemdown
07-07-2011, 03:14 AM
You really need to cut down on the caffeine. I'm worried that you might have a coronary. Yes, it is true that some (not most) of the $660B was given to backfill state level shortages, primarily in education and medicaid. I agree that this isn't the most effective stimulus in the world, but it isn't wasted money. $260B was spent on tax cuts, mostly for individuals, which again, isn't awesome stimulus, but still hardly qualifies as a horrible waste of money. $85B was spent on unemployment benefits and food stamps, which studies have shown is highly effective stimulus. Around $50B was spent on infrastructure of various types (bridges!, other transportation, energy efficiency updates, broadband,etc).

I certainly don't recall Obama promising that all the stimulus would be spent on bridges for everyone, but I won't argue if you say he oversold this aspect. We are talking about politicians here. I will also agree that more direct government spending on infrastructure would have been nice. I would have like to have seen the tax breaks spent somewhere else, also.

This thread started with an article saying the ARRA provided little to no stimulus. This article made this argument using a government report showing that the $660B stimulus was responsible for providing $2 Trillion worth of GDP gain, and saving/creating 2.4M jobs. Truly a feat of journalistic wizardry. This same government report provides references to several other studies showing similar impact. You'll excuse me if I don't admit "porkulus" sucked, just because you wanted more bridges.

50 billion on infrastructure isn't enough. The Chinese stimulus worked so much better because they went heavy to infrastructure. The link I provided showed that connecting it to the GDP not really accurate. Those gains came from other sectors. Read the report i linked to then come back. It lays out why ours didn't work that well. The economy had other factors that add to GDP, trying to just measure that and saying the stimulus did it isn't accurate.

cutthemdown
07-07-2011, 03:24 AM
To many of the states took the money and used it to pay down debt. That isn't what a taxpayer funded stimulus is for. it's supposed to be for us, not for pensions, police, fireman, teachers etc. I know those things are important but that isn't a good stimulus. It's an unfair giveaway.

TonyR
07-07-2011, 07:09 AM
You're not getting it, lol. We will never know if it failed or worked. Find me one reputable economist - right or left, Austrian or neoclassical or Keynesian - that disagrees, and then maybe we'll have a debate.

I don't understand why so many people here can't seem to grasp this very simple point. We just don't know how much of a "success" or "failure" the stimulus has been. Could it have been "better"? Certainly. But it isn't the "disaster" many of you are proclaiming it to be. There's nothing to support such shrill hyperbole. Economics is complicated. There are too many variables, most of them unpredictable. For example, the disaster that hit Japan wasn't factored into any predictions or estimates that were made. Neither was the degree of the oil price spike. But those of you who keep bashing the stimulus and Obama need to reign it in a little bit. It's not the debacle you're saying it is just because you're saying it. We don't know how things would have been without it (basic logic says things would be worse), and for that matter perhaps things would be better if the stimulus had been larger instead of smaller! The one thing I can see for sure is that no matter what Obama/Dems did, and how they did it, many of you'd find reasons to complain about it.

OABB
07-07-2011, 08:05 AM
End thread.

pricejj
07-07-2011, 08:38 AM
While our corporate tax rate may be among the highest in the world, our corporations pay very little in actual taxes compared to the rest of the world due to the generous breaks and loopholes available. We have the second corporate tax rate of the 30 OECD countries, but we collect the fourth lowest corporate tax revenues as a percentage of GDP.

I'm all for reducing the rate, as long as we increase the tax base by simplifying the tax code. There is no argument to be made that our corporations are overly taxed at this time, it just isn't the case.

Decrease the corporate income tax rate to 25% (at least), close the loopholes. That's what conservative's have been saying all along. And the U.S. has the highest corporate income tax rate in the world, your data is outdated.

alkemical
07-07-2011, 09:06 AM
Decrease the corporate income tax rate to 25% (at least), close the loopholes. That's what conservative's have been saying all along. And the U.S. has the highest corporate income tax rate in the world, your data is outdated.

Where's the disconnect then?

How can we have the highest tax rates in the world, yet - corporations get a way with paying less than the tax rates suggest?

bronclvr
07-07-2011, 09:14 AM
It's called Grand Cayman-


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jan/09/obama-targets-cayman-islands-tax-scam/

alkemical
07-07-2011, 09:15 AM
If it's so easy to skirt tax law, as a corporation - then why would you need to lower the tax threshold?

Wouldn't it be "easier" to do business with all the loopholes and breaks, than with a "hard line" tax code?

ColoradoDarin
07-07-2011, 09:17 AM
I suppose you have a hypothesis as to how the stimulus package caused unemployment to get worse? And I suppose you can rationalize how that hypothesis is more likely than the original estimates of employment were just too optimistic?

With the exception of the red, it's Obama's chart. I don't need the why, I just need to know the results. Obama was wrong, the stimulus didn't.

ColoradoDarin
07-07-2011, 09:19 AM
Did you draw that graph yourself or are you going to provide a source to substantiate it?

Right click, view image info.

Rigs11
07-07-2011, 09:47 AM
bad news for the righties.157,000 jobs added last month.remember when obama took office we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. but yeah the stimulus wa a complete failure. carry on losers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43666933/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/

ColoradoDarin
07-07-2011, 09:56 AM
bad news for the righties.157,000 jobs added last month.remember when obama took office we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. but yeah the stimulus wa a complete failure. carry on losers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43666933/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/

We should be adding 400,000 jobs per month in a normal recovery. In a normal healthy economy we should be adding 200-250k jobs per month, just to keep up with population growth.

That you don't know either of those two facts speaks volumes.

ColoradoDarin
07-07-2011, 10:02 AM
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/07/%7E/media/Images/Reports/2011/07/wm3307_chart1_750.ashx

TonyR
07-07-2011, 10:03 AM
We should be adding 400,000 jobs per month in a normal recovery. In a normal healthy economy we should be adding 200-250k jobs per month, just to keep up with population growth.


It's not a "normal recovery" and it's not a "healthy economy". Neither of these things are "Obama's fault". The profound problems with our economy have roots that have been growing for many, many years. You're very naive, and you're grossly oversimplifying, if you're suggesting that Obama should be pounded for not fixing this mess overnight. Specific criticisms are fair but the general condemnations are ignorant.

Tombstone RJ
07-07-2011, 10:20 AM
It's not a "normal recovery" and it's not a "healthy economy". Neither of these things are "Obama's fault". The profound problems with our economy have roots that have been growing for many, many years. You're very naive, and you're grossly oversimplifying, if you're suggesting that Obama should be pounded for not fixing this mess overnight. Specific criticisms are fair but the general condemnations are ignorant.

again, for the umpteenth time. People are complaining about barry because the actions that he has taken have not worked. The economy is stalled out. Chronic unemployment is huge, the cost of living is going up.

barry had a historic chance to prove to the world how great he is by kick starting the economy and getting people back to work. Instead he grew the fed gov and increased the national debt.

now his apologists are saying that the stimulus worked because the recession would have been worse without it. However, that's not why the stimulus was sold to the American people. It was sold to the American people because it was supposed to turn the economy around.

barry will not get a second term if the economy has not made pretty significant progress by the time the elections roll around. The GOP will use the same MO that Reagan did going against Carter: "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?" If the answer to that question is "no" then the GOP will say "vote for us!"

ColoradoDarin
07-07-2011, 10:20 AM
It's not a "normal recovery" and it's not a "healthy economy". Neither of these things are "Obama's fault". The profound problems with our economy have roots that have been growing for many, many years. You're very naive, and you're grossly oversimplifying, if you're suggesting that Obama should be pounded for not fixing this mess overnight. Specific criticisms are fair but the general condemnations are ignorant.

To answer:

1. No, the recession was not "Obama's fault."
2. I don't expect recovery "overnight"
3. 2 and a half years is not "overnight"
4. What Obama tried hasn't worked.

mkporter
07-07-2011, 11:01 AM
With the exception of the red, it's Obama's chart. I don't need the why, I just need to know the results. Obama was wrong, the stimulus didn't.

I didn't say it wasn't Obama's chart. I just noted that it doesn't necessarily show that the stimulus didn't work. It shows that they were overly optimistic about the employment picture (as were most people), which makes it useless as a tool to evaluate the impact of the stimulus.

TonyR
07-07-2011, 11:02 AM
again...

I don't really disagree with much you say here, mostly fair. My major "disagreement" would be that I don't know that anybody would have fixed things much, if any, better. This is a huge mess and politics are stifling what little chance and hope we have to improve things much. Personally reasonable to want to give somebody else a chance to "do better", however. I don't have any beef with that.

TonyR
07-07-2011, 11:04 AM
To answer:

1. No, the recession was not "Obama's fault."
2. I don't expect recovery "overnight"
3. 2 and a half years is not "overnight"
4. What Obama tried hasn't worked.

All fair. My only further response is that, on 3, recovery is going take a lot longer.

mkporter
07-07-2011, 11:06 AM
Decrease the corporate income tax rate to 25% (at least), close the loopholes. That's what conservative's have been saying all along. And the U.S. has the highest corporate income tax rate in the world, your data is outdated.

What conservatives say, and what conservatives do are two entirely different things. Most of them are serious about lowering the rate. Few of them are serious about closing loopholes. And it's not just conservatives that are saying this:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/rep-rangel-proposes-amt-repeal-corporate-tax-rate-cut

Irish Stout
07-07-2011, 11:15 AM
I know the Democrat's stance VERY well, and I have NEVER heard of any Democrat publicly stating that they wanted to lower the corporate tax rate... until Bill Clinton.

NEVER in any speech, article, message board, conversation, etc. So if you are trying to change your story now, it is a flat out lie.

Funny thing is, this basically delegitamizes Obama's entire presidency.

I could search for and find various occassions of Dems at all levels of power stating that corporate taxes should be lowered. However for your sake, why don't we just go with the big O and look at the State of the Union and what a White House appointed counsel has suggested (lowering to 28%).

Learn more here:


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704013604576104741174061606.html

Irish Stout
07-07-2011, 11:18 AM
US Corporations pay less than their foriegn counterparts on whole, even though the tax rate for those same corps is higher. Who gets hurt is small business that cannot take advantage of loopholes or afford the lobbying that GE or the Oil Companies can.

Also, for those who equate taxing more to the rich to mean taxing more on corporations.... corporations are not seen as the rich, they are an entirely separate beast. What the statement of raising taxes on the rich usually refers to is raising capital gains and closing out loopholes for individuals NOT CORPS.

Mogulseeker
07-07-2011, 11:20 AM
To answer:

1. No, the recession was not "Obama's fault."
2. I don't expect recovery "overnight"
3. 2 and a half years is not "overnight"
4. What Obama tried hasn't worked.

For the record, I'd like to state that I'm GOP... I think that's important because I'm a deficit hawk but I'm pretty much defending Obama on this thread.

Your posts are reasonable, but ill-informed. To say that what Obama has "tried hasn't worked" shows an amount of economic naivete. The economy is prone to psychological shocks, OPEC, per-capita GDP (especially in BRIC countries)... hell, even the weather can dramatically shift the economy into a 180.

As for this graphic, well I imagine it would be even worse without the stimulus. That said, what we can debate over is whether the money was spent right (I don't think so), and how much the economy has gained and whether it was worth the money spent. But even then there are infinite variables that play into the matter...

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/07/~/media/Images/Reports/2011/07/wm3307_chart1_750.ashx

Rigs11
07-07-2011, 11:20 AM
We should be adding 400,000 jobs per month in a normal recovery. In a normal healthy economy we should be adding 200-250k jobs per month, just to keep up with population growth.

That you don't know either of those two facts speaks volumes.

What speaks volumes is that you can come in here and tell us that the stilumulus was a complete failure when we were losing jobs and now we are adding them. has the economy completely rebounded? No.but to say that the stimulus failed is close minded and politically driven rubbish. then again you are a rightie which explains your pessimism.

pricejj
07-07-2011, 12:29 PM
What conservatives say, and what conservatives do are two entirely different things. Most of them are serious about lowering the rate. Few of them are serious about closing loopholes. And it's not just conservatives that are saying this:


Ever heard of the Ryan Plan? It is a budget proposal sponsored by Congressman Paul Ryan, that passed the house, which would have decreased the corporate tax rate to 25%, while closing the loopholes. Unfortunately the Democrat controlled senate, led by Harry Reid, voted it down.

A conservative, Paul Ryan, wrote it up, and conservatives voted for it. Your post contradicts reality.

Your link showed a proposed bill from the unethical Charlie Rangel in 2007, which I'm sure was resoundingly voted down in the Democratic contolled House of Reps. Got anything from this decade?

pricejj
07-07-2011, 12:44 PM
I could search for and find various occassions of Dems at all levels of power stating that corporate taxes should be lowered. However for your sake, why don't we just go with the big O and look at the State of the Union and what a White House appointed counsel has suggested (lowering to 28%).


Ahh yes... the White House appointed debt commission. The commission that Obama created, who spent a year coming to bi-partisan debt reduction solutions, which the President briefly gave lip service to, but then discarded completely. Why doesn't Obama take the advice of his own bi-partisan debt commission?

The same reason the corporate tax was never lowered during 2 years of Democrat supermajority, and the same reason it won't happen until the Democratic majority is voted out of the Senate: Democrat's are against it.

It makes perfect sense, which is something Democrat's are fundamentally opposed to.

Irish Stout
07-07-2011, 01:07 PM
Ahh yes... the White House appointed debt commission. The commission that Obama created, who spent a year coming to bi-partisan debt reduction solutions, which the President briefly gave lip service to, but then discarded completely. Why doesn't Obama take the advice of his own bi-partisan debt commission?

The same reason the corporate tax was never lowered during 2 years of Democrat supermajority, and the same reason it won't happen until the Democratic majority is voted out of the Senate: Democrat's are against it.

It makes perfect sense, which is something Democrat's are fundamentally opposed to.

Dude - you're a moving target. First its "taxing the rich" = raising tax on corps. Second its "a Dem has never said lower corp taxes." Now its Dems are against it because it hasn't happened in two years.

Do you care whether or not its happened in the last 10 years? Would it matter if I came up with more facts that proved you're wrong? No. You can't see around your own prejudices and you're blind to examining the truth.

There is always a better way to do things and the Dems don't have it right right now, I agree! But come on man... Repubs and Dems do good things, they do bad things, they do corrupt things, they succeed and they fail and there often is little difference in between.

Irish Stout
07-07-2011, 01:10 PM
Ever heard of the Ryan Plan? It is a budget proposal sponsored by Congressman Paul Ryan, that passed the house, which would have decreased the corporate tax rate to 25%, while closing the loopholes. Unfortunately the Democrat controlled senate, led by Harry Reid, voted it down.

A conservative, Paul Ryan, wrote it up, and conservatives voted for it. Your post contradicts reality.

Your link showed a proposed bill from the unethical Charlie Rangel in 2007, which I'm sure was resoundingly voted down in the Democratic contolled House of Reps. Got anything from this decade?

The Ryan plan actually had detractors on the both side of the aisle and was eventually shown to have some inaccuracies.
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/05/ryans-budget-spin/

Rigs11
07-07-2011, 01:19 PM
Ever heard of the Ryan Plan? It is a budget proposal sponsored by Congressman Paul Ryan, that passed the house, which would have decreased the corporate tax rate to 25%, while closing the loopholes. Unfortunately the Democrat controlled senate, led by Harry Reid, voted it down.

A conservative, Paul Ryan, wrote it up, and conservatives voted for it. Your post contradicts reality.

Your link showed a proposed bill from the unethical Charlie Rangel in 2007, which I'm sure was resoundingly voted down in the Democratic contolled House of Reps. Got anything from this decade?

the ryan plan is complete and utter bs. even the right is backing away from it. tax cuts for corporations while at the same time decimating social programs? bravo.

mkporter
07-07-2011, 01:30 PM
Ever heard of the Ryan Plan? It is a budget proposal sponsored by Congressman Paul Ryan, that passed the house, which would have decreased the corporate tax rate to 25%, while closing the loopholes. Unfortunately the Democrat controlled senate, led by Harry Reid, voted it down.

A conservative, Paul Ryan, wrote it up, and conservatives voted for it. Your post contradicts reality.

Your link showed a proposed bill from the unethical Charlie Rangel in 2007, which I'm sure was resoundingly voted down in the Democratic contolled House of Reps. Got anything from this decade?

Yeah, I've heard of the Ryan plan. Pretty sure the evisceration of medicare, among other things was pretty high on the list of reasons it was voted down. It wasn't exactly a referendum on corporate tax policy, and I think you know that.

Conservatives held congress and the white house very recently. They were able to push through two major income tax cuts. They clearly did not have the will to enact corporate tax reform.

I don't doubt that there is a larger push from the conservatives on this issue, and I'll give credit for that. Your position that democrats would never consider corporate tax reform is childish, however, and my link showed that. Yeah, Rangel is a douche, but he's still a democrat. "Got anything from this Decade?" Really? 2007 was only four years ago. Grow up.

epicSocialism4tw
07-07-2011, 02:08 PM
US Corporations pay less than their foriegn counterparts on whole, even though the tax rate for those same corps is higher. Who gets hurt is small business that cannot take advantage of loopholes or afford the lobbying that GE or the Oil Companies can.

Obama loves him some GE, thats for sure.

pricejj
07-07-2011, 02:54 PM
Yeah, I've heard of the Ryan plan. Pretty sure the evisceration of medicare, among other things was pretty high on the list of reasons it was voted down. It wasn't exactly a referendum on corporate tax policy, and I think you know that.

Conservatives held congress and the white house very recently. They were able to push through two major income tax cuts. They clearly did not have the will to enact corporate tax reform.

I don't doubt that there is a larger push from the conservatives on this issue, and I'll give credit for that. Your position that democrats would never consider corporate tax reform is childish, however, and my link showed that. Yeah, Rangel is a douche, but he's still a democrat. "Got anything from this Decade?" Really? 2007 was only four years ago. Grow up.

You want me to entertain doomed Rangel legislation that Democrats didn't vote for? Not worth my time.

In 1992, when Clinton raised the corporate tax rate to 35%, Germany's corporate tax rate was 56%. Today Germany's corporate tax rate is 15%.

Ryan's plan would give Medicare recipients block grant funding up to the deductible, requiring private insurance companies to pay above that. It is a great idea to bein to reduce healthcare costs, but more needs to be done. The current system of taxpayer's writing a blank check for Medicare only spirals costs out of control for everyone.

Have any better ideas? Single payor has bankrupted Europe and Massachusetts. Government intervention in private markets only increases costs.

Irish Stout
07-07-2011, 02:55 PM
Obama loves him some GE, thats for sure.

If there is something I am missing here, then I love some actual facts, but from what I understand:

GE has been pushing the boundaries of the current tax system to extremes for the last 5 years, prior to your personal satan. The blame does not lie in the just the last two years alone for what they've gotten away with.

Obama pulled a shrewd move in January when he named GE's Jeffrey Immelt to assist him on corporate taxes. If you were going to work on closing up some tax loopholes, wouldn't the most prudent move be to get advice from the best loophole jumper in the game?

epicSocialism4tw
07-07-2011, 03:02 PM
If there is something I am missing here, then I love some actual facts, but from what I understand:

GE has been pushing the boundaries of the current tax system to extremes for the last 5 years, prior to your personal satan. The blame does not lie in the just the last two years alone for what they've gotten away with.

Obama pulled a shrewd move in January when he named GE's Jeffrey Immelt to assist him on corporate taxes. If you were going to work on closing up some tax loopholes, wouldn't the most prudent move be to get advice from the best loophole jumper in the game?



http://www.google.com/#hl=en&xhr=t&q=Obama+GE&cp=8&qe=T2JhbWEgR0U&qesig=gH6L6o1idurIu5yechLO1A&pkc=AFgZ2tn2ybXaYGXB5c51Vu1gXY6Dn3SWx2T_zNLqOOjkPB 3f8asLhSU4-6YxoT3VtLeeE9tOhdueec7fooPZ9vVvpMaQKmHiUw&pf=p&sclient=psy&safe=off&biw=1024&bih=550&source=hp&aq=0&aqi=&aql=&oq=Obama+GE&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=188253189446e502

pricejj
07-07-2011, 03:02 PM
the ryan plan is complete and utter bs. even the right is backing away from it. tax cuts for corporations while at the same time decimating social programs? bravo.

Social programs WILL be cut, due to their unsustainability (i.e. Europe). It is the nature of people and corporatations to take of adantage of these programs with fraud, which leads to escalating costs, and is precisely why Socialism doesn't work.

The corporate tax rate of 35% WILL be cut, and the loopholes will be closed, in order to bring back jobs to the U.S. I have discussed ad nauseum on this board why it is necessary. I believe it will happen soon, maybe even after the current debt negotiations.

The Ryan plan is the best plan to date that addresses the rising debt in realistic terms, and makes sense on many levels. I can debate it with you bit by bit if you prefer. Your claim that conservatives are backing away from it is false. The legislation passed the House along party lines, and failed in the senate along party lines.

Rand Paul (KY) did not back it, because it is not conservative enough. I agree with him, however, it is a good start.

Tombstone RJ
07-07-2011, 03:03 PM
If there is something I am missing here, then I love some actual facts, but from what I understand:

GE has been pushing the boundaries of the current tax system to extremes for the last 5 years, prior to your personal satan. The blame does not lie in the just the last two years alone for what they've gotten away with.

Obama pulled a shrewd move in January when he named GE's Jeffrey Immelt to assist him on corporate taxes. If you were going to work on closing up some tax loopholes, wouldn't the most prudent move be to get advice from the best loophole jumper in the game?

ROFL!

Wow, you are naive. Immelt isn't gonna tell barry how to close the loopholes, he's just gonna tell barry how great of a president he is and to keep everything just the way it is now.

pricejj
07-07-2011, 03:11 PM
The Ryan plan actually had detractors on the both side of the aisle and was eventually shown to have some inaccuracies.
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/05/ryans-budget-spin/

The Ryan plan, like all 10-year budget's, is based on projections. It does not go far enough towards balancing the budget immediately. However, it is the first legislative document of its kind which begins to address the primary drivers behind the different sectors of federal government spending, with actual real world solutions that contain costs.

It is the ONLY piece of legislation introduced, that cuts ALL levels of government spending, including military. In the plan, Ryan call's for a military budget limit of 20% of federal tax revenues. With a balanced budget, using last years tax revenue collection of approximately $2T, that would leave the military budget at $400B, a 50% cut, from current spending levels.

Irish Stout
07-07-2011, 03:28 PM
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&xhr=t&q=Obama+GE&cp=8&qe=T2JhbWEgR0U&qesig=gH6L6o1idurIu5yechLO1A&pkc=AFgZ2tn2ybXaYGXB5c51Vu1gXY6Dn3SWx2T_zNLqOOjkPB 3f8asLhSU4-6YxoT3VtLeeE9tOhdueec7fooPZ9vVvpMaQKmHiUw&pf=p&sclient=psy&safe=off&biw=1024&bih=550&source=hp&aq=0&aqi=&aql=&oq=Obama+GE&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=188253189446e502

But none of those articles in google say anything different than what I said. Some don't think it was shrewd to bring Immelt in as an advisor, some do. They all recognize that GE has pushed its loopholes through CONGRESS over the past decade.

GE has basically gotten away with too much, as have many many other major corps in the US.

Irish Stout
07-07-2011, 03:28 PM
ROFL!

Wow, you are naive. Immelt isn't gonna tell barry how to close the loopholes, he's just gonna tell barry how great of a president he is and to keep everything just the way it is now.

Who is barry?

Mogulseeker
07-07-2011, 03:29 PM
Most would say the Ryan plan cuts too much.

I have to admit, I do like the idea of rolling back SS and medicare, though.

Mogulseeker
07-07-2011, 03:31 PM
Yeah, I've heard of the Ryan plan. Pretty sure the evisceration of medicare, among other things was pretty high on the list of reasons it was voted down. It wasn't exactly a referendum on corporate tax policy, and I think you know that.

Conservatives held congress and the white house very recently. They were able to push through two major income tax cuts. They clearly did not have the will to enact corporate tax reform.

I don't doubt that there is a larger push from the conservatives on this issue, and I'll give credit for that. Your position that democrats would never consider corporate tax reform is childish, however, and my link showed that. Yeah, Rangel is a douche, but he's still a democrat. "Got anything from this Decade?" Really? 2007 was only four years ago. Grow up.

Solid.

Let's just say I trust the GOP more for having the necessary callousness for reform... but I do think the Democrats would be better at closing the tax loopholes.

ColoradoDarin
07-07-2011, 03:38 PM
What speaks volumes is that you can come in here and tell us that the stilumulus was a complete failure when we were losing jobs and now we are adding them. has the economy completely rebounded? No.but to say that the stimulus failed is close minded and politically driven rubbish. then again you are a rightie which explains your pessimism.

This is what explains my pessimism.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/07/~/media/Images/Reports/2011/07/wm3307_chart1_750.ashx

Did you know we had 2 depressions during the 20th Century? The Great Depression (which study shows FDR's policies lengthened it by 7 years, those same policies is what Obama is doing). And then there was the Depression of 1920-1921 (http://mises.org/daily/3788).

The economic situation in 1920 was grim. By that year unemployment had jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent, and GNP declined 17 percent. No wonder, then, that Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover - falsely characterized as a supporter of laissez-faire economics - urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to turn the economy around. Hoover was ignored.

Instead of "fiscal stimulus," Harding cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding's approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third.

The Federal Reserve's activity, moreover, was hardly noticeable. As one economic historian puts it, "Despite the severity of the contraction, the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and fight the contraction." By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7 percent and it was only 2.4 percent by 1923.

(snip)

It is not in spite of the absence of fiscal and monetary stimulus that the economy recovered from the 1920-1921 depression. It is because those things were avoided that recovery came.

So yeah, I'm not a Keynesian, and I'm pretty sure that the data backs me up.

ColoradoDarin
07-07-2011, 03:40 PM
Yeah, I've heard of the Ryan plan. Pretty sure the evisceration of medicare, among other things was pretty high on the list of reasons it was voted down. It wasn't exactly a referendum on corporate tax policy, and I think you know that.

Conservatives held congress and the white house very recently. They were able to push through two major income tax cuts. They clearly did not have the will to enact corporate tax reform.

I don't doubt that there is a larger push from the conservatives on this issue, and I'll give credit for that. Your position that democrats would never consider corporate tax reform is childish, however, and my link showed that. Yeah, Rangel is a douche, but he's still a democrat. "Got anything from this Decade?" Really? 2007 was only four years ago. Grow up.

Like the $500 billion that Obamacare takes from Medicare?

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
07-07-2011, 08:23 PM
http://www.mrctv.org/video/103449

http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2011/20110707043440.aspx

How do you talk to these kind of people?

ColoradoDarin
07-08-2011, 06:44 AM
This is why you use apples to apples comparison, the ADP number from earlier this week is unofficial - This is the number everyone uses:

From CNBC (http://www.cnbc.com/id/43682730)

Jobs Picture Gets Even Worse as Rate Swells to 9.2%


U.S. employment growth ground to a halt in June, with employers hiring the fewest number of workers in nine months, dampening hopes the economy was on the cusp of regaining momentum after stumbling in recent months.

Nonfarm payrolls rose only 18,000, the weakest reading since September, the Labor Department said on Friday, well below economists' expectations for a 90,000 rise. Many economists raised their forecasts on Thursday after a stronger-than-expected reading on U.S. private hiring from payrolls processor ADP, and they expected gains of anywhere between 125,000 and 175,000.

The unemployment rate climbed to 9.2 percent, the highest since December, from 9.1 percent in May.

The government revised April and May payrolls to show 44,000 fewer jobs created than previously reported. The report shattered expectations that the economy was starting to accelerate after a soft patch in the first half of the year.

Yikes.

Tombstone RJ
07-08-2011, 09:26 AM
Who is barry?

Our president. He used to go by "Barry Obama" when he was partying in college. Read some history on the current president (and stay away from his self-aggrandizing auto-biographies which are mostly pure fluff), much of it is disappointing...

ant1999e
07-08-2011, 10:07 AM
If there is something I am missing here, then I love some actual facts, but from what I understand:

GE has been pushing the boundaries of the current tax system to extremes for the last 5 years, prior to your personal satan. The blame does not lie in the just the last two years alone for what they've gotten away with.

Obama pulled a shrewd move in January when he named GE's Jeffrey Immelt to assist him on corporate taxes. If you were going to work on closing up some tax loopholes, wouldn't the most prudent move be to get advice from the best loophole jumper in the game?

Are you fuggin kidding? Can you really be dumb enough to believe this? ****, with this logic we should have hired Osama to help us fight terrorism.

TailgateNut
07-08-2011, 10:18 AM
The Ryan plan, like all 10-year budget's, is based on projections. It does not go far enough towards balancing the budget immediately. However, it is the first legislative document of its kind which begins to address the primary drivers behind the different sectors of federal government spending, with actual real world solutions that contain costs.

It is the ONLY piece of legislation introduced, that cuts ALL levels of government spending, including military. In the plan, Ryan call's for a military budget limit of 20% of federal tax revenues. With a balanced budget, using last years tax revenue collection of approximately $2T, that would leave the military budget at $400B, a 50% cut, from current spending levels.


I'd like to see defense cuts also, but once you make cuts of that magnitude it will take down the civilian support structure and you'll see double digit unemployment in a matter of months.

Yehaw

hold on for dear life. It's gonna get bumpy!

cutthemdown
07-08-2011, 01:14 PM
I'd like to see defense cuts also, but once you make cuts of that magnitude it will take down the civilian support structure and you'll see double digit unemployment in a matter of months.

Yehaw

hold on for dear life. It's gonna get bumpy!

Not to mention any real cuts have to come from the troop levels. They take most of the budget. I would say start with cutting all the troops who are not yet Americans.

cutthemdown
07-08-2011, 01:19 PM
That's the real reason we don't see either side talk much about Pentagon cutting. What are you going to do with the 200 thousand troops if you cut from 1.5 million to say 1.3, or even lower? Then the bases you close are like mini economies. The cities around them often rely on them. Then the big fish, the defense contractors and all the people they employ. It's the elephant in the room neither the dems or repubs want to talk about. Dems wanted Obama much because IMO they thought he would tackle those Elephants. He can't though he doesn't have the support from his own party.

Tombstone RJ
07-09-2011, 09:25 AM
This is why you use apples to apples comparison, the ADP number from earlier this week is unofficial - This is the number everyone uses:

From CNBC (http://www.cnbc.com/id/43682730)


Yikes.

this is really sad. Unfortunately I think the GOP is going to play hard ball because they know that if the economy stays in the tank, ain't no way barry will get a second term.

barry dug his own grave IMHO in that when he got to the white house he voiced the idea of working across party lines, but the reality is he strong armed the GOP with things like Obamacare. This in turn helped the GOP win the majority of the House seats in the last elections and with that, the GOP can propose ideas (which they know the dems probably won't support) and they can sit back and watch the dems squirm and blame Bush for the current economy.

it's a waiting game now folks...

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
07-09-2011, 09:35 AM
http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com/demotivators/presidential_facepalm.jpeg

TheElusiveKyleOrton
07-09-2011, 09:36 AM
http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com/demotivators/presidential_facepalm.jpeg

UltimateMoronWithCockInAss has never rubbed his eyes.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
07-09-2011, 09:38 AM
UltimateMoronWithCockInAss has never rubbed his eyes.

You are just soooooo easy to tweeck. LOL

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
07-09-2011, 09:55 AM
The true picture of "o".

http://www.retrojunkie.com/gif/3392.gif

Tombstone RJ
07-09-2011, 09:57 AM
hehehehe!

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
07-09-2011, 09:58 AM
Effect of the stimulus.

http://www.retrojunkie.com/gif/f5f8.gif

TheElusiveKyleOrton
07-09-2011, 10:17 AM
You are just soooooo easy to tweeck. LOL

And you're easy to mock. Everybody wins.

NUB
07-09-2011, 10:37 AM
this is really sad. Unfortunately I think the GOP is going to play hard ball because they know that if the economy stays in the tank, ain't no way barry will get a second term.

barry dug his own grave IMHO in that when he got to the white house he voiced the idea of working across party lines, but the reality is he strong armed the GOP with things like Obamacare. This in turn helped the GOP win the majority of the House seats in the last elections and with that, the GOP can propose ideas (which they know the dems probably won't support) and they can sit back and watch the dems squirm and blame Bush for the current economy.

it's a waiting game now folks...

The original health care plan proposed, which was the same one conservatives offered as an alternative back in the 1990s, was stripped to bare bones by numerous concessions. You either do not fully understand the term "strong armed" or are misunderstanding what exactly "Obamacare" is vs. what it was meant to be. Nevermind that the passing occurred against the GOP's perpetual lie-machine which produced a never ending wave of misinformation concerning the reforms. I'm surprised the bill got passed at all with a substantial population of morons running around thinking grandma was gonna face the American healthcare Gestapo.

Tombstone RJ
07-09-2011, 11:35 AM
The original health care plan proposed, which was the same one conservatives offered as an alternative back in the 1990s, was stripped to bare bones by numerous concessions. You either do not fully understand the term "strong armed" or are misunderstanding what exactly "Obamacare" is vs. what it was meant to be. Nevermind that the passing occurred against the GOP's perpetual lie-machine which produced a never ending wave of misinformation concerning the reforms. I'm surprised the bill got passed at all with a substantial population of morons running around thinking grandma was gonna face the American healthcare Gestapo.

I know it's a 2000 page document written by lobbyists and dropped onto congress to pass at the 11th hour. COMPLETE AND UTTER BS.

Again, for the fuggen umpteenth time. IF OBAMA wanted to help people get health insurance then BREAK THE DAMN HEALTH INSURANCE CARTEL.

That's step 1.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
07-09-2011, 11:47 AM
The original health care plan proposed, which was the same one conservatives offered as an alternative back in the 1990s, was stripped to bare bones by numerous concessions. You either do not fully understand the term "strong armed" or are misunderstanding what exactly "Obamacare" is vs. what it was meant to be. Nevermind that the passing occurred against the GOP's perpetual lie-machine which produced a never ending wave of misinformation concerning the reforms. I'm surprised the bill got passed at all with a substantial population of morons running around thinking grandma was gonna face the American healthcare Gestapo.

And now we have our Nazi/hitler comment. Let me ask you this. Assuming you know anything about history and you truely believe what you say, how do you have a dialoge with the "gestapo"?

epicSocialism4tw
07-09-2011, 11:56 AM
The original health care plan proposed, which was the same one conservatives offered as an alternative back in the 1990s, was stripped to bare bones by numerous concessions. You either do not fully understand the term "strong armed" or are misunderstanding what exactly "Obamacare" is vs. what it was meant to be. Nevermind that the passing occurred against the GOP's perpetual lie-machine which produced a never ending wave of misinformation concerning the reforms. I'm surprised the bill got passed at all with a substantial population of morons running around thinking grandma was gonna face the American healthcare Gestapo.

"You have to pass the bill to find out what's in it." - Nancy Pelosi

Um...yeah, Nance. We trust you and your radical leftist lobby groups to put together a gigantic bureaucratic boondoggle with the best for the average American in mind. Ha!

Did you ever consider what it would be like to sue the federal government when one of their new generation lesser-paid, lesser-educated, lesser-performing doctors misdiagnose and then end up leaving you with irreparable damage?

Aint gonna happen.

cutthemdown
07-09-2011, 12:00 PM
We have to pass the bill to find out what is in it. That has to be the lamest statement any speaker ever made about passing a bill.

epicSocialism4tw
07-09-2011, 12:15 PM
We have to pass the bill to find out what is in it. That has to be the lamest statement any speaker ever made about passing a bill.

I think that that was the moment when people really started to see through this thing. They didn't want to talk about what was in it. Typical nanny state garbage.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
07-09-2011, 02:29 PM
And you're easy to mock. Everybody wins.

http://www.retrojunkie.com/gif/captainkirkxd6.gif
He's mocking meeeeeee!!!!

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
07-09-2011, 02:44 PM
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Weak-hiring-casts-doubts-on-apf-2094293163.html?x=0


The report baffled economists who had predicted much stronger job creation. And it escalated a debate in Washington over how to spur hiring and energize the economy while also cutting federal spending.
Just 18,000 net jobs were created in June, the fewest in nine months. The unemployment rate rose to 9.2 percent, the highest rate of the year, the Labor Department said Friday.


Oh no he didn't!

Boomhauer
07-09-2011, 02:46 PM
I'd like to see defense cuts also, but once you make cuts of that magnitude it will take down the civilian support structure and you'll see double digit unemployment in a matter of months. ...

Economics has always been the excuse for a Military Industrial Complex, just like the new Terrorism Industrial Complex, both pushed full tilt by both parties over the last decade. Same philosophy as the Green Economy, Stim#1&2, standardized 2yr unemployment benefits, TARP, housing bubble, etc.

Cutting the budget can have a detrimental impact, but not if it's the fat that's cut. If the nation's budget is to be addressed, fat from those spending complexes, as well as socialist services and financial system welfare must be cut. For the military, the fat is unnecessary bases, welfare R&D, wars of choice and the major drain from clandestine operations/DHS/State/CIA/etc.

Effective spending is on what's needed, not what can be spent on.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
07-10-2011, 05:58 PM
http://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/the-sugar-daddy-has-run-out-of-sugar-now-we-need-new-leaders/10150235296718435


The same “experts” who got us into this mess are now telling us that the only way out of our debt crisis is to “increase revenue,” but not by creating more jobs and therefore a larger tax base; no, they want to “increase revenue” by raising taxes on job creators who are taxed enough already! As Margaret Thatcher said, “The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” That’s where we are now. Hard working taxpayers have been big government’s Sugar Daddy for far too long, and now we’re out of sugar. We don’t want big government, we can’t afford it, and we are unwilling to pay for it.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
07-10-2011, 08:47 PM
Once again, for the fifty thousandth time:

Getting corporations and wealthy Americans to pay their full share -- 35% -- per the tax code, is not a tax increase. It's getting them to pay what they're supposed to pay, temporarily, in order to fix the 'greatest threat to our country,' according to Republicans.

Do Republicans want to fix the deficit? or not? Or do they just want to fix it on the backs of school children, the elderly, and the poor, while allowing the greatest upward flow of wealth in this country's history to continue?

I think we know the answer to that.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
07-10-2011, 10:48 PM
Once again, for the fifty thousandth time:

Getting corporations and wealthy Americans to pay their full share -- 35% -- per the tax code, is not a tax increase. It's getting them to pay what they're supposed to pay, temporarily, in order to fix the 'greatest threat to our country,' according to Republicans.

Do Republicans want to fix the deficit? or not? Or do they just want to fix it on the backs of school children, the elderly, and the poor, while allowing the greatest upward flow of wealth in this country's history to continue?

I think we know the answer to that.


The inconvenient truth for liberal media members is Congressional Democrats havenít proposed a budget since the fiscal 2010 one was passed on April 3, 2009.

Thatís 27 straight months without a budget proposal from a Democrat in either the House or the Senate, and people like Shields have the gall to go on television and complain about proposals from Congressional Republicans.



Read more: Where Is Democrat Budget? Whatís Their Plan? | Vision to America http://visiontoamerica.org/2094/where-is-democrat-budget-whats-their-plan/#ixzz1RljmqgBx

http://visiontoamerica.org/2094/where-is-democrat-budget-whats-their-plan/

When your side comes up with a plan then talk to me.