PDA

View Full Version : Most recent stimulus didn't stimulate


Pages : [1] 2

Kaylore
07-05-2011, 07:55 AM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-s-economists-stimulus-has-cost-278000-job_576014.html

Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job

When the Obama administration releases a report on the Friday before a long weekend, it’s clearly not trying to draw attention to the report’s contents. Sure enough, the “Seventh Quarterly Report” on the economic impact of the “stimulus,” released on Friday, July 1, provides further evidence that President Obama’s economic “stimulus” did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy, and a whole lot to stimulate the debt.

Read the whole article. There is some evidence Obama's stimulus actually hurt growth. And before people say these are lies, this report came from the White House.

SonOfLe-loLang
07-05-2011, 07:57 AM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-s-economists-stimulus-has-cost-278000-job_576014.html

Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job



Read the whole article. There is some evidence Obama's stimulus actually hurt growth. And before people say these are lies, this report came from the White House.

C'mon, the weekly standard?

tsiguy96
07-05-2011, 07:59 AM
vote ron paul

Smiling Assassin27
07-05-2011, 08:01 AM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-s-economists-stimulus-has-cost-278000-job_576014.html

Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job



Depends on what you mean by 'stimulate'. There are plenty of liberals that went 'Divinyls' over the stimulus plan and will, to this day, refuse to acknowledge anything other than the reality that the stimulus created full employment, a budget surplus, and a new Cadillac in every garage.

Wait for the knee jerk reaction, Kaylore: It failed because...get this...it wasn't big enough.

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wv-34w8kGPM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Kaylore
07-05-2011, 08:08 AM
C'mon, the weekly standard?

Did you actually read the article? This is from the white House's report. This the administrations own deductions.

Kaylore
07-05-2011, 08:09 AM
Wait for the knee jerk reaction, Kaylore: It failed because...get this...it wasn't big enough.


I know. That's the "reason" every time liberalism fails. "Well it clearly wasn't liberal enough."

Jetmeck
07-05-2011, 08:12 AM
Whatever........maybe you think lowering taxrates for the rich and corporations will stimulate growth and jobs JUST LIKE IT HASN'T DONE FOR THE PAST DECADE......................WHY DON'T WE KEEP DOING WHAT WE KNOW DOES NOT WORK ?

LEAST THE MAN IS TRYING TO CLEAN up after FORMER REPUB GOOD OLE BOY
but HE DIDN'T GET A BLOWJOB but he is dumber than a rock George Bush's mess...................give him some time to clean up eight years of cluster****s.........

SonOfLe-loLang
07-05-2011, 08:13 AM
I actually don't even get the articles logic, but most economists, liberal or otherwise, said the stimulus was way too small to make much of a dent before it was even enacted (and also ended to early). Not to mention, 1/3 of the stimulus was actually tax cuts. I've said it 1 billion times, there's proof government intervention works in these cases, and its world war 2. Which was, economically speaking, a huge government stimulus program.

TheReverend
07-05-2011, 08:16 AM
Whatever........maybe you think lowering taxrates for the rich and corporations will stimulate growth and jobs JUST LIKE IT HASN'T DONE FOR THE PAST DECADE......................WHY DON'T WE KEEP DOING WHAT WE KNOW DOES NOT WORK ?

LEAST THE MAN IS TRYING TO CLEAN up after FORMER REPUB GOOD OLE BOY
but HE DIDN'T GET A BLOWJOB but he is dumber than a rock George Bush's mess...................give him some time to clean up eight years of cluster****s.........

Rage caps! Ha!

OABB
07-05-2011, 08:17 AM
i wish I had an Obama in my life. Like if I cheated on my wife for a decade, and than she cheated on me with Obama, I could call her a cheating whore and my neglect could be instantly ignored.

TonyR
07-05-2011, 08:17 AM
I know. That's the "reason" every time liberalism fails. "Well it clearly wasn't liberal enough."

This has very little to do with "liberalism". It has more to do with the banksters running the country. See Inside Job if you haven't already.

Kaylore
07-05-2011, 08:25 AM
I actually don't even get the articles logic, but most economists, liberal or otherwise, said the stimulus was way too small to make much of a dent before it was even enacted (and also ended to early). Not to mention, 1/3 of the stimulus was actually tax cuts. I've said it 1 billion times, there's proof government intervention works in these cases, and its world war 2. Which was, economically speaking, a huge government stimulus program.

Those were different times. We were largely a manufacturing country with a large manufacturing workforce. It's the reason wars don't help the country's economy like they used. Unfortunately an economic theory that worked 72 years ago, I'm sure you'll agree, at the very least has got to be updated.

Kaylore
07-05-2011, 08:27 AM
Whatever........maybe you think lowering taxrates for the rich and corporations will stimulate growth and jobs JUST LIKE IT HASN'T DONE FOR THE PAST DECADE......................WHY DON'T WE KEEP DOING WHAT WE KNOW DOES NOT WORK ?

LEAST THE MAN IS TRYING TO CLEAN up after FORMER REPUB GOOD OLE BOY
but HE DIDN'T GET A BLOWJOB but he is dumber than a rock George Bush's mess...................give him some time to clean up eight years of cluster****s.........

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/6/9/128890857447397020.jpg

SonOfLe-loLang
07-05-2011, 08:37 AM
Those were different times. We were largely a manufacturing country with a large manufacturing workforce. It's the reason wars don't help the country's economy like they used. Unfortunately an economic theory that worked 72 years ago, I'm sure you'll agree, at the very least has got to be updated.

Absolutely. And its sad we can't manufacture again, because we could be. I don't know what the answer is, other than its more radical than a weak stimulus or just cutting taxes again. However, i still do think, at its heart, the economic theory could work, but since we now function on a global economy, everything has to be tweaked to accomodate that.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
07-05-2011, 08:41 AM
Glad to see Kaylore has joined epicFAIL in the attention whoring on the main page. Poor fat guy was starting to get lonely.

We have a war, religion and politics forum for a reason. At least, I thought.

Chris
07-05-2011, 08:41 AM
Makes sense... though you have to bet big to win big.

cutthemdown
07-05-2011, 08:42 AM
Not exactly numbers Obama is going to want repeated much. Call up your liberal buddies Obama, I am sure they will throw something on TV about global warming.

cutthemdown
07-05-2011, 08:46 AM
This thread will probably turn into something about how bad Bush JR was, how Reagan started all this BS, how Republicans only care about spending when it's a democract. What a giveaway the stimulus was. I hope some of you got in on that money because I don't know anyone who did. Well that isn't true I do know a couple of people who got to spend like 2 yrs on unemployment. Both could have been working faster but why do that when they give you a ton of extensions.

strafen
07-05-2011, 08:52 AM
If Obama is the answer...how stupid was the question?

cutthemdown
07-05-2011, 09:06 AM
Glad to see Kaylore has joined epicFAIL in the attention whoring on the main page. Poor fat guy was starting to get lonely.

We have a war, religion and politics forum for a reason. At least, I thought.

What's wrong don't like this report?

Kaylore
07-05-2011, 09:06 AM
Absolutely. And its sad we can't manufacture again, because we could be. I don't know what the answer is, other than its more radical than a weak stimulus or just cutting taxes again. However, i still do think, at its heart, the economic theory could work, but since we now function on a global economy, everything has to be tweaked to accomodate that.

Well I agree with that. In some sense we have learned. I mean this second great depression is close to as bad as it was in the 30's but people aren't feeling it nearly as badly as they used to. And we have learned to not buy stocks on credit, and other such crap. I still am not enjoying the Zombie banks or the energy issues which are contributing to the inflation levels, though. Still with 20% underemployed, it's better than the 20% that were totally unemployed the last time this happened.

ant1999e
07-05-2011, 09:10 AM
i wish I had an Obama in my life. Like if I cheated on my wife for a decade, and than she cheated on me with Obama, I could call her a cheating whore and my neglect could be instantly ignored.

****, I wish I was Obama. **** everyone in the country up the ass and then have my cronies blame everyone else for their ass pains. :clown:

Kaylore
07-05-2011, 09:14 AM
Glad to see Kaylore has joined epicFAIL in the attention whoring on the main page. Poor fat guy was starting to get lonely.

We have a war, religion and politics forum for a reason. At least, I thought.

:erm?:

I post one political article and I'm attention whoring? My last four threads have been this, two on the lockout, and one asking what video games people liked and that makes me an attention whore?

Or is an attention whore anyone who makes Obama look bad with facts from his own administration?

Please let me know the rules so I can play better, k thx bi.

cutthemdown
07-05-2011, 09:14 AM
No wonder Geithner wants to resign. What a joke Obama's economic policies have been.

barryr
07-05-2011, 09:16 AM
Just goes to show the economy is above Obama´s head and his admin. as well since he doesn´t have people around him that know any more then he does about it. Throwing money around and hoping something good happens is not a plan, but that seems to be the main idea democrats have and have had for years. Try something else.

ant1999e
07-05-2011, 09:16 AM
Glad to see Kaylore has joined epicFAIL in the attention whoring on the main page. Poor fat guy was starting to get lonely.

We have a war, religion and politics forum for a reason. At least, I thought.

One thread is attention whoring??? Are we in season mode? I think you're just mad and deflecting your anger from Obama and his failures toward Kaylore.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
07-05-2011, 09:18 AM
One thread is attention whoring??? Are we in season mode? I think you're just mad and deflecting your anger from Obama and his failures toward Kaylore.

Oh, so we DON'T have a war, religion and politics thread? Huh. Seems like that's where this should be.

Unless you're desperate for attention.

barryr
07-05-2011, 09:18 AM
<img src="http://www.orangemane.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=15709&stc=1&d=1147936819">

I post one political article and I'm attention whoring? My last four threads have been this, two on the lockout, and one asking what video games people liked and that makes me an attention whore?

Or is an attention whore anyone who makes Obama look bad with facts from his own administration?

Please let me know the rules so I can play better, k thx bi.

You are because you posted news he wished was ignored so he can pretend it doesn´t exist. You should have posted a bunch of cartoons since that is what the liberals around here seem to understand the most.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
07-05-2011, 09:28 AM
Whatever........maybe you think lowering taxrates for the rich and corporations will stimulate growth and jobs JUST LIKE IT HASN'T DONE FOR THE PAST DECADE......................WHY DON'T WE KEEP DOING WHAT WE KNOW DOES NOT WORK ?

LEAST THE MAN IS TRYING TO CLEAN up after FORMER REPUB GOOD OLE BOY
but HE DIDN'T GET A BLOWJOB but he is dumber than a rock George Bush's mess...................give him some time to clean up eight years of cluster****s.........

Here the difference. Bush tried and failed.....8 years later. Big "o" has failed NOW! Do not pass go, do not collect $200. I love how Libs try to get credit for "good intentions", but failing. Yet, conservative have winng ideas, but get blamed for being "heartless" for asking people to pick up there own slack.

Popcorn Sutton
07-05-2011, 09:29 AM
This has very little to do with "liberalism". It has more to do with the banksters running the country. See Inside Job if you haven't already.

One of the more interesting parts of Inside Job was the people Obama surrounded himself with to address the economy. Most of them contributed a great deal towards the banking collapse in 2008.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
07-05-2011, 09:33 AM
<img src="http://www.orangemane.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=15709&stc=1&d=1147936819">

I post one political article and I'm attention whoring? My last four threads have been this, two on the lockout, and one asking what video games people liked and that makes me an attention whore?

Or is an attention whore anyone who makes Obama look bad with facts from his own administration?

Please let me know the rules so I can play better, k thx bi.

Here you go, kiddo!

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=25

Now try not to get lost this time, mmkay?

Must just be a coincidence that the Liberals on this forum are actually able to post threads in the actual war, religion and politics forum. So weird that Republicans aren't able to find it.

Of course, folks like barryr can't find their ass with both hands, so it's not THAT surprising.

TonyR
07-05-2011, 09:34 AM
One of the more interesting parts of Inside Job was the people Obama surrounded himself with to address the economy. Most of them contributed a great deal towards the banking collapse in 2008.

Yup, the same guys stay in power year after year. They go from Goldman Sachs (or other big Wall St. companies) to government to Harvard (or other top university) and back again. Every effort to "do the right thing" or "fixed things" is stomped into the ground by the powers that be and the banking lobby. This isn't about Obama or Bush. People are very naive about what's really going on. They think voting Obama out of office is going to fix things.

cutthemdown
07-05-2011, 09:37 AM
Here you go, kiddo!

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=25

Now try not to get lost this time, mmkay?

Must just be a coincidence that the Liberals on this forum are actually able to post threads in the actual war, religion and politics forum. So weird that Republicans aren't able to find it.

Of course, folks like barryr can't find their ass with both hands, so it's not THAT surprising.

This is some good deflection. Attach the forum instead of the post. How about just admitting that Obama's stimulus didn't work like he wanted it to.

Kaylore
07-05-2011, 09:43 AM
Here you go, kiddo!

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=25

Now try not to get lost this time, mmkay?

Must just be a coincidence that the Liberals on this forum are actually able to post threads in the actual war, religion and politics forum. So weird that Republicans aren't able to find it.

Of course, folks like barryr can't find their ass with both hands, so it's not THAT surprising.

Yeah because we know Baja and Gaffney never post their garbage on the main forum. Oh wait a minute....

And you still haven't explained how I'm attention whoring. This thread was never about me.

Kaylore
07-05-2011, 09:46 AM
Oh, so we DON'T have a war, religion and politics thread? Huh. Seems like that's where this should be.

Unless you're desperate for attention.

WTF are you talking about? How does this give me attention?

Garcia Bronco
07-05-2011, 09:49 AM
It was obvious that Obama was inexperienced during the election by some of the things he would say and more importantly his weak resume. There was a great deal of confidence around him based on his speeches and packaging. That confidence was misplaced.

Irish Stout
07-05-2011, 09:49 AM
I voted Obama, and his administration has blown my mind in keeping lock-step with the way the prior administration ran things. Remember the first steps of the bail out and stimulus were put into effect by Bush, which were then repeated by Obama. Obama came in on a high horse of sweeping change and here we are still witnessing the Bush tax cuts, the same cronyism (sp?), a totally neutered healthcare initiative, and statements like "to big to fail" in what should be more of a free market society. The stimulus didn't stimulate because the banks refused to lend, directly against the instructions for which they were receiving their own loans from Uncle Sam.

Liberals and conservatives vary on their economic positions in a few striking respects, but both of the recent administrations and both of the parties leaders believed in the stimulus, its not a one sided thing. If you want to attack Obama's economic policies since then, fine. But to blame the failing stimulus solely on liberals... come on!?!? Neither of the $700 billion plus plans created jobs, both continued tax cuts, and neither incentivized big corrupt lending institutions to change their practices or open up their lending doors to small businesses.

Garcia Bronco
07-05-2011, 09:49 AM
<img src="http://www.orangemane.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=15709&stc=1&d=1147936819">

I post one political article and I'm attention whoring? My last four threads have been this, two on the lockout, and one asking what video games people liked and that makes me an attention whore?

Or is an attention whore anyone who makes Obama look bad with facts from his own administration?

Please let me know the rules so I can play better, k thx bi.

Dude..you don't have to explain yourself. We know the score.

TonyR
07-05-2011, 09:51 AM
Good post, Irish Mc. Somebody gets it. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Garcia Bronco
07-05-2011, 09:51 AM
I voted Obama, and his administration has blown my mind in keeping lock-step with the way the prior administration ran things. Remember the first steps of the bail out and stimulus were put into effect by Bush, which were then repeated by Obama. Obama came in on a high horse of sweeping change and here we are still witnessing the Bush tax cuts, the same cronyism (sp?), a totally neutered healthcare initiative, and statements like "to big to fail" in what should be more of a free market society. The stimulus didn't stimulate because the banks refused to lend, directly against the instructions for which they were receiving their own loans from Uncle Sam.

Liberals and conservatives vary on their economic positions in a few striking respects, but both of the recent administrations and both of the parties leaders believed in the stimulus, its not a one sided thing. If you want to attack Obama's economic policies since then, fine. But to blame the failing stimulus solely on liberals... come on!?!? Neither of the $700 billion plus plans created jobs, both continued tax cuts, and neither incentivized big corrupt lending institutions to change their practices or open up their lending doors to small businesses.


Don't confuse TARP funds with the second stimlus passed under the Obama Administration. Teh second stimulus, aka porkulus, was just the Democrats spending money on their **** that got shot down the previous few years with an inflated price tag.

cutthemdown
07-05-2011, 09:59 AM
Yep TARP = Bush and that actually worked somewhat, even though it was still banker giveaway.

Auto Bailout and huge stimulus = all Obama

Liberals just don't want to face what an utter failure Obama has been. If they were smart they would look for a primary to see if they have anything better. Obama is a jet plane that crashed into a train! the worst trainwreck of a President since Jimmy Carter. Bush likes like Scrooge with money compared to Obama.

Jetmeck
07-05-2011, 09:59 AM
Here the difference. Bush tried and failed.....8 years later. Big "o" has failed NOW! Do not pass go, do not collect $200. I love how Libs try to get credit for "good intentions", but failing. Yet, conservative have winng ideas, but get blamed for being "heartless" for asking people to pick up there own slack.

Listen very carefully. Bush was given the keys to a Ferrari and Obama got a Yugo. UnderSTAND. ???????

bUSH TOOK EIGHT YEARS TO **** IT ALL UP AND OBAMA is supposed to wave a magic wand and fix it in two all the while the fallout from the previous eight has not even stopped yet ?

Understand ??????

You people are clueless, illogical and have no common sense if you cannot comprehend the vast chasm of difference here ?

For the record taking everyhting away from the poor and middle class to finance more bad tax breaks for the rich and corps is just plain wrong. Not right or left or lib or conserv just DAMN WRONG.PERIOD !!!!

tHE RICH AND CORPS HAVE BEEN MAKING GAINS FOR 30 YEARS ON THE MIDDLE CLASSES BACKS AND TIDE IS ABOUT TO TURN. mORE of the same will not help................

enjolras
07-05-2011, 09:59 AM
I know. That's the "reason" every time liberalism fails. "Well it clearly wasn't liberal enough."

Yet that free markets fail because "they aren't free enough" is just fine?

Jetmeck
07-05-2011, 10:03 AM
http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/6/9/128890857447397020.jpg


Well angry anyway. Stupid people that weren't taught basics principles of things as simple as right and wrong tend to do that to me !!!!!

DarkHorse30
07-05-2011, 10:03 AM
I love the way lefties complained about the "great satan" (aka GWB) and then when their golden child gets in and makes things worse.......it's still Bush's fault.

It's the economy, stupid. 57 is the idiot most of us thought he was.

Jetmeck
07-05-2011, 10:05 AM
Not exactly numbers Obama is going to want repeated much. Call up your liberal buddies Obama, I am sure they will throw something on TV about global warming.

You might as well get used to him, he is not going anywhere.
Mainstream America has seen the light and protecting the rich and corps and slamming the middle class is now out of step with reality.

Anything the repubs dance out there this time is pure hilarity, they got nothing and you know it.

Jetmeck
07-05-2011, 10:06 AM
I love the way lefties complained about the "great satan" (aka GWB) and then when their golden child gets in and makes things worse.......it's still Bush's fault.

It's the economy, stupid. 57 is the idiot most of us thought he was.

TWO years.............to try to stop a landslide Bush created. You are plain being unreasonable..............

alkemical
07-05-2011, 10:07 AM
I love the way lefties complained about the "great satan" (aka GWB) and then when their golden child gets in and makes things worse.......it's still Bush's fault.

It's the economy, stupid. 57 is the idiot most of us thought he was.

it's the same thing. doesn't matter, it's what people do. It's old, it's boring, and it's sure as **** not fixing anything.

Binkythefrog
07-05-2011, 10:12 AM
I still think a big part of the problem is that many familes are deleveraging and looking to pay down debt now. Until consumers start feeling confident that they will spend again, we won't see significant improvements in the economy.

It's hard for me to accept the conservative premise that tax cuts will lead to growth, because tax cuts in the past have had limited success. Even Reagan himself had to raise taxes during his administration. Of course back then he could reasonably do what he thought was best for America, but today the GOP is so controlled by ideology that it refuses to negotiate in good faith. I know many here won't even bother to read David Brooks op-ed in the NY Times today (I read the WSJ opinion because I always want to see intelligent conservative writing), but it is noteworthy given his past criticism of Obama and his center right stance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=1&hp

Many also don't realize how much government spending affects the economy. Whether it is contracts for defense firms, research funding, welfare, much of it ends up in the hands of actual families who then spend that money. Many firms rely on government contracts. Cut that spending and we'll see an even bigger recession.

Being a liberal, I agree that we need to cut our spending and reduce our national debt. I doubt any liberal who is thinking straight will even try to argue that fact, and I certaintly do not. I believe we need to find a way to end the wars in the middle east, look to carefully eliminate needless programs in government, and try new ways to control health care spending. Ideological solutions, like eliminating certain agencies in government or never considering increasing taxes on the rich I don't think will ever work. I also think certain liberal ideologies such as never allowing fracking or oil drilling are also ridiculous. Moderates need to increase their voice and not let the fringes of both parties dominate the debate.

my two cents.

Irish Stout
07-05-2011, 10:14 AM
Don't confuse TARP funds with the second stimlus passed under the Obama Administration. Teh second stimulus, aka porkulus, was just the Democrats spending money on their **** that got shot down the previous few years with an inflated price tag.

TARP (about $700 billion, not including the extra $170 billion stimulus by Bush), was still a stimulus in a loan to the banking industry. It was supposed to save the banks from declaring bankruptcy (worked) and to encourage new and continued lending to small businesses (failed). It has primarily been repaid at this point, but without the full terms of TARP being met by the banks.

The Obama economic policy was put into place because there was a lot of concern right at the changing of the guard that Bush admin hadn't done enough... it was agreed by most dems and repubs at the time that there was still too great a chance that an economic recovery was unachievable without government interference. The allocation of the money was primarily set to assist states that were also facing possible bankruptcy (similar to the purpose of TARP). The fact of the matter is you had many people on both sides of the aisle believing that the Keynesian economic stimulus plan would work, and many of our "leaders" agreed to the plan... Its clearly not a plan that is working out. I would argue, personally, that TARP didn't work either though as lending institutions seem very very reluctant to assist small business still, and I believe that small business is the key to the American economic system.

All I am saying here, right now, is that I think the "conservatives" who really seem to enjoy wielding anger and accusations at the "anti-American liberals," need to sometimes step back and re-examine the whole picture. The liberals who continue to throw Bush under the bus need to do the same. Those who believe in raising taxes and those who believe in cutting taxes are no less patriotic by those beliefs. It is no longer a game of "us" vs. "them" in America and the sooner we all realize this and quit wagging fingers, the sooner we can look for ways to actually make a real difference to drive this country forward. Sometimes if we can swallow the bitterness, quit looking for articles that trash differing view points, and try and bring constructive ideas to the table, maybe some real change can actually occur. I honestly believe that if something is to change in this country, it will start first in a place like this... but only when we stop looking to attack our fellow Americans.

Irish Stout
07-05-2011, 10:17 AM
Yep TARP = Bush and that actually worked somewhat, even though it was still banker giveaway.

Auto Bailout and huge stimulus = all Obama

Liberals just don't want to face what an utter failure Obama has been. If they were smart they would look for a primary to see if they have anything better. Obama is a jet plane that crashed into a train! the worst trainwreck of a President since Jimmy Carter. Bush likes like Scrooge with money compared to Obama.

This is what I am talking about. I admitted to being frustrated with Our President, even when I voted for him. I am likely what you'd call a liberal. Yet, you lump everyone together as being blind and stupid. If you too would really like to see something change in this country, you have to realize that this just creates more of a divide. We all know we can do better.

Irish Stout
07-05-2011, 10:18 AM
Listen very carefully. Bush was given the keys to a Ferrari and Obama got a Yugo. UnderSTAND. ???????

bUSH TOOK EIGHT YEARS TO **** IT ALL UP AND OBAMA is supposed to wave a magic wand and fix it in two all the while the fallout from the previous eight has not even stopped yet ?

Understand ??????

You people are clueless, illogical and have no common sense if you cannot comprehend the vast chasm of difference here ?

For the record taking everyhting away from the poor and middle class to finance more bad tax breaks for the rich and corps is just plain wrong. Not right or left or lib or conserv just DAMN WRONG.PERIOD !!!!

tHE RICH AND CORPS HAVE BEEN MAKING GAINS FOR 30 YEARS ON THE MIDDLE CLASSES BACKS AND TIDE IS ABOUT TO TURN. mORE of the same will not help................

Yeah and this doesn't help either... not to mention it looks like crazy talk.

Kaylore
07-05-2011, 10:22 AM
Thanks for your thought out response, Binky. Republicans won't admit they need the tax revenue and Dems won't admit they need to cut spending. Neither side will admit what's needed because they think that means they're screwing their whole ideology.

Here's what I still can't get an answer from a lefty on every time I ask. With the amount of control the Dems had, when you factor the watered-down, ill-timed health care bill, and the fact we've expanded our military involvement, how can you not hold Obama at least partially accountable? Whether you believe they were his policies and they failed, or you believe he couldn't garner support for what he wanted to do and was forced into a bad compromise, doesn't either scenario represent a failure in leadership?

I mean when Obama was elected, I at least felt like we weren't going to be at war for much longer. And here we are four years later with our military even more spread out and the bill climbing. And literally every time I bring this up, no one on the left says anything. Do you guys not care about that anymore? I don't get it...

cutthemdown
07-05-2011, 10:22 AM
Bush had a ferrari huh, because of a surplus. That is total BS because the problems in the housing market were already happening under Clinton. Just because those policies didn't blow up until later doesn't mean it was Bushes fault housing collapsed. Also Clinton mostly rode the NASDEQ tech explosion to a robust economic period. Trust us though we would all love for Obama to just spend what Clinton and Bush did. He's spent 10 times more for nothing.

Kaylore
07-05-2011, 10:23 AM
Bush had a ferrari huh, because of a surplus. That is total BS because the problems in the housing market were already happening under Clinton. Just because those policies didn't blow up until later doesn't mean it was Bushes fault housing collapsed. Also Clinton mostly rode the NASDEQ tech explosion to a robust economic period. Trust us though we would all love for Obama to just spend what Clinton and Bush did. He's spent 10 times more for nothing.

Yeah the whole "Bush broke it" is garbage. American knows it, though. That crap won't fly next election. Even when its true, Americans want answers, not blame.

ant1999e
07-05-2011, 10:24 AM
This is what I am talking about. I admitted to being frustrated with Our President, even when I voted for him. I am likely what you'd call a liberal. Yet, you lump everyone together as being blind and stupid. If you too would really like to see something change in this country, you have to realize that this just creates more of a divide. We all know we can do better.

This. And that's how they want it.

alkemical
07-05-2011, 10:26 AM
This. And that's how they want it.

Who? Them?! :D

ant1999e
07-05-2011, 10:26 AM
I still think a big part of the problem is that many familes are deleveraging and looking to pay down debt now. Until consumers start feeling confident that they will spend again, we won't see significant improvements in the economy.

It's hard for me to accept the conservative premise that tax cuts will lead to growth, because tax cuts in the past have had limited success. Even Reagan himself had to raise taxes during his administration. Of course back then he could reasonably do what he thought was best for America, but today the GOP is so controlled by ideology that it refuses to negotiate in good faith. I know many here won't even bother to read David Brooks op-ed in the NY Times today (I read the WSJ opinion because I always want to see intelligent conservative writing), but it is noteworthy given his past criticism of Obama and his center right stance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=1&hp

Many also don't realize how much government spending affects the economy. Whether it is contracts for defense firms, research funding, welfare, much of it ends up in the hands of actual families who then spend that money. Many firms rely on government contracts. Cut that spending and we'll see an even bigger recession.

Being a liberal, I agree that we need to cut our spending and reduce our national debt. I doubt any liberal who is thinking straight will even try to argue that fact, and I certaintly do not. I believe we need to find a way to end the wars in the middle east, look to carefully eliminate needless programs in government, and try new ways to control health care spending. Ideological solutions, like eliminating certain agencies in government or never considering increasing taxes on the rich I don't think will ever work. I also think certain liberal ideologies such as never allowing fracking or oil drilling are also ridiculous. Moderates need to increase their voice and not let the fringes of both parties dominate the debate.

my two cents.

Well said.

Popcorn Sutton
07-05-2011, 10:26 AM
TARP (about $700 billion, not including the extra $170 billion stimulus by Bush), was still a stimulus in a loan to the banking industry. It was supposed to save the banks from declaring bankruptcy (worked) and to encourage new and continued lending to small businesses (failed). It has primarily been repaid at this point, but without the full terms of TARP being met by the banks.

The Obama economic policy was put into place because there was a lot of concern right at the changing of the guard that Bush admin hadn't done enough... it was agreed by most dems and repubs at the time that there was still too great a chance that an economic recovery was unachievable without government interference. The allocation of the money was primarily set to assist states that were also facing possible bankruptcy (similar to the purpose of TARP). The fact of the matter is you had many people on both sides of the aisle believing that the Keynesian economic stimulus plan would work, and many of our "leaders" agreed to the plan... Its clearly not a plan that is working out. I would argue, personally, that TARP didn't work either though as lending institutions seem very very reluctant to assist small business still, and I believe that small business is the key to the American economic system.

All I am saying here, right now, is that I think the "conservatives" who really seem to enjoy wielding anger and accusations at the "anti-American liberals," need to sometimes step back and re-examine the whole picture. The liberals who continue to throw Bush under the bus need to do the same. Those who believe in raising taxes and those who believe in cutting taxes are no less patriotic by those beliefs. It is no longer a game of "us" vs. "them" in America and the sooner we all realize this and quit wagging fingers, the sooner we can look for ways to actually make a real difference to drive this country forward. Sometimes if we can swallow the bitterness, quit looking for articles that trash differing view points, and try and bring constructive ideas to the table, maybe some real change can actually occur. I honestly believe that if something is to change in this country, it will start first in a place like this... but only when we stop looking to attack our fellow Americans.

:notworthy

bronco militia
07-05-2011, 10:26 AM
BREAKING NEWS!!!!!!

the Governments ____________did not work


who knew

ant1999e
07-05-2011, 10:26 AM
Who? Them?! :D

The Man!!!

UberBroncoMan
07-05-2011, 10:28 AM
His stimulus was never for what it was "intended for" in the public eye. Everyone in the nation could have had 6 figures with his bull**** stimulus. Think about what that would have done for the economy. Not saying I'd want that, but regardless. It would have done a **** ton more for business growth.

Popcorn Sutton
07-05-2011, 10:34 AM
Thanks for your thought out response, Binky. Republicans won't admit they need the tax revenue and Dems won't admit they need to cut spending. Neither side will admit what's needed because they think that means they're screwing their whole ideology.

Here's what I still can't get an answer from a lefty on every time I ask. With the amount of control the Dems had, when you factor the watered-down, ill-timed health care bill, and the fact we've expanded our military involvement, how can you not hold Obama at least partially accountable? Whether you believe they were his policies and they failed, or you believe he couldn't garner support for what he wanted to do and was forced into a bad compromise, doesn't either scenario represent a failure in leadership?

I mean when Obama was elected, I at least felt like we weren't going to be at war for much longer. And here we are four years later with our military even more spread out and the bill climbing. And literally every time I bring this up, no one on the left says anything. Do you guys not care about that anymore? I don't get it...

The problem is politicians on both side of the aisle are more concerned with getting re-elected than fixing long-term issues.

The whole system is screwball.

ant1999e
07-05-2011, 10:40 AM
The problem is politicians on both side of the aisle are more concerned with getting re-elected than fixing long-term issues.

The whole system is screwball.

This is the scariest thread of the year. Too many people are saying the same thing.

Beantown Bronco
07-05-2011, 10:41 AM
Yeah the whole "Bush broke it" is garbage. American knows it, though. That crap won't fly next election. Even when its true, Americans want answers, not blame.

Sadly, I don't think it will really matter what any of the candidates say between now and the next election. I see no real possibility of Obama losing his re-election bid to any of the clowns currently in the running to oppose him.

Irish Stout
07-05-2011, 10:42 AM
Thanks for your thought out response, Binky. Republicans won't admit they need the tax revenue and Dems won't admit they need to cut spending. Neither side will admit what's needed because they think that means they're screwing their whole ideology.

Here's what I still can't get an answer from a lefty on every time I ask. With the amount of control the Dems had, when you factor the watered-down, ill-timed health care bill, and the fact we've expanded our military involvement, how can you not hold Obama at least partially accountable? Whether you believe they were his policies and they failed, or you believe he couldn't garner support for what he wanted to do and was forced into a bad compromise, doesn't either scenario represent a failure in leadership?

I mean when Obama was elected, I at least felt like we weren't going to be at war for much longer. And here we are four years later with our military even more spread out and the bill climbing. And literally every time I bring this up, no one on the left says anything. Do you guys not care about that anymore? I don't get it...

The two big tickets for why I voted for Obama - Healthcare and severly limiting our military pressence. I am so frustrated that healthcare got chopped off at the knees and yet Obama pushed a really crappy plan through anyway.

Lefties all over this country have actually been turning on Obama more and more. His approval rating even amongst the MSNBC viewers is down to G. W. Bush levels. Celeberties like Matt Damon have been calling him out for failing to make the changes he really could have made right off the bat with the momentum and dem support he should have had.

There is really not much more to say on it than that. I believe that he has done some good things, but I feel like he has failed to change the more important things. I know the economy has been a huge obstacle and I have a hard time being overtly critical there. But I absolutely agree that until recently we haven't seen the effort to bring our troops home permanently. And to that, I feel like there is little excuse.

Binkythefrog
07-05-2011, 10:47 AM
Thanks for your thought out response, Binky. Republicans won't admit they need the tax revenue and Dems won't admit they need to cut spending. Neither side will admit what's needed because they think that means they're screwing their whole ideology.

Here's what I still can't get an answer from a lefty on every time I ask. With the amount of control the Dems had, when you factor the watered-down, ill-timed health care bill, and the fact we've expanded our military involvement, how can you not hold Obama at least partially accountable? Whether you believe they were his policies and they failed, or you believe he couldn't garner support for what he wanted to do and was forced into a bad compromise, doesn't either scenario represent a failure in leadership?

I mean when Obama was elected, I at least felt like we weren't going to be at war for much longer. And here we are four years later with our military even more spread out and the bill climbing. And literally every time I bring this up, no one on the left says anything. Do you guys not care about that anymore? I don't get it...

Trust me, I'm definitely disappointed in the way Obama handled the wars. I find his nobel prize laughable given that he's increasing the usage of drones in places like Yemen, Somalia, Libya. I think they should take it away from him. But then I also think that they must be operating under some type of intelligence that gives this information to act on these kinds of threats. It's clear that our strategy hasn't changed much since Bush started in Middle East, and I know that it isn't a bunch of idiots in the Pentagon running our strategy over there. There are a lot of smart people thinking about this. I just question the level of our involvement and how much we are putting into this. Perhaps focusing our strategy on protecting our borders? I honestly don't know.

As far as health care, I'm not quite sure yet. I find it very difficult to think of a solution that works for all Americans. I hate how the debate became all about "fight for freedom against socialism" and how the far right put all of these doomsday scenarios out there. I truly believe that healthcare is a right, but also strongly believe that we can't all pay for those who can't afford health care on their own. So in that regard I hope that mandatory health insurance allows others to at least contribute some to their own health care while we try to find ways to stop the inflation of health care costs. I like some of the Republican proposals to try and limit malpractice claims, and I was disappointed that Obama did not seem to think much of it.

Tombstone RJ
07-05-2011, 10:50 AM
I'm pretty sure it stimulated the hell out of the wall street banker bonuses. and it stimulated some of the big unions, and it stimulated the growth of the fed gov. monstrosity. I mean, there's some good stimuli there... bigger government--check. bigger executive bonuses--check. bigger union pay checks--check.

Looks like barry got all his bases covered.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
07-05-2011, 10:57 AM
Yet that free markets fail because "they aren't free enough" is just fine?

I love how you assume that the free market is all that free. And the housing bubble was because of the fre market. Hahahahaha.

alkemical
07-05-2011, 11:01 AM
I'm pretty sure it stimulated the hell out of the wall street banker bonuses. and it stimulated some of the big unions, and it stimulated the growth of the fed gov. monstrosity. I mean, there's some good stimuli there... bigger government--check. bigger executive bonuses--check. bigger union pay checks--check.

Looks like barry got all his bases covered.



Insert big pile of blow here.

Garcia Bronco
07-05-2011, 11:05 AM
TARP (about $700 billion, not including the extra $170 billion stimulus by Bush), was still a stimulus in a loan to the banking industry. It was supposed to save the banks from declaring bankruptcy (worked) and to encourage new and continued lending to small businesses (failed). It has primarily been repaid at this point, but without the full terms of TARP being met by the banks.

The Obama economic policy was put into place because there was a lot of concern right at the changing of the guard that Bush admin hadn't done enough... it was agreed by most dems and repubs at the time that there was still too great a chance that an economic recovery was unachievable without government interference. The allocation of the money was primarily set to assist states that were also facing possible bankruptcy (similar to the purpose of TARP). The fact of the matter is you had many people on both sides of the aisle believing that the Keynesian economic stimulus plan would work, and many of our "leaders" agreed to the plan... Its clearly not a plan that is working out. I would argue, personally, that TARP didn't work either though as lending institutions seem very very reluctant to assist small business still, and I believe that small business is the key to the American economic system.



I think A total of 3 republicans (maybe five and one switched to the Democrats (Specter)) voted for the second stimulus or the "Recovery Act" aka porkulus. It's the Democrats bill and they didn't need one Republican vote to pass it. Those are the facts. The economy has been in an utter tail spin since they took back power in 2006, and while it's not solely their fault, it's still an epic failure.

The only constructive idea is this: CUT SPENDING IN BOTH DEFENSE AND HEALTH/HUMAN SERVICES (More than 90 percent of our budget) and LEAVE TAXES WHERE THEY ARE.

mkporter
07-05-2011, 11:10 AM
Did anyone actually read the report itself? Just curious.

To put it in football terms for you, this article is like a John Clayton piece analyzing pretty much anything. Pretty much a hack job with some numbers sprinkled in to justify a predetermined conclusion.

I'm going to assume some high school level academic capability here, so some of you may want to skip the rest of this post.

The weekly standard author makes two points:
1) The ARRA cost $278,000 per job created/saved. We'd be better off just paying $100k to each person and saving $427B
2) The ARRA has cost the economy 288,000 jobs over the past two quarters.

Here's why he's an idiot:
1) Employment growth is only one of two important metrics to look at. GDP growth is the other. According to the report, ARRA has created/saved 2.4M jobs. Also according to the report, GDP over the past two years is about $2 trillion higher due to ARRA. To summarize: For $666B (numerologists rejoice!) we have 2.4M more jobs, and the economy has produced an additional $2 trillion. If I was a conservative, I would not be using this report to argue that government stimulus is bad. As to the writer's idea to just pay $100K per job created, I hope he is planning to keep paying these people for years to come. (Give a man a fish...)

2) This is a doozy of retarded analysis. Some background: to determine how ARRA is performing, the authors of the government study started with a baseline projection of how the economy would perform. In other words, they put together some sophisticated estimates two years ago assuming that ARRA had not passed. As noted by the authors:

Of course, the estimates from a forecast approach have considerable margins of error. At any given time, the economy is subject to many influences that are not reflected in the past behavior of GDP and employment. These influences may be particularly large in a period as turbulent as the past two years. And, the longer the time that has passed, the larger the role of those disturbances is likely to be. As a result, the estimates from this approach are likely to be less precise as more time elapses.

The article is correct is noting that in Q3'2010, the analysis estimated 2.7M additional total jobs had been added, and in Q1'2011, the same analysis said that number was 2.4M jobs. There are two possibilities here: 1) ARRA is now eliminating jobs, or 2) The estimates projected higher baseline growth than actually occurred. Given the absence of an observed mechanism for the ARRA eliminating jobs, and a noted uptick in the projected job growth (from two years ago), the latter seems more likely to me.

28784

If you are a conservative who would really like government stimulus to be ineffectual, you'd be far better off attacking the government report's methodology in calculating the bill's impact. This is a very difficult thing to determine, and there is a lot of room for criticism:
As discussed in previous quarterly reports, evaluating the impact of countercyclical macroeconomic policy is inherently difficult because we do not observe what would have happened to the economy in the absence of policy.
I would avoid treating the numbers in this report as gospel, because on the whole, it does not have good news for you:
The analysis indicates that the Recovery Act has played a significant role in the turnaround of the economy that has occurred over the past two years. Real GDP reached its low point in the second quarter of 2009 and has been growing solidly since then, in large part because of the tax cuts and spending increases included in the Act. Employment, after falling dramatically, began to grow again on a sustained basis through 2010. As of the first quarter of 2011, the report estimates that the Recovery Act raised employment by 2.4 to 3.6 million jobs relative to what it otherwise would have been.

Flame on.

DHallblows
07-05-2011, 11:20 AM
I just can't believe this. A thread talking so negatively about the US government THE DAY AFTER INDEPENDENCE DAY!

mkporter
07-05-2011, 11:33 AM
Here's what I still can't get an answer from a lefty on every time I ask. With the amount of control the Dems had, when you factor the watered-down, ill-timed health care bill, and the fact we've expanded our military involvement, how can you not hold Obama at least partially accountable? Whether you believe they were his policies and they failed, or you believe he couldn't garner support for what he wanted to do and was forced into a bad compromise, doesn't either scenario represent a failure in leadership?


I agree with you on a few points here. The health care bill was watered-down, and does not do enough to bend the cost curve down going forward. It was also very poorly sold to the American public. I don't think it was ill-timed though. Health care costs are probably the single largest fiscal concern for America's future. The current climate in Washington makes it nearly impossible to get anything significant done, because everyone is concerned with the next election, and helping their team, not in actually doing what is best for the public. Obama went in when he had the chance, and destroyed a lot of his political capitol in doing so. He just should have gone all he way. He picks terrible compromises.

I agree with you about the wars, too. I have a lot of reasons that I didn't like W, but more than anything else, the Iraq war was the greatest mistake, and I felt so at the time, as it cost our country blood and treasure that we need now. The difficult part is that once you are at war, being the ethical country of higher moral standards that we strive to be, we are left with a responsibility to exit the wars as gracefully as possible. I think we've done decently in Iraq so far. Afghanistan is a more difficult question. I hope we are doing the right thing with the "surge" here, but I do not have a lot of confidence. Obama seems to largely be heeding the advise of the military, but they don't always have the some objectives as the public does.

Overall, I'm disappointed in the left for making crappy compromises. Show a little backbone for Pete's sake. I don't even know what to think of the right these days. IMO, there is a big need for a non-fundamentalist, fiscally sound, pragmatic, conservative movement, and it isn't there. I think a moderate conservative movement could help produce some good progress.

broncosteven
07-05-2011, 11:40 AM
Well I agree with that. In some sense we have learned. I mean this second great depression is close to as bad as it was in the 30's but people aren't feeling it nearly as badly as they used to. And we have learned to not buy stocks on credit, and other such crap. I still am not enjoying the Zombie banks or the energy issues which are contributing to the inflation levels, though. Still with 20% underemployed, it's better than the 20% that were totally unemployed the last time this happened.

I don't think this recession is anywhere near what happened in the 30's. If you ever read Grapes of Wrath or talked to your (at least my) grandparents who lived through it they wouldn't think this is bad at all.

Sure people have lost houses and moved possessions into storage units and moved into cheap motels and then lost the storage units but we don't have the natural disasters that Oaklahoma faced, a mass exodus of migrant workers looking for work, bread lines in the streets, people living out of their cars in mass groups on the outskirts of towns.

My maternal grandmother remembered going days without eating, they were lucky they had a house and some work she would tell me about someone showing up with an apple or potato and they would silently share it knowing it was stolen.

My paternal grandfather left school early to help provide for his mother, his father had died a year or 2 before. He would never talk about the depression years all he told me was he worked all day, would do side work here and there, did some boxing for $ and then at night study at the library he was only 10, he landed a good job making bearings at 15. He and his wife would save every penny they could the rest of their lives so they would never have to face the hardships they faced during the depression years.

Maybe when Obamavilles start cropping up then I will admit to this being as bad as the great depression but I still think the resession during the Carter and early Regan years was just as bad as what we are going through now.

alkemical
07-05-2011, 11:44 AM
I don't think this recession is anywhere near what happened in the 30's. If you ever read Grapes of Wrath or talked to your (at least my) grandparents who lived through it they wouldn't think this is bad at all.

Sure people have lost houses and moved possessions into storage units and moved into cheap motels and then lost the storage units but we don't have the natural disasters that Oaklahoma faced, a mass exodus of migrant workers looking for work, bread lines in the streets, people living out of their cars in mass groups on the outskirts of towns.

My maternal grandmother remembered going days without eating, they were lucky they had a house and some work she would tell me about someone showing up with an apple or potato and they would silently share it knowing it was stolen.

My paternal grandfather left school early to help provide for his mother, his father had died a year or 2 before. He would never talk about the depression years all he told me was he worked all day, would do side work here and there, did some boxing for $ and then at night study at the library he was only 10, he landed a good job making bearings at 15. He and his wife would save every penny they could the rest of their lives so they would never have to face the hardships they faced during the depression years.

Maybe when Obamavilles start cropping up then I will admit to this being as bad as the great depression but I still think the resession during the Carter and early Regan years was just as bad as what we are going through now.

There have been an increase in tent cities:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26776283/ns/us_news-life/t/hard-times-tent-cities-rise-across-country/

http://www.google.com/search?q=US+tent+cities&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

cutthemdown
07-05-2011, 12:00 PM
Obama went from saying it will create jobs and keep unemployment down. Then it was it has saved jobs and unemployment would be worst without it. Now its just flat well things would be worst without it. Soon they will hope you just don't remember it. Obama won't want to talk about the stimulus much on the election trail.

cutthemdown
07-05-2011, 12:00 PM
Carter had a ton of inflation that even as bad as it is right now we don't have. Food and gas are pretty inflated though, not saying things aren't pretty bad.

Archer81
07-05-2011, 12:07 PM
How do you count a "saved" job?


:Broncos:

alkemical
07-05-2011, 12:10 PM
How do you count a "saved" job?


:Broncos:

With Jesus.

TonyR
07-05-2011, 12:12 PM
...Dems won't admit they need to cut spending...

I'm not aware of any Dems who won't admit this. It should be obvious to everyone that massive spending cuts are necessary. I'm not aware of any congressional Dems saying that spending cuts are off the table, yet I have heard that the GOP won't consider revenue increases. No reason to compromise at the expense of ideology and political gain, right?

Archer81
07-05-2011, 12:15 PM
I'm not aware of any Dems who won't admit this. It should be obvious to everyone that massive spending cuts are necessary. I'm not aware of any congressional Dems saying that spending cuts are off the table, yet I have heard that the GOP won't consider revenue increases. No reason to compromise at the expense of ideology and political gain, right?


The federal budget (such as it is) has a 1 trillion dollar gap in what they collected in revenue and what they spent or plan to spend. No amount of "revenue increases" will close that gap.


:Broncos:

alkemical
07-05-2011, 12:17 PM
The federal budget (such as it is) has a 1 trillion dollar gap in what they collected in revenue and what they spent or plan to spend. No amount of "revenue increases" will close that gap.


:Broncos:

WEED

cutthemdown
07-05-2011, 12:27 PM
WEED

as in tax it, or smoke it so we don't care, or maybe smoke it and Obamas numbers will finally add up.

TonyR
07-05-2011, 12:28 PM
The federal budget (such as it is) has a 1 trillion dollar gap in what they collected in revenue and what they spent or plan to spend. No amount of "revenue increases" will close that gap.


Where did anyone suggest revenue increases only? Read my post again. You may notice I suggested the necessity of massive spending cuts.

TonyR
07-05-2011, 12:29 PM
Obama....

You need to stop babbling for a few minutes and read some of the posts between yours.

cutthemdown
07-05-2011, 12:29 PM
If they do increase the tax on the rich it will be interesting to see how much revenue that even creates.

Garcia Bronco
07-05-2011, 12:34 PM
If they do increase the tax on the rich it will be interesting to see how much revenue that even creates.

Indeed. Tax increases do not always equate to increased revenue.

alkemical
07-05-2011, 12:41 PM
as in tax it, or smoke it so we don't care, or maybe smoke it and Obamas numbers will finally add up.

Tax & smoke!

broncocalijohn
07-05-2011, 12:49 PM
With Jesus.

Well, we better hope Orton finds another team or Tebow just cost him one job.

Garcia Bronco
07-05-2011, 12:56 PM
Well, we better hope Orton finds another team or Tebow just cost him one job.

More like Orton cost himself a job.

mkporter
07-05-2011, 01:07 PM
The federal budget (such as it is) has a 1 trillion dollar gap in what they collected in revenue and what they spent or plan to spend. No amount of "revenue increases" will close that gap.


:Broncos:


Wouldn't $1 trillion in revenue increases close that gap?

mkporter
07-05-2011, 01:08 PM
If they do increase the tax on the rich it will be interesting to see how much revenue that even creates.

We saw how much revenue it destroyed when we cut the tax, so...

broncocalijohn
07-05-2011, 01:11 PM
More like Orton cost himself a job.

Original question was
How do you count a "saved" job?


:Broncos:

Alchemical answered "With Jesus"

Therefore, Jesus aka Tebow did not "save" a job, he cost Orton a job.
Remember there is a difference. Jesus saves and Tebow cost.

broncocalijohn
07-05-2011, 01:13 PM
Wouldn't $1 trillion in revenue increases close that gap?

Revenue increases? Just come out and say it Tax increases! I love the spin on political terms and then it is like a homework assignment as the new term is passed out to willing party. Be proud of it. If you like tax increases, come out and say it and don't be shy. Revenue increases= tax increases.

Garcia Bronco
07-05-2011, 01:19 PM
Increased taxes do not always = increased revenue. For example...a higher Captial gains percentage usually results in lower revenues.

Popcorn Sutton
07-05-2011, 01:23 PM
Increased taxes do not always = increased revenue. For example...a higher Captial gains percentage usually results in lower revenues.

I'd be interested in seeing an analysis on this. Of course, with the hopes that it isn't partisan.

mkporter
07-05-2011, 01:26 PM
Revenue increases? Just come out and say it Tax increases! I love the spin on political terms and then it is like a homework assignment as the new term is passed out to willing party. Be proud of it. If you like tax increases, come out and say it and don't be shy. Revenue increases= tax increases.

I am 100% in favor of Tax Increases! Maybe if so many people didn't have ridiculous fits when they hear the word "tax" it wouldn't be necessary to use the word "revenue". Language evolves to suit the needs of our society. Get on the bus, lest it leave you behind.

mkporter
07-05-2011, 01:27 PM
Increased taxes do not always = increased revenue. For example...a higher Captial gains percentage usually results in lower revenues.

I assume you'll be providing some sort of evidence here.

TonyR
07-05-2011, 01:28 PM
Revenue increases? Just come out and say it Tax increases! I love the spin on political terms and then it is like a homework assignment as the new term is passed out to willing party. Be proud of it. If you like tax increases, come out and say it and don't be shy. Revenue increases= tax increases.

To be fair, the Bush tax cuts were supposed to be temporary so one could argue that letting some of them expire isn't a "tax increase". And nobody "likes" tax increases so one shouldn't spin when complaining about spin.

Kaylore
07-05-2011, 01:28 PM
Thank you to those of you who while still disagreeing, were able to respond intelligently and thoughtfully as opposed to type-screaming and accusing me of attention-whoring.

And still waiting on that explanation, TEKO.

cutthemdown
07-05-2011, 01:39 PM
Thank you to those of you who while still disagreeing, were able to respond intelligently and thoughtfully as opposed to type-screaming and accusing me of attention-whoring.

And still waiting on that explanation, TEKO.

He's just upset that a thread that is anti Obama is getting a ton of play. He can't defend the stimulus so he attacks how you delivered the message that even Obamas own appointees say it fell way short of all Obama's promises. True we can never know what economy would be like without stimulus, but we can say for sure all of Obamas numbers on the stimulus fell significantly short of his stated goals.

woodall
07-05-2011, 01:42 PM
57 is the idiot most of us thought he was.

I love how this moron has nicknamed Obama "57." You are some internet chat loser who lives in his mom's basement. Barack Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School and you call him an idiot. Why don't you get back to us when you finish your technology certificate at Dorkville Community College?

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
07-05-2011, 03:28 PM
Thank you to those of you who while still disagreeing, were able to respond intelligently and thoughtfully as opposed to type-screaming and accusing me of attention-whoring.

And still waiting on that explanation, TEKO.

Lol. Yes!

SonOfLe-loLang
07-05-2011, 03:33 PM
I dunno that anyone posted this, but...

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=2204

mkporter
07-05-2011, 03:37 PM
He's just upset that a thread that is anti Obama is getting a ton of play. He can't defend the stimulus so he attacks how you delivered the message that even Obamas own appointees say it fell way short of all Obama's promises. True we can never know what economy would be like without stimulus, but we can say for sure all of Obamas numbers on the stimulus fell significantly short of his stated goals.

To be fair, that is not the message that Obama's appointees delivered. That is the message that the weekly standard's writer delivered. It was a hack job as I previously noted. There is plenty of debate to be had about the effect of government stimulus, but that article contributed nothing to the debate, as it did not present an honest intellectual argument based on the data in the report.

Cito Pelon
07-05-2011, 04:16 PM
I know. That's the "reason" every time liberalism fails. "Well it clearly wasn't liberal enough."

The GOP has been in the White House for 8 of the past 11 years.

The GOP has been in the White House for 20 of the past 31 years.

The GOP has been in the White House for 28 of the past 43 years.

The GOP has been in the White House for 36 of the past 59 years.

Since 1952, the GOP has been in the White House for 36 years, the Dems 23 years.

So it's amateurish to argue the Dems in the White House have got us to this point, especially since 2000 the GOP has been in the White House for 8 of 11 years. And since 1980, 20 years out of 31.

Seriously, you gotta be pretty ignorant to think Dem's in the White House have brought us to this point.

Rock Chalk
07-05-2011, 04:21 PM
Ahh same **** different day.

Republicans blaming **** on Obama.

Liberals whining because their hero is being called out.

Reminds me of 2006 when Democrats were blaming **** on Bush and Republicans were whining because their hero was being called out.

broncosteven
07-05-2011, 04:37 PM
There have been an increase in tent cities:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26776283/ns/us_news-life/t/hard-times-tent-cities-rise-across-country/

http://www.google.com/search?q=US+tent+cities&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Are they still there? Those articles are from 2008.

NUB
07-05-2011, 05:00 PM
The report seems fairly positive to me,

The two methodologies suggest that in 2011:Q1 GDP was between 2.3 and 3.2 percent
higher than it would have been without the ARRA. Currently, the economy has recovered all of
the output lost during the recession from the peak in output in 2007:Q4. These estimates suggest
that without the ARRA, the economy would have recovered less than 50 percent of this output
loss. Similarly, the estimates suggest that in 2011:Q1 employment was 2.4 to 3.6 million higher
than it would otherwise have been. In terms of direct impact on employment and GDP, the
ARRA was intended to stop the economic slide and to be temporary stimulus to fill part of the
substantial hole in aggregate demand left by the crisis. The Act was designed to have a peak
cumulative impact in the second half of 2010. Because the ARRA was not designed to be
permanent, these outlays and tax reductions will decline over time and thus the impact on GDP and employment are phasing down.

The analysis indicates that the Recovery Act has played a significant role in the turnaround of the economy that has occurred over the past two years. Real GDP reached its low point in the second quarter of 2009 and has been growing solidly since then, in large part because of the tax cuts and spending increases included in the Act. Employment, after falling dramatically, began to grow again on a sustained basis through 2010. As of the first quarter of 2011, the report estimates that the Recovery Act raised employment by 2.4 to 3.6 million jobs relative to what it otherwise would have been.

broncosteven
07-05-2011, 05:03 PM
Ahh same **** different day.

Republicans blaming **** on Obama.

Liberals whining because their hero is being called out.

Reminds me of 2006 when Democrats were blaming **** on Bush and Republicans were whining because their hero was being called out.

How could Bush Jr be anyone's Hero?

Rock Chalk
07-05-2011, 05:21 PM
How could Bush Jr be anyone's Hero?

*shrug*

How can Obama be anyone's hero?

Yet he is.

And there are people that loved Bush.

Facts are facts and most people don't care about the facts. THey just pick their side and stick to their guns.

cutthemdown
07-05-2011, 05:35 PM
The GOP has been in the White House for 8 of the past 11 years.

The GOP has been in the White House for 20 of the past 31 years.

The GOP has been in the White House for 28 of the past 43 years.

The GOP has been in the White House for 36 of the past 59 years.

Since 1952, the GOP has been in the White House for 36 years, the Dems 23 years.

So it's amateurish to argue the Dems in the White House have got us to this point, especially since 2000 the GOP has been in the White House for 8 of 11 years. And since 1980, 20 years out of 31.

Seriously, you gotta be pretty ignorant to think Dem's in the White House have brought us to this point.

I agree most of what we have accomplished as a country is because of the republicans.

cutthemdown
07-05-2011, 05:37 PM
To be fair, that is not the message that Obama's appointees delivered. That is the message that the weekly standard's writer delivered. It was a hack job as I previously noted. There is plenty of debate to be had about the effect of government stimulus, but that article contributed nothing to the debate, as it did not present an honest intellectual argument based on the data in the report.

There is no doubt about. What Obama said, and what happened do not match up. The stimulus was not worth what it costs. i do hope though dems make a push to try and tell the country why it was so great. Their plan is to not talk about it. If it was a feather in the cap don't you think Obama would mention how well it worked all the time? Hell he tries to act like it never happened.

TonyR
07-05-2011, 05:48 PM
The report seems fairly positive to me,

Yup, pretty funny how somebody reads a biased, negative article from a right wing website and starts a thread about it but the actual study it dishonestly spins says almost the opposite. Cue up the righties to start discrediting the study and/or making excuses in three, two, one...............

cutthemdown
07-05-2011, 06:01 PM
It's not positive. Of course some GDP went up while the trillion was spent into the economy. How could it not? The point is the stimulus wasn't anywhere near worth what we got out of it. It was a giveaway to certain segments of the economy and was not a job creator.

cutthemdown
07-05-2011, 06:01 PM
Yup, pretty funny how somebody reads a biased, negative article from a right wing website and starts a thread about it but the actual study it dishonestly spins says almost the opposite. Cue up the righties to start discrediting the study and/or making excuses in three, two, one...............

cool then I'm sure Obama will be out touting it on the campaign trail as one of his big accomplishments. That and his healthcare plan which is a trainwreck.

mhgaffney
07-05-2011, 06:09 PM
No wonder Geithner wants to resign. What a joke Obama's economic policies have been.

Obama did not make the policy. Wall Street made the policy.

Obama is simply the errand boy. Here I use "boy" advisedly. What I mean is: Obama is the figurehead. He has little power.

This is how it is in a post democracy.

Elect a Republican, in 2012, and it will be more of the same policy. Wall Street rules Amerikka, graveyard of rainbows.

Ron Paul has no chance. If he gets close to the nomination -- he will be eliminated as RFK was eliminated in 1968.

We have descended into a swamp of corruption and evil. Face it.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
07-05-2011, 06:17 PM
Yup, pretty funny how somebody reads a biased, negative article from a right wing website and starts a thread about it but the actual study it dishonestly spins says almost the opposite. Cue up the righties to start discrediting the study and/or making excuses in three, two, one...............

Please. Like it matters. You have the same excuses no matter the source.

Retire #30!!!
07-05-2011, 07:33 PM
When can they just pass a freaking flat tax and be done with everything. I'm tired of all the tax cuts for the wealthy BS. Guess what "rich" people pay a majority of the taxes in this country, in fact most people who the media trot as deserving tax cuts don't end up paying ANY taxes, and get rebates instead. I'm tired of working my ass off and paying my taxes only to watch my sister in law game the system and get free checks from the government, then hear her complain that tax cuts go to the wealthy...

Make it 15% flat, everybody marginal rate pays the same and we all make use of governments public services. You make more, you pay more.

Enough with the stupid social engineering bs

TonyR
07-05-2011, 07:44 PM
It's not positive.

What part of this are you not understanding?

The analysis indicates that the Recovery Act has played a significant role in the turnaround of the economy that has occurred over the past two years. Real GDP reached its low point in the second quarter of 2009 and has been growing solidly since then, in large part because of the tax cuts and spending increases included in the Act.

mkporter
07-05-2011, 08:15 PM
There is no doubt about. What Obama said, and what happened do not match up. The stimulus was not worth what it costs. i do hope though dems make a push to try and tell the country why it was so great. Their plan is to not talk about it. If it was a feather in the cap don't you think Obama would mention how well it worked all the time? Hell he tries to act like it never happened.

The report says: $666B was spent, $2T additional GDP was gained over and above what would have been gained otherwise, 2.4M additional jobs have been gained over what would have been gained otherwise. You seem awfully confused about what the report says. Did you read it?

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
07-05-2011, 08:44 PM
The GOP has been in the White House for 8 of the past 11 years.

The GOP has been in the White House for 20 of the past 31 years.

The GOP has been in the White House for 28 of the past 43 years.

The GOP has been in the White House for 36 of the past 59 years.

Since 1952, the GOP has been in the White House for 36 years, the Dems 23 years.

So it's amateurish to argue the Dems in the White House have got us to this point, especially since 2000 the GOP has been in the White House for 8 of 11 years. And since 1980, 20 years out of 31.

Seriously, you gotta be pretty ignorant to think Dem's in the White House have brought us to this point.

Nice try. But you actually understand the U.S. Constitution its CONGRESS that puts the budget together. And I have it pictures just for the libs out there so its really easy to understand.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives.PNG

fdf
07-05-2011, 09:51 PM
Liberals and conservatives vary on their economic positions in a few striking respects, but both of the recent administrations and both of the parties leaders believed in the stimulus, its not a one sided thing. If you want to attack Obama's economic policies since then, fine. But to blame the failing stimulus solely on liberals... come on!?!?

Generally I agree that there is a lot less difference between R's and D's than they pretend. However, as to the stimulus package, EVERY house Republican voted against it. So in all fairness, that one sticks to the D's.

TonyR
07-06-2011, 05:29 AM
Generally I agree that there is a lot less difference between R's and D's than they pretend. However, as to the stimulus package, EVERY house Republican voted against it. So in all fairness, that one sticks to the D's.

True but that vote was pure politics. Had nothing to do with policy, it was all for show. If this same vote was held under Bush they would have supported it. As it's been since the beginning of his presidency they don't want to give Obama any appearances of a "win".

Garcia Bronco
07-06-2011, 06:11 AM
True but that vote was pure politics. Had nothing to do with policy, it was all for show. If this same vote was held under Bush they would have supported it. As it's been since the beginning of his presidency they don't want to give Obama any appearances of a "win".

lol ..your first sentence doesn't make any sense because in that instance, policy and politics are one and the same.

Cito Pelon
07-06-2011, 08:56 AM
Nice try. But you actually understand the U.S. Constitution its CONGRESS that puts the budget together. And I have it pictures just for the libs out there so its really easy to understand.



Something people often forget about those Democrat-controlled congresses is the number of Southern Democrats. Southern Democrats for many years were as Conservative as could be.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
07-06-2011, 09:05 AM
Something people often forget about those Democrat-controlled congresses is the number of Southern Democrats. Southern Democrats for many years were as Conservative as could be.

Oh. Youmean how all those "blue dog" dems that ALL VOTED for OBAMACARE.

Abqbronco
07-06-2011, 09:17 AM
I assume you'll be providing some sort of evidence here.

With "all else equal" an increase in capital gains taxes would increase revenues. That is pretty obvious. The problem is that many of the investors that would ordinarily profit from capital gains won't sell their investments if the tax rate is high, instead preferring to wait until a new administration or congress is elected to see if the rate will go down. This is one area that many liberal and conservative people agree about. Ironically, the first place that I heard this was on Air America. While tax increases may increase revenue, this is more of ploy than an effective strategy.

TonyR
07-06-2011, 09:31 AM
lol ..your first sentence doesn't make any sense because in that instance, policy and politics are one and the same.

It makes plenty of sense, and they are not one and the same. The GOP voted against the stimulus not because they were opposed to it per se but because of the political advantage they hoped to gain by not siding with Obama/Dems and giving them a "political victory".

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
07-06-2011, 09:36 AM
Something people often forget about those Democrat-controlled congresses is the number of Southern Democrats. Southern Democrats for many years were as Conservative as could be.

Here is something you don't get. Weather is Dems vs. Repubs. Its really about control and power over us. Personally I'm against anybody that wants more control over me.

ant1999e
07-06-2011, 09:40 AM
True but that vote was pure politics. Had nothing to do with policy, it was all for show. If this same vote was held under Bush they would have supported it. As it's been since the beginning of his presidency they don't want to give Obama any appearances of a "win".

LOL Nice try.

mkporter
07-06-2011, 09:42 AM
With "all else equal" an increase in capital gains taxes would increase revenues. That is pretty obvious. The problem is that many of the investors that would ordinarily profit from capital gains won't sell their investments if the tax rate is high, instead preferring to wait until a new administration or congress is elected to see if the rate will go down. This is one area that many liberal and conservative people agree about. Ironically, the first place that I heard this was on Air America. While tax increases may increase revenue, this is more of ploy than an effective strategy.


If tax increases raise revenue, how is it a ploy?

rugbythug
07-06-2011, 09:47 AM
It makes plenty of sense, and they are not one and the same. The GOP voted against the stimulus not because they were opposed to it per se but because of the political advantage they hoped to gain by not siding with Obama/Dems and giving them a "political victory".

Wrong- GOP was not against stimulus however size and delivery were very different.

Cito Pelon
07-06-2011, 09:54 AM
Thanks for your thought out response, Binky. Republicans won't admit they need the tax revenue and Dems won't admit they need to cut spending. Neither side will admit what's needed because they think that means they're screwing their whole ideology.

Here's what I still can't get an answer from a lefty on every time I ask. With the amount of control the Dems had, when you factor the watered-down, ill-timed health care bill, and the fact we've expanded our military involvement, how can you not hold Obama at least partially accountable? Whether you believe they were his policies and they failed, or you believe he couldn't garner support for what he wanted to do and was forced into a bad compromise, doesn't either scenario represent a failure in leadership?

I mean when Obama was elected, I at least felt like we weren't going to be at war for much longer. And here we are four years later with our military even more spread out and the bill climbing. And literally every time I bring this up, no one on the left says anything. Do you guys not care about that anymore? I don't get it...

Agree with the bold.

As for the rest, of course Obama is partially responsible for where we're at right now. Obama and the Dem party also of course are not fully responsible for where we're at right now.

Going back to the bolded, people that simply go with the partyline politics - either GOP or Dem - yes, they often get too stalwart backing their guy and lose sight of the ultimate goal of moving forward, making good government.

Compromises are often odious, and often result in very severe strife. But the alternative is a one-party government. There has to be some give and take and I think Obama has embraced that.

It's not like Obama took over a great situation. Jeez, he stepped into a horrible situation. He's done a pretty good job of stabilizing the situation, could have been better, could have been worse.

Obviously, Congress got hold of that stimulus bill and porked it up, but the bill had to be passed and had to be passed FAST. It wasn't like the bill could languish forever, it had to be passed FAST even if there was about $200 billion of pork in it.

And now we'll see what happens. Maybe we all learned some lessons, we'll see.

Garcia Bronco
07-06-2011, 09:58 AM
Obviously, Congress got hold of that stimulus bill and porked it up, but the bill had to be passed and had to be passed FAST. It wasn't like the bill could languish forever, it had to be passed FAST even if there was about $200 billion of pork in it.



No it didn't. The emergency bill that needed to be passed from a stimulus perspective was the TARP bill not the Recovery Act. This is evident in the way the funds became available...in increments. That's not an emergency.

Cito Pelon
07-06-2011, 10:05 AM
I agree most of what we have accomplished as a country is because of the republicans.

Sure, the GOP has done some good things. I'm not totally anti-GOP. I recognize the Conservative point of view is a good thing to counter the Liberal point of view, and vice-versa. I don't want either of the fringe wings to dominate politics in the US.

Cito Pelon
07-06-2011, 10:11 AM
Oh. Youmean how all those "blue dog" dems that ALL VOTED for OBAMACARE.

No, I was referring to Southern Democrats of the Jesse Helms, Strom Thurman wing of the Democrat Party back in the post-WWII years up til the mid-1960's.

Those Southern Democrats were as right-wing as could be.

cutthemdown
07-06-2011, 10:13 AM
It makes plenty of sense, and they are not one and the same. The GOP voted against the stimulus not because they were opposed to it per se but because of the political advantage they hoped to gain by not siding with Obama/Dems and giving them a "political victory".

Total BS.

Cito Pelon
07-06-2011, 10:20 AM
With "all else equal" an increase in capital gains taxes would increase revenues. That is pretty obvious. The problem is that many of the investors that would ordinarily profit from capital gains won't sell their investments if the tax rate is high, instead preferring to wait until a new administration or congress is elected to see if the rate will go down. This is one area that many liberal and conservative people agree about. Ironically, the first place that I heard this was on Air America. While tax increases may increase revenue, this is more of ploy than an effective strategy.

Just as an aside note, one of things I disliked about the Bush II tax cuts was they cut the capital gains tax, but kept the tax on gains for individual savings accounts.

Another thing about the capital gains tax cut is it introduced more volatility into the stock markets.

cutthemdown
07-06-2011, 10:42 AM
Also a lot of big name economists like John Taylor debunk the white house appointees take on where the GDP increase came from. It wasn't even from the sectors stimulated. Do a search on John Taylor's testimony to Congress. He basically dedunks it all. The stimulus may have actually slowed down growth.

Abqbronco
07-06-2011, 10:45 AM
If tax increases raise revenue, how is it a ploy?

I meant capital gains increases or cuts, not raising or decreasing income taxes. I wrote that poorly. Sorry about that.

cutthemdown
07-06-2011, 10:52 AM
It's not always a slam dunk that tax raising leads to more revenue. If you raise capital gains many investors will simple not cash in, roll stuff over, until they drop again. If anything raising tax right now could put less cash into the hands of govt.

mkporter
07-06-2011, 10:55 AM
I meant capital gains increases or cuts, not raising or decreasing income taxes. I wrote that poorly. Sorry about that.

Now I'm confused (Don't worry, it's easily accomplished). Is your point then that raising the capital gains tax is a ploy that does not raise revenue?

Abqbronco
07-06-2011, 11:00 AM
Now I'm confused (Don't worry, it's easily accomplished). Is your point then that raising the capital gains tax is a ploy that does not raise revenue?

Yes.

Cito Pelon
07-06-2011, 11:06 AM
Wrong- GOP was not against stimulus however size and delivery were very different.

You're wrong and right. TonyR was correct that the GOP voted against the stimulus for a political victory. You're right that the GOP was not against the stimulus, but the size was a problem.

I was not happy with the size of the stimulus, however it DID put people to work, and people that work pay taxes and of course are not unemployed.

I saw major road improvements that were long overdue in my neck of the woods, and local guys put to work because of that stimulus.

Cito Pelon
07-06-2011, 11:12 AM
Here is something you don't get. Weather is Dems vs. Repubs. Its really about control and power over us. Personally I'm against anybody that wants more control over me.

Yeah, we all have a problem with that. However, in a nation of 310 million people we have to sacrifice our individual freedoms sometimes. It sucks, but there we are.

Beantown Bronco
07-06-2011, 11:17 AM
You're right that the GOP was not against the stimulus, but the size was a problem.

Replace "GOP" with "Mrs. Bean" and I can welcome you to my life.

Garcia Bronco
07-06-2011, 11:17 AM
It makes plenty of sense, and they are not one and the same. The GOP voted against the stimulus not because they were opposed to it per se but because of the political advantage they hoped to gain by not siding with Obama/Dems and giving them a "political victory".

That's incorrect. They didn't vote for it because it was a giant pork barrel of fail.

tsiguy96
07-06-2011, 11:17 AM
Yeah, we all have a problem with that. However, in a nation of 310 million people we have to sacrifice our individual freedoms sometimes. It sucks, but there we are.

its a very sad day when people have accepted, embrace and even support this.

Garcia Bronco
07-06-2011, 11:18 AM
Now I'm confused (Don't worry, it's easily accomplished). Is your point then that raising the capital gains tax is a ploy that does not raise revenue?

History has shown that an increase in capital gains taxes actually reduces tax revenue.

mkporter
07-06-2011, 11:18 AM
It's not always a slam dunk that tax raising leads to more revenue. If you raise capital gains many investors will simple not cash in, roll stuff over, until they drop again. If anything raising tax right now could put less cash into the hands of govt.

You are right that it isn't always a slam dunk that raising tax rates leads to more revenue. At some point, when taxes get too high, they suppress activity to a point that causes revenues to go down. There is no one here who is disagreeing with that point. It is obvious.

The argument is that given tax rates are at historical lows, and there is a record amount of $$ sitting on the sidelines (low taxes = good time to take profits), it seems highly unlikely that we are near that point. Also the fact that at our pre-Bush tax levels we were doing fine growth-wise.

In terms of capital gains tax increases, the same generalizations apply, but investors have more flexibility with their capital gains income. Most people aren't going to quit their job over a 2% income tax increase, but some investors may delay a sale if they believe tax rates may go down in the future. They will not wait indefinitely, however. Rational investors will want to use their money where they think they will get the best return. If they think waiting for two years to get a 5% tax break is the best use of their money, then that's what they'll do. I doubt this would have a large enough effect to reduce overall revenue, however. Going from 15% to 20% rates would require a 25% reduction in capital gains activity to reduce tax revenue.

mkporter
07-06-2011, 11:20 AM
History has shown that an increase in capital gains taxes actually reduces tax revenue.

So, the corollary is that reducing the capital gains tax will increase revenue, yes?

Garcia Bronco
07-06-2011, 11:21 AM
So, the corollary is that reducing the capital gains tax will increase revenue, yes?

It can. Nothing is absolute because it's dependent on how people move their money. Higher taxes will inhibit some investors from moving their money around.

Swedish Extrovert
07-06-2011, 11:21 AM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-s-economists-stimulus-has-cost-278000-job_576014.html

Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job



Read the whole article. There is some evidence Obama's stimulus actually hurt growth. And before people say these are lies, this report came from the White House.

I'll read this eventually... although, my uncle (Dr. Carl H. Stem) was an economic advisor to Richard Nixon, a friend of Ben Bernanke's, a Rhodes scholar, Phi Beta Kappa at Harvard, an economics professor at Georgetown, the dean of the Business School at Texas Tech for 25 years, a financial analyst at Wells Fargo, and a runner up candidate for dean at Pepperdine University....

I asked him about this last time he was in Denver for a family outing. basically he said that anyone who says they know how the stimulus has effected the economy is really just blowing smoke, and it's probably best that the stimulus went through because the risk of not doing anything far outweighs the risk of spending. He's also a pretty strong Republican, I might add.

mkporter
07-06-2011, 11:42 AM
It can. Nothing is absolute because it's dependent on how people move their money. Higher taxes will inhibit some investors from moving their money around.

Pick a side, buddy. If you say raising taxes will reduce revenue, then, unless you believe we happen to be at the ideal tax rate, you must believe that reducing the tax rate will raise revenue.

cutthemdown
07-06-2011, 11:49 AM
I think the debt limit really should be raised with no cuts, no taxes, and they should do that stuff in the budget fight. Too often both sides try and get over on the other one. Neither wants to really cut defense and until they do the cuts they propose are sort of lame. Sure they sound good because they spread it over ten yrs to sound like they are really cutting. I understand why Obama waited to try and raise taxes, he didn't want to be on the hook for those as well because nothing is working right now. The smart move would have been to cut spending, not do the stimulus, and let economy work itself back to growth again. What Obama has done, made it worst and take longer probably. In any event it wasn't worth the price tag we will be paying.

The funniest **** though is that not even dems want to cut defense. That cash cow moos all the way to the barn in every seat of Congress.

cutthemdown
07-06-2011, 11:51 AM
Like I said though its hard for Repubs to raise taxes when they just ran saying they wouldn't do that. Sure dems would like that because you know once elections come they would use that against them. Just like Clinton did. Hell it was the Dem COngress that forced Bush into those take raises, then it was Clintons best one liner of the election.

broncocalijohn
07-06-2011, 11:59 AM
I love how this moron has nicknamed Obama "57." You are some internet chat loser who lives in his mom's basement. Barack Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School and you call him an idiot. Why don't you get back to us when you finish your technology certificate at Dorkville Community College?

Well, These are usually also the people that say George W. Bush is not intelligent. Do they know that Bush received his Bachelor's degree in History from Yale and his Masters of Business Administration from Harvard? Harvard, the same school as Obama. Just pointing out that if someone will defend Obama as a "smart" guy, they are normally the same people that will state that George W is a moron. While getting into an Ivy Lague school is a great accomplishment, being president of our country might mean they are over their heads on it and better sticking as a lawyer.

Cito Pelon
07-06-2011, 11:59 AM
Replace "GOP" with "Mrs. Bean" and I can welcome you to my life.

Hey, keep your perversions out of a clean politics thread. I am not for sale.

Cito Pelon
07-06-2011, 12:09 PM
It's not always a slam dunk that tax raising leads to more revenue. If you raise capital gains many investors will simple not cash in, roll stuff over, until they drop again. If anything raising tax right now could put less cash into the hands of govt.

Correct. That means less volatility in the stock market.

pricejj
07-06-2011, 12:22 PM
On this board, I have been calling to lower the corporate tax rate and close the loopholes, to become competitive globally. For all you Communist Liberals out there who want to "Tax the Rich". This is what Bill Clinton's stance is regarding the corporate income tax rate in the U.S.

"It doesn't make sense anymore. We've got an uncompetitive rate," he said. "We tax at 35% of income, although we only take about 23%. So we should cut the rate to 25%, or whatever's competitive, and eliminate a lot of the deductions so that we still get a fair amount, and there's not so much variance in what the corporations pay."

- Bill Clinton, July 5, 2011

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304803104576427852199681170.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Exatly what I've been saying.

EAT IT

:strong:
I will post a thread on it later, unless someone else beats me to it.

ant1999e
07-06-2011, 12:36 PM
I'll read this eventually... although, my uncle (Dr. Carl H. Stem) was an economic advisor to Richard Nixon, a friend of Ben Bernanke's, a Rhodes scholar, Phi Beta Kappa at Harvard, an economics professor at Georgetown, the dean of the Business School at Texas Tech for 25 years, a financial analyst at Wells Fargo, and a runner up candidate for dean at Pepperdine University....

I asked him about this last time he was in Denver for a family outing. basically he said that anyone who says they know how the stimulus has effected the economy is really just blowing smoke, and it's probably best that the stimulus went through because the risk of not doing anything far outweighs the risk of spending. He's also a pretty strong Republican, I might add.

That's funny, this guy on the light rail told me the same thing. Must be true.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
07-06-2011, 12:37 PM
Uh OHHHHHHHHH.

"Stimulus Hit Piece Ignores Reality"

http://coloradopols.com/diary/15997/stimulus-hitpiece-ignores-reality
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_SVZqobeDZkU/TMTTjHJdAxI/AAAAAAAAAEw/0FzAqt9irAY/s1600/the-simpsons-d-oh-mini-posters-71133.jpg

NUB
07-06-2011, 12:45 PM
On this board, I have been calling to lower the corporate tax rate and close the loopholes, to become competitive globally. For all you Communist Liberals out there who want to "Tax the Rich". This is what Bill Clinton's stance is regarding the corporate income tax rate in the U.S.

"It doesn't make sense anymore. We've got an uncompetitive rate," he said. "We tax at 35% of income, although we only take about 23%. So we should cut the rate to 25%, or whatever's competitive, and eliminate a lot of the deductions so that we still get a fair amount, and there's not so much variance in what the corporations pay."

- Bill Clinton, July 5, 2011

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304803104576427852199681170.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Exatly what I've been saying.

EAT IT

:strong:
I will post a thread on it later, unless someone else beats me to it.

Salon.com had a good article on supply-side economics. (http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2011/07/06/the_final_nail_in_the_supply_side_coffin/index.html)

In summary, interest rates are way low, taxes are way low, the GDP is higher than it was before 2007, companies are making more profits today than then... and very little of this is actually "trickling down".

TonyR
07-06-2011, 01:05 PM
...anyone who says they know how the stimulus has effected the economy is really just blowing smoke, and it's probably best that the stimulus went through because the risk of not doing anything far outweighs the risk of spending.

A lot of good points have been made in this thread. This might be the best one.

TonyR
07-06-2011, 01:08 PM
That's incorrect. They didn't vote for it because it was a giant pork barrel of fail.

LOL Yes, thank goodness the GOP is above pork barrel politics! So I'm sure that's the reason...

TonyR
07-06-2011, 01:10 PM
Pick a side, buddy.

I wonder if Garcia and Cut are drinking at the same bar. And if they're drinking the same thing. Hopefully they both have a buddy to drive them home...

broncosteven
07-06-2011, 01:11 PM
Replace "GOP" with "Mrs. Bean" and I can welcome you to my life.

As long as your hands don't complain you are golden.

bronco militia
07-06-2011, 01:17 PM
its a very sad day when people have accepted, embrace and even support this.

word......

mkporter
07-06-2011, 01:18 PM
I think the debt limit really should be raised with no cuts, no taxes, and they should do that stuff in the budget fight. Too often both sides try and get over on the other one. Neither wants to really cut defense and until they do the cuts they propose are sort of lame. Sure they sound good because they spread it over ten yrs to sound like they are really cutting. I understand why Obama waited to try and raise taxes, he didn't want to be on the hook for those as well because nothing is working right now. The smart move would have been to cut spending, not do the stimulus, and let economy work itself back to growth again. What Obama has done, made it worst and take longer probably. In any event it wasn't worth the price tag we will be paying.

The funniest **** though is that not even dems want to cut defense. That cash cow moos all the way to the barn in every seat of Congress.

Agree 100% with the bolded. The debt limit is pointless, and possibly unconstitutional. If you don't want the debt to go past a certain limit, then balance the budget by increasing taxes, reducing spending, or (most effectively) both. Don't risk catastrophe by defaulting. 14th amendment: Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

My favorite part about defense spending is when the Pentagon says: "No we don't need that anymore," and congress says: "No really, you need it, trust us."

ColoradoDarin
07-06-2011, 01:22 PM
Yes, yes, I've known this for a while....

http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/files/2011/06/rbchart.jpg

Edit for those not familiar with the chart - Everything except the red dots was created by the Obama Administration to demonstrate the need for the stimulus. In red is, of course, reality, and is updated when the new job #s are released monthly, soon to be updated on Friday.

Abqbronco
07-06-2011, 02:00 PM
Pick a side, buddy. If you say raising taxes will reduce revenue, then, unless you believe we happen to be at the ideal tax rate, you must believe that reducing the tax rate will raise revenue.

Lol. I tutor economics and have trouble explaining things like this. The answer is not a definitive yes or no. It depends is as good as it gets. In an extreme case, if you reduce the rate to zero then revenue will go down. Obviously an extreme example but it kind of makes a point.

On a side note... I can't wait to get another job.

pricejj
07-06-2011, 02:05 PM
Salon.com had a good article on supply-side economics. (http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2011/07/06/the_final_nail_in_the_supply_side_coffin/index.html)

In summary, interest rates are way low, taxes are way low, the GDP is higher than it was before 2007, companies are making more profits today than then... and very little of this is actually "trickling down".

It is because the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the world (35%). It needs to be reduced to at least 25% (preferably 15%, like Germany's) to bring jobs back to the U.S.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
07-06-2011, 03:11 PM
It is because the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the world (35%). It needs to be reduced to at least 25% (preferably 15%, like Germany's) to bring jobs back to the U.S.

And here I thought it was an honor and a privilege to do business in America.

Turns out we have to bribe people to come to the Greatest Nation on Earth.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
07-06-2011, 03:12 PM
Yes, yes, I've known this for a while....

http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/files/2011/06/rbchart.jpg

Edit for those not familiar with the chart - Everything except the red dots was created by the Obama Administration to demonstrate the need for the stimulus. In red is, of course, reality, and is updated when the new job #s are released monthly, soon to be updated on Friday.

HOW DARE YOU! HOW DARE YOU USE BIG "o" OWN WORDS AND COMPARE IT T O REALITY. That's unfair. That's unamerican. That's racist. And my favorite. It woulda been worse if we did nothing. How did I sound?

TheElusiveKyleOrton
07-06-2011, 03:21 PM
"PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE come back to America, American companies. PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE? What if we give you a ton of money? THEN will you pinkie swear that you'll come back and create jobs? Pretty pleeeeeeeeeeeease?"

cutthemdown
07-06-2011, 03:26 PM
Agree 100% with the bolded. The debt limit is pointless, and possibly unconstitutional. If you don't want the debt to go past a certain limit, then balance the budget by increasing taxes, reducing spending, or (most effectively) both. Don't risk catastrophe by defaulting. 14th amendment:

My favorite part about defense spending is when the Pentagon says: "No we don't need that anymore," and congress says: "No really, you need it, trust us."

Yep even liberal Diane Fienstein is all about the little ships she says the navy needs.

cutthemdown
07-06-2011, 03:29 PM
It's laughable the best liberals can do is it would have been worst without it. If you think you can't track stimulus spending just read this:

Economy: Did the hundreds of billions spent to stimulate the economy do the job? And where did all that money go, anyway? A new report crunches the data and finds answers that are devastating for stimulus backers.
Done by Stanford University economists John Cogan and John Taylor and published in Commentary Magazine, the report is blunt in its assessment of President Obama's Keynesian stimulus package: "There was little if any net stimulus."
Worse, say the authors, the White House with its bevy of hip Keynesian-leaning economists should have known it wouldn't work. "The irony," they write, "is that basic economic theory and practical experience predicted this would happen." In other words, the Obama camp should have known better.
But why the stimulus didn't work is a little more complex. The authors break down the three kinds of Keynesian stimulus packages.
In one, government gives money to consumers and hopes they spend it. In another, the federal government directly buys goods and services, ranging from computers to building infrastructure. In the third, government hands money to state and local governments to spend.
The $862 billion stimulus package passed by Congress and signed into law by the president tried to do all three things. Unfortunately, none of them worked — a huge repudiation of the ideas behind Keynesianism.
In the case of money handed over to consumers, "It went to pay down some debt or was simply saved rather than spent on consumption." What about federal infrastructure spending on "shovel-ready" projects? Didn't that work? Hardly. In fact, what's stunning is to discover how little was actually spent on this, the supposed centerpiece of stimulus.
At the federal level, the stimulus generated just $20 billion in added government purchases, about 3% of the total spent. And of that amount, only $4 billion was spent on infrastructure. Four billion — that's it.
Then there were the grants to state and local governments, which were expected to get local economies revving again. Didn't happen, according to Cogan and Taylor.
From the time the stimulus was first enacted in March 2009 to the end of the third quarter of last year, $173 billion was handed out to state and local governments under the plan, the authors say. The impact of all that money? "Negligible."
The reason for this is simple: State and local governments didn't use the money to "stimulate" anything. Instead, they used it to reduce borrowing. In short, we were issuing massive amounts of federal, taxpayer-funded debt to help poorly run states reduce their own borrowing.

cutthemdown
07-06-2011, 03:31 PM
I remember all of you saying it will be good to rebuild infrastructure. They used barely any of it on that. It all went to paying down debt, keeping pensions afloat, unemployment etc etc. They didn't build in ****ing bridges and dams. Meanwhile all the levies broke and half the country flooded. Good job Obama.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
07-06-2011, 03:38 PM
I remember all of you saying it will be good to rebuild infrastructure. They used barely any of it on that. It all went to paying down debt, keeping pensions afloat, unemployment etc etc. They didn't build in ****ing bridges and dams. Meanwhile all the levies broke and half the country flooded. Good job Obama.

Which half of the country was that?

cutthemdown
07-06-2011, 03:40 PM
The stimulus didn't work because the govt used the money to reduce borrowing, instead of spending it on things like infrastructure. They totally blew it, the stimulus was a failure and probably the single worst economic decision any President has ever made. Good job Democrats.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
07-06-2011, 03:43 PM
The stimulus didn't work because the govt used the money to reduce borrowing, instead of spending it on things like infrastructure. They totally blew it, the stimulus was a failure and probably the single worst economic decision any President has ever made. Good job Democrats.

HA!

Tomorrow you'll have a different opinion.

The only thing wrong with the stimulus is that it wasn't big enough. Obama gave in to Republicans and their bull**** and let it be cut down to a small amount.

Good job, you lying sacks of ****.

Garcia Bronco
07-06-2011, 03:45 PM
LOL Yes, thank goodness the GOP is above pork barrel politics! So I'm sure that's the reason...

The keyword was "fail"

mkporter
07-06-2011, 03:51 PM
Yes, yes, I've known this for a while....

http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/files/2011/06/rbchart.jpg

Edit for those not familiar with the chart - Everything except the red dots was created by the Obama Administration to demonstrate the need for the stimulus. In red is, of course, reality, and is updated when the new job #s are released monthly, soon to be updated on Friday.

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?

NUB
07-06-2011, 03:53 PM
It is because the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the world (35%). It needs to be reduced to at least 25% (preferably 15%, like Germany's) to bring jobs back to the U.S.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/08/12/us-usa-taxes-corporations-idUSN1249465620080812

Many corporations get large tax refunds.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
07-06-2011, 03:56 PM
"PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE come back to America, American companies. PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE? What if we give you a ton of money? THEN will you pinkie swear that you'll come back and create jobs? Pretty pleeeeeeeeeeeease?"

Great impression of Big "o". ;)

cutthemdown
07-06-2011, 04:29 PM
HA!

Tomorrow you'll have a different opinion.

The only thing wrong with the stimulus is that it wasn't big enough. Obama gave in to Republicans and their bull**** and let it be cut down to a small amount.

Good job, you lying sacks of ****.

Sorry that was what 2 big name economists reported to Congress on the stimulus. They tracked the money, it wasn't used for infrastructure very much at all. They used it to pay down debt and fund pensions and paychecks for public union employees. Hence the change to saved jobs instead of created. Why? because it didn't create it only helped public union employees. Just more private sector money going to the public sector. Obviously you can't admit the stimulus didn't work, so you say it should have been even bigger. Un****ingbelieveable.

TonyR
07-06-2011, 04:30 PM
Yes, yes, I've known this for a while....


Did you draw that graph yourself or are you going to provide a source to substantiate it?

cutthemdown
07-06-2011, 04:30 PM
LOL Obama gave into republicans? not one voted for it. He didn't need them to give in. The stimulus and healthcare are all on the dems and obama. Correction I guess 3 voted for it. Yeah those 3 really made Obama cave.

cutthemdown
07-06-2011, 04:32 PM
Did you draw that graph yourself or are you going to provide a source to substantiate it?

LOL that is Obama's graph. What a joke you are.

mhgaffney
07-06-2011, 05:13 PM
Cut still does not understand that Obama is a captive president. He is not free to make his own policy.

Obama's economic policy was formulated by US banking/corporate interests.

Ditto for his foreign policy.

Until and unless you clowns get this -- you won't understand anything.

Rigs11
07-06-2011, 05:15 PM
We would have been better off with McCane and caribou barbie in power.they would have cut taxes again and the unemployment rate would have magically fallen to 2%.right righties?

cutthemdown
07-06-2011, 05:16 PM
Cut still does not understand that Obama is a captive president. He is not free to make his own policy.

Obama's economic policy was formulated by US banking/corporate interests.

Ditto for his foreign policy.

Until and unless you clowns get this -- you won't understand anything.

The stimulus wasn't forced onto Obama by some illumanati running the country. You're a joke also.

cutthemdown
07-06-2011, 05:22 PM
We would have been better off with McCane and caribou barbie in power.they would have cut taxes again and the unemployment rate would have magically fallen to 2%.right righties?

McCain would have been so much better. I agree though scary to put Palin that close. She probably would have smothered him in his sleep. Let's just stop defending Obama by saying without stimulus it could be worst, or mcCain would have been worst, or it could have meant Palin, errrrr. Whatever the fact is Obama blew it on the stimulus by not spending it like he said he would. That is why he says it was too small. He wanted a trillion dollar public employee bailout, and a half a trillion to spend on infrastructure. We get it you wanted to spend more. That is really amazing considering the first trillion was pissed down the ****ing drain.

In my city the spent some of the money they got on infrastructure. They rebuilt the sidewalks to add handicap pads at the crosswalks. Wow epic.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
07-06-2011, 05:23 PM
HA!

Tomorrow you'll have a different opinion.

The only thing wrong with the stimulus is that it wasn't big enough. Obama gave in to Republicans and their bull**** and let it be cut down to a small amount.

Good job, you lying sacks of ****.

Last resorts already.

cutthemdown
07-06-2011, 05:23 PM
You all defend this crap by scaring us it would be sooooo much worst without the Obama. Give me a break.

Inkana7
07-06-2011, 05:31 PM
You all defend this crap by scaring us it would be sooooo much worst without the Obama. Give me a break.

Reality is hard to believe sometimes, I know.

Rigs11
07-06-2011, 06:04 PM
McCain would have been so much better. I agree though scary to put Palin that close. She probably would have smothered him in his sleep. Let's just stop defending Obama by saying without stimulus it could be worst, or mcCain would have been worst, or it could have meant Palin, errrrr. Whatever the fact is Obama blew it on the stimulus by not spending it like he said he would. That is why he says it was too small. He wanted a trillion dollar public employee bailout, and a half a trillion to spend on infrastructure. We get it you wanted to spend more. That is really amazing considering the first trillion was pissed down the ****ing drain.

In my city the spent some of the money they got on infrastructure. They rebuilt the sidewalks to add handicap pads at the crosswalks. Wow epic.

280 billion was pissed away in tax cuts.that the repubs wanted.funny that you don't bring this up.How would McCane been way better?

El Minion
07-06-2011, 06:07 PM
(Hat tip: Paul Krugman (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/bad-tayloring/) and Brad DeLong (http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/07/john-taylors-claim-that-fiscal-policy-would-be-ineffective-in-curing-a-deep-depression-for-the-virtual-green-room.html))

Taylor seems to agree with the Keynesians, but claims he doesn't (http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/taylor-seems-to-agree-with-keynesians.html)


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-iS9KByQ-zrg/Tg9bn6Jmt6I/AAAAAAAAA48/29mLdS1kLF0/s400/collapse2.600..jpg (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-iS9KByQ-zrg/Tg9bn6Jmt6I/AAAAAAAAA48/29mLdS1kLF0/s1600/collapse2.600..jpg)


John Taylor has what I consider to be a pretty good post about the stimulus (http://johnbtaylorsblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/how-to-resolve-stimulus-debate-use-data.html). He points out that if we evaluate the stimulus' impact using the same models that we used to predict its impact, we don't gain a lot of added value from the backward-looking part of the analysis. That is very true. He then points out the extreme difficulty of evaluating the stimulus (or other policy interventions) without basically assuming your conclusion through the choice of the model used to construct the counterfactual. This is also true.


He then presents a paper that he has written (http://www.stanford.edu/%7Ejohntayl/JEL_taylor%20revised.pdf) that attempts to evaluate the ARRA. According to Taylor, he has clear evidence that the stimulus didn't work.


This, of course, sent alarm bells ringing through my head. According to my Efficient Marketplace-of-Ideas Hypothesis, if there were an easy way to show convincingly that the stimulus failed, somebody would already have shown it. Previous studies purporting to show the failure of stimulus have been less than convincing (http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/conley-and-dupor-revised.html). So I went into this paper expecting to find serious problems.


But instead I found Taylor pretty much agreeing with the Keynesians...


Taylor evaluates the ARRA by looking at changes in specific components of output - federal government purchases, state government purchases, and private consumption. According to Keynesian theory, if stimulus works it should work by raising either G (in the case of a rise in government purchases) or C (in the case of tax refunds or increased transfers). So Taylor just looks to see the degree to which this actually happened.


First, he shows that personal consumption doesn't appear to have been much affected by the tax rebates and transfer payments that made up a big chunk of the stimulus:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-x-3DGaZP16U/Tg9TVskMG_I/AAAAAAAAA44/kgBPubsTPUU/s400/Taylor1.png (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-x-3DGaZP16U/Tg9TVskMG_I/AAAAAAAAA44/kgBPubsTPUU/s1600/Taylor1.png)


This graph looks convincing; you see bumps in stimulus income, but no bumps in consumption. Of course, Taylor is assuming a particular lag structure for his model; it's quite possible that the rise in spending due to tax rebates and transfers didn't occur immediately, but were spread out over the next few quarters, so that you wouldn't expect to see contemporaneous bumps. Similarly, when Taylor generates counterfactuals to show that consumption didn't rise, he picks a specific lag structure. Maybe he tried alternate specifications and didn't report them because they showed the same thing? Or maybe not.


Anyway, the arbitrary lag specification means that this model is not in any way conclusive. But it is still suggestive. And what it suggests is that tax rebates and transfer payments don't make for particularly good stimulus, because in a balance-sheet recession people will just use the money to pay down their debts. Helping people pay down debts may be good in its own right (http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2010/06/why-i-changed-my-mind-about-tax-cuts.html); but this is a reason why Keynesians often argue that government spending is a better approach to stimulus than tax rebates.


On that note, Taylor notes that federal expenditures didn't rise by very much due to the ARRA:
The most striking finding in Figure 3 is that only a small part of ARRA went to purchases of goods and services by the federal government. Measured as a percentage of GDP the amounts were immaterial: At the maximum effect, which occurred in the third quarter of 2010, federal government purchases due to ARRA reached only 0.21 percent of GDP and federal infrastructure only 0.05 percent of GDP.

These amounts are too small for the stimulus package to have had a significant effect on the overall economy. In this case the debate over the size of the government purchases multiplier is largely moot because the government purchases multiplier had virtually nothing to multiply at the federal level.This precisely echoes the complaints that Keynesians had about the ARRA: not enough federal government purchases, not enough infrastructure spending.


Finally, Taylor looks at state-level spending, and concludes that the ARRA grants mainly replaced state borrowing with federal borrowing:
Figure 6 shows that in the absence of the 2009 stimulus grants, net borrowing by state and local governments would have been greater than it was with the grants. This is consistent with the view that state and local governments tried to smooth their expenditures in the face of temporary changes in income, much as households without borrowing constraints did...State and local governments used the stimulus grants to reduce their net borrowing (largely by acquiring more financial assets) rather than to increase expenditures[.]This analysis is subject to the same caveat about lag structure as the earlier consumption analysis. But it also seems basically plausible to me, and highly suggestive that states mainly pocketed their ARRA grants instead of spending them on building roads and such.


Finally, Taylor presents a hypothesis that ARRA grants actually made states shift their spending from purchases to transfer payments, which (if this indeed happened) would have actually reduced GDP.


So to sum up, Taylor's paper says that ARRA didn't increase GDP because it didn't increase government purchases, and even hurt GDP to the extent that it reduced government purchases. This sounds exactly like a Keynesian critique of the stimulus bill - government purchases are good medicine for recessions, and we didn't do nearly enough of them! But somehow Taylor interprets his pro-Keynesian assumptions as an anti-Keynesian conclusion:
More generally, the results from the 2000s experience raise considerable doubts about the efficacy of temporary discretionary countercyclical fiscal policy in practice. In this regard the experience with the stimulus packages of the 2000s adds more weight to the position reached more than 30 years ago by Lucas and Sargent (1978) and Gramlich (1978, 1979).What? But Lucas, Sargent, etc. thought that government purchases wouldn't raise GDP. That runs counter to Taylor's entire critique, which is that ARRA didn't raise government purchases enough!


Readers may go through this paper with a finer-toothed comb than I used, and may find significant methodological flaws that I overlooked. Please be my guest. But that won't change the larger point that Taylor is being a lot more Keynesian than he seems to think he's being.


So this makes two prominent conservative economists who have criticized Democrats for not being Keynesian enough (the other being Martin Feldstein (http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/martin-feldstein-confuses-both-me-and.html)). Is it possible that what these guys don't like is really just...well...Democrats?

Update: Mark Thoma points out that this is not the first time John Taylor has criticized the ARRA for not including enough government purchases (http://johnbtaylorsblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/why-stimulus-failed-to-boost.html).

Update 2: Paul Krugman concurs (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/bad-tayloring/). John Taylor responds (http://johnbtaylorsblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/no-bigger-stimulus-would-not-have.html):
Now, I know that Krugman...would like a stimulus package with higher proportions going to...government purchases...But experiences from the 1970s raise serious doubts about the political and operational feasibility of such discretionary fiscal policy. So do recent experiences in many other countries...In a simple Keynesian model, all the government has to do to combat a recession is quickly increase government purchases, but the difficulty with doing so in practice is one of the classic arguments against discretionary fiscal policy.So Taylor is arguing that the type of Keynesian policy that Keynes himself suggested, and which modern-day Keynesians want, is simply politically infeasible. Fine. I myself am quite receptive to that argument (http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/when-has-stimulus-ever-been-politically.html), actually. But then there's the China example, which Taylor himself cites (http://johnbtaylorsblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/why-stimulus-failed-to-boost.html) as an example of a rapid increase in government purchases in response to a recession. How does Taylor explain that? Is it autocracy, or maybe some kind of central planning, that is supposed to make real stimulus politically feasible in China but not here? And then there's another question: even if (real) stimulus turns out not to be politically feasible, does that mean that economists shouldn't recommend it, if it would be the best policy? I mean, the fact that Medicare privatization is politically infeasible hasn't stopped John Taylor from urging us to do it (http://johnbtaylorsblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/ryan-roadmap-versus-road-to-ruin.html).

TonyR
07-06-2011, 06:07 PM
that is Obama's graph.

So Obama drew that graph?

TonyR
07-06-2011, 06:09 PM
Let's just stop defending Obama by saying without stimulus it could be worst...

Do we know that it wouldn't be worse right now without the stimulus? If so, can you provide something to support your theory? Or are you just talking out of your ass again? (I have a strong hunch it's the latter...)

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
07-06-2011, 06:10 PM
Reality is hard to believe sometimes, I know.

I just love how you believe that a "would have" as reality. Opps did I just pop your "reality bubble. Sorry, :(.

Archer81
07-06-2011, 06:13 PM
Do we know that it wouldn't be worse right now without the stimulus? If so, can you provide something to support your theory? Or are you just talking out of your ass again? (I have a strong hunch it's the latter...)


Considering this administration's penchant for labeling everything an "unprecedented crisis" you can make an assumptive argument that not doing a stimulus could have had a positive effect.

However, it would be hard to claim that the current state of the economy is a success.

:Broncos:

TonyR
07-06-2011, 06:18 PM
Considering this administration's penchant for labeling everything an "unprecedented crisis" you can make an assumptive argument that not doing a stimulus could have had a positive effect.

Are you pretending that this statement makes any sense? A penchant for labeling things a certain way can support one's argument that no stimulus would be positive? Fails the logic test by just a little bit, no?

cutthemdown
07-06-2011, 07:00 PM
So Obama drew that graph?

No he had his daughters draft all this **** because they are off limits. :)

cutthemdown
07-06-2011, 07:09 PM
http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/2009-Stimulus-two-years-later.pdf

See if that link takes you to the pdf. Not sure how else you could read it Tony. That is the transcript of Stanford Economist John Taylor. He wasn't the only one that testified to much the same result. Read it and let me know what you think. Otherwise you can also find it on the economists webpage, he writes a lot of papers. He breaks it down why the Chinese stimulus worked, and our didn't. I doubt you will like it though, probably you will figure out someone to say some guy who teaches at Stanford is an idiot.

Archer81
07-06-2011, 08:16 PM
Are you pretending that this statement makes any sense? A penchant for labeling things a certain way can support one's argument that no stimulus would be positive? Fails the logic test by just a little bit, no?


The Obama admin said the recession was the most horrible economic retraction since the great depression. Therefore passing something that will cost the US 4 trillion dollars was vital to "saving" the economy; which it clearly failed to do. It would be reasonable then to conclude that the hysteria in passing porkulus shut off any actual debate on other ways to allow the economy to recover without prolonging economic misery.

If it is this bad with a stimulus, it could not have been any worse without one.

:Broncos:

Swedish Extrovert
07-06-2011, 08:19 PM
Sorry that was what 2 big name economists reported to Congress on the stimulus. They tracked the money, it wasn't used for infrastructure very much at all. They used it to pay down debt and fund pensions and paychecks for public union employees. Hence the change to saved jobs instead of created. Why? because it didn't create it only helped public union employees. Just more private sector money going to the public sector. Obviously you can't admit the stimulus didn't work, so you say it should have been even bigger. Un****ingbelieveable.

I actually agree with this. I wasn't opposed to TARP in theory... I just wished the money would have funded more technological research, a high speed train system, and alternative energy.


The Obama admin said the recession was the most horrible economic retraction since the great depression. Therefore passing something that will cost the US 4 trillion dollars was vital to "saving" the economy; which it clearly failed to do. It would be reasonable then to conclude that the hysteria in passing porkulus shut off any actual debate on other ways to allow the economy to recover without prolonging economic misery.

If it is this bad with a stimulus, it could not have been any worse without one.


Last time I checked, unemployment was still at 8.6, which is pretty good for international standards. I'm as much of a deficit hawk as anyone (you know this), but I think you're jumping the gun to say that "it clearly failed" to save the economy.

Irish Stout
07-06-2011, 08:23 PM
On this board, I have been calling to lower the corporate tax rate and close the loopholes, to become competitive globally. For all you Communist Liberals out there who want to "Tax the Rich". This is what Bill Clinton's stance is regarding the corporate income tax rate in the U.S.

"It doesn't make sense anymore. We've got an uncompetitive rate," he said. "We tax at 35% of income, although we only take about 23%. So we should cut the rate to 25%, or whatever's competitive, and eliminate a lot of the deductions so that we still get a fair amount, and there's not so much variance in what the corporations pay."

- Bill Clinton, July 5, 2011

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304803104576427852199681170.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Exatly what I've been saying.

EAT IT

:strong:
I will post a thread on it later, unless someone else beats me to it.

Really?!?! First, no need for the highlighted attack that is extremely incorrect. Second, dems want to close tax loopholes on corps (like the article states), and many (these days) advocate for flat tax. Raising taxes on the rich and the corporate tax structure are not the same thing, FYI, though not the prevalent position these days.

Lowering tax rates on corps is fine if the tax refunds are withdrawn. Read the article you post and know your opponents stance more correctly.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
07-06-2011, 09:14 PM
I actually agree with this. I wasn't opposed to TARP in theory... I just wished the money would have funded more technological research, a high speed train system, and alternative energy.




Last time I checked, unemployment was still at 8.6, which is pretty good for international standards. I'm as much of a deficit hawk as anyone (you know this), but I think you're jumping the gun to say that "it clearly failed" to save the economy.

Sorry, but its been 2 years since it was passed. How long should we allow before we can say its failed?

Swedish Extrovert
07-06-2011, 09:17 PM
Sorry, but its been 2 years since it was passed. How long should we allow before we can say its failed?

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.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
07-06-2011, 09:28 PM
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.

My thing is, that its a fail because it didn't even meet their own expectation.

Swedish Extrovert
07-06-2011, 09:39 PM
In economics, things rarely do. Besides, both sides bloat what their expectations are to garner up support. I would imagine that most people in politics understand this.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
07-06-2011, 10:07 PM
In economics, things rarely do. Besides, both sides bloat what their expectations are to garner up support. I would imagine that most people in politics understand this.

If that is true, those egg heads should have known that too, but they promised the world here. So why did they promise so much?

Swedish Extrovert
07-06-2011, 10:08 PM
Because voters have short memories.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
07-06-2011, 10:08 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/tea-party-democrats-do-exist/2011/07/05/gHQAjeadzH_story.html

Opps!

Swedish Extrovert
07-06-2011, 10:09 PM
I'm sure everything would have played out the way Obama predicted it had there been no outlying factors or shocks/panics. Ceteris paribus assumptions are guiding hypotheses, not absolute.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
07-06-2011, 10:14 PM
Because voters have short memories.

Guess thats why Big "o" hates Fox for putting the truth out there. Hopeing that we forget his promises.

Swedish Extrovert
07-06-2011, 10:15 PM
Cable TV news is a joke. Fox News is probably the worst, followed closely by MSNBC.

Swedish Extrovert
07-06-2011, 10:16 PM
I'm sure everything would have played out the way Obama predicted it had there been no outlying factors or shocks/panics. Ceteris paribus assumptions are guiding hypotheses, not absolute.


A chemist, an engineer and an economist are stranded on a deserted island. They carry with them some canned food but have no ordinary means of opening the cans. The chemist suggests gathering some wood and starting a fire and then holding the cans over the heat, counting on the expanding contents to burst open the cans. The engineer thinks it would be better to try smashing the cans open with some of the rocks lying around. The economist begins, "Assume we had a can opener..."

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
07-06-2011, 10:16 PM
I'm sure everything would have played out the way Obama predicted it had there been no outlying factors or shocks/panics. Ceteris paribus assumptions are guiding hypotheses, not absolute.

Equal how? There will never be anything as equal about anything.

pricejj
07-06-2011, 11:21 PM
Really?!?! First, no need for the highlighted attack that is extremely incorrect. Second, dems want to close tax loopholes on corps (like the article states), and many (these days) advocate for flat tax. Raising taxes on the rich and the corporate tax structure are not the same thing, FYI, though not the prevalent position these days.

Lowering tax rates on corps is fine if the tax refunds are withdrawn. Read the article you post and know your opponents stance more correctly.

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.

pricejj
07-06-2011, 11:23 PM
"PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE come back to America, American companies. PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE? What if we give you a ton of money? THEN will you pinkie swear that you'll come back and create jobs? Pretty pleeeeeeeeeeeease?"

You mean make our corporate tax rate competitive with the rest of the world? God forbid...

Even Bill Clinton thinks you're misguided.

Boomhauer
07-06-2011, 11:29 PM
On this board, I have been calling to lower the corporate tax rate and close the loopholes, to become competitive globally. For all you Communist Liberals out there who want to "Tax the Rich". This is what Bill Clinton's stance is regarding the corporate income tax rate in the U.S.

"It doesn't make sense anymore. We've got an uncompetitive rate," he said. "We tax at 35% of income, although we only take about 23%. So we should cut the rate to 25%, or whatever's competitive, and eliminate a lot of the deductions so that we still get a fair amount, and there's not so much variance in what the corporations pay."

- Bill Clinton, July 5, 2011
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304803104576427852199681170.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
...

Been saying the same thing; End the subsidies, loopholes, rebates, etc and lower the
corporate tax rate, but I've also added raise capital gains and dividend tax rates.

broncocalijohn
07-06-2011, 11:32 PM
Are you pretending that this statement makes any sense? A penchant for labeling things a certain way can support one's argument that no stimulus would be positive? Fails the logic test by just a little bit, no?

If all the citizens knew how much this stimulus would cost and how poorly the results were, then yes I believe not doing a damn thing would have been a positive.

Boomhauer
07-06-2011, 11:35 PM
...my uncle (Dr. Carl H. Stem) was an economic advisor to Richard Nixon, a friend of Ben Bernanke's, a Rhodes scholar, Phi Beta Kappa at Harvard, an economics professor at Georgetown, the dean of the Business School at Texas Tech for 25 years, a financial analyst at Wells Fargo, and a runner up candidate for dean at Pepperdine University

... basically he said that anyone who says they know how the stimulus has effected the economy is really just blowing smoke, and it's probably best that the stimulus went through because the risk of not doing anything far outweighs the risk of spending. ...

http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/files/2011/06/rbchart.jpg

pricejj
07-06-2011, 11:37 PM
Been saying the same thing; End the subsidies, loopholes, rebates, etc and lower the
corporate tax rate, but I've also added raise capital gains and dividend tax rates.

Yep. Now watch all the commie liberals scatter like roaches when the light comes on.

ROFL!

Archer81
07-06-2011, 11:39 PM
Last time I checked, unemployment was still at 8.6, which is pretty good for international standards. I'm as much of a deficit hawk as anyone (you know this), but I think you're jumping the gun to say that "it clearly failed" to save the economy.


...I really hate the phrase international standards. In some parts of the world ritualized female circumcision is considered standard. Good for the world if they consider 9% unemployment good. The US does not. When you factor in people whose unemployment has run out, its 17 million people not working. 280k spent on each job "created" is not an efficient use of money. Most of it was not even used for its intended purpose. Its a failure.

:Broncos:

Boomhauer
07-06-2011, 11:41 PM
Yep even liberal Diane Fienstein is all about the little ships she says the navy needs.

That would be a +$1bil Navy project for a local ship builder that's completely useless and likely won't be finished = Porktastic

cutthemdown
07-06-2011, 11:43 PM
People still sometimes confuse TARP with Recovery Act. One was a bank bailout, the other was the porkulus bill that didn't get spent on infrastructure like they said it would. Economists agree that most of the stimulus seems to have been used by the states to decrease borrowing, fund public pensions, keep cops and fireman paid etc. It didn't get spent on the big bridge building etc etc Dems you should just admit it sucked and move on to snake oiling the public on Obamas next big plan. OH DEAR GOD IF HE WINS I SHUDDER TO THINK WHAT HE WOULD DO IN A LAME DUCK TERM. Oh man he would go ape **** crazy spending and pushing the lefts wacko green economy on everyone.

mkporter
07-06-2011, 11:46 PM
You mean make our corporate tax rate competitive with the rest of the world? God forbid...

Even Bill Clinton thinks you're misguided.

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.

Archer81
07-06-2011, 11:49 PM
People still sometimes confuse TARP with Recovery Act. One was a bank bailout, the other was the porkulus bill that didn't get spent on infrastructure like they said it would. Economists agree that most of the stimulus seems to have been used by the states to decrease borrowing, fund public pensions, keep cops and fireman paid etc. It didn't get spent on the big bridge building etc etc Dems you should just admit it sucked and move on to snake oiling the public on Obamas next big plan. OH DEAR GOD IF HE WINS I SHUDDER TO THINK WHAT HE WOULD DO IN A LAME DUCK TERM. Oh man he would go ape **** crazy spending and pushing the lefts wacko green economy on everyone.


Getting it through a republican house would be interesting. The reaction in the WRP forum to a GOP president-elect would be pretty funny as well.

:Broncos:

cutthemdown
07-06-2011, 11:49 PM
That would be a +$1bil Navy project for a local ship builder that's completely useless and likely won't be finished = Porktastic

It really is a joke. This one helps my state but still its stupid. When someone actually sinks one of our ships then maybe they can talk me into needing a bunch of new ones. LOL our ships never even make it to the bottom of the sea in battle. The just retire them to the mothball fleet. Its rusting somewhere out there, not sure where. I want us to be strong and ready to fight but honestly they go so far overboard its funny. Like said earlier they will actually argue and tell the military no we aren't cancelling that. You get it whether you want it or not.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
07-06-2011, 11:50 PM
Getting it through a republican house would be interesting. The reaction in the WRP forum to a GOP president-elect would be pretty funny as well.

:Broncos:

Way too many RINO's for me to even entertain that thought.

cutthemdown
07-06-2011, 11:51 PM
Getting it through a republican house would be interesting. The reaction in the WRP forum to a GOP president-elect would be pretty funny as well.

:Broncos:

Maybe Obama winning, and the repubs gaining in Congress would not be too bad. I could go for a stalemate, with public so pissed they are forced to at least cut a little, with Obama in power to at least keep it from going too evil right wing, but also not able to go ape **** liberal lefty. Yeah that could maybe work. But Obama still have control in senate, repubs need more power to offset Obama.

cutthemdown
07-06-2011, 11:53 PM
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.

It is stupid to create a system that is so convoluted you cant tell who pays tax fairly. Just give them a fair rate, then get rid of all the loopholes and go simple. its a cluster**** for sure.

Archer81
07-06-2011, 11:56 PM
Maybe Obama winning, and the repubs gaining in Congress would not be too bad. I could go for a stalemate, with public so pissed they are forced to at least cut a little, with Obama in power to at least keep it from going too evil right wing, but also not able to go ape **** liberal lefty. Yeah that could maybe work. But Obama still have control in senate, repubs need more power to offset Obama.


Alot can happen between now and November 2012. If Obama gets re-elected or we have a new president in 2013 they will have alot of work to do.


:Broncos:

ZachKC
07-06-2011, 11:57 PM
If it is this bad with a stimulus, it could not have been any worse without one.

:Broncos:

Naive.

Archer81
07-06-2011, 11:57 PM
It is stupid to create a system that is so convoluted you cant tell who pays tax fairly. Just give them a fair rate, then get rid of all the loopholes and go simple. its a cluster**** for sure.


No. Its "progressive".

:Broncos:

Archer81
07-06-2011, 11:58 PM
Naive.


Uhh...thanks?


:Broncos:

Boomhauer
07-07-2011, 12:01 AM
It really is a joke. This one helps my state but still its stupid. When someone actually sinks one of our ships then maybe they can talk me into needing a bunch of new ones. ...

OT-FYI; We already have plenty of Whidbey Island and Harpers Ferry-class ships that won't be replaced until around 2040.
http://www.hovercraft.it/foto/59.jpg
The new $1bil 'Feinstein-class' is meant to do the same thing, but is unfit for even rough seas, much less combat, slow, thin skinned and generally half as capable.

*edit: Pic/sp

Archer81
07-07-2011, 12:06 AM
OT-FYI;
We already have plenty of Harpers Ferry-class ships and won't be replaced until around 2040. This new $1bil 'Feinstein-class' is meant to do the same, but is unfit for even rough seas, much less combat, slow, thin skinned and generally half as capable.


Much like Feinstein herself...


:Broncos:

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
07-07-2011, 12:08 AM
I can bearly stand a RINO as President. And there are too many RINO's in congress. The only way I'd think it'd be ok with a second o term is if there were 500 tea party Repubs in the house 100 in the senate.

Archer81
07-07-2011, 12:14 AM
I can bearly stand a RINO as President. And there are too many RINO's in congress. The only way I'd think it'd be ok with a second o term is if there were 500 tea party Repubs in the house 100 in the senate.


So...there is no way you would be OK with a 2nd Obama term?

:Broncos:

broncocalijohn
07-07-2011, 12:14 AM
I can bearly stand a RINO as President. And there are too many RINO's in congress. The only way I'd think it'd be ok with a second o term is if there were 500 tea party Repubs in the house 100 in the senate.

When did we add 65 seats to the House? Edit: Just found out we have 57 states so I assume they come from the extra 7 I didnt know about.

mkporter
07-07-2011, 12:41 AM
People still sometimes confuse TARP with Recovery Act. One was a bank bailout, the other was the porkulus bill that didn't get spent on infrastructure like they said it would. Economists agree that most of the stimulus seems to have been used by the states to decrease borrowing, fund public pensions, keep cops and fireman paid etc. It didn't get spent on the big bridge building etc etc Dems you should just admit it sucked and move on to snake oiling the public on Obamas next big plan. OH DEAR GOD IF HE WINS I SHUDDER TO THINK WHAT HE WOULD DO IN A LAME DUCK TERM. Oh man he would go ape **** crazy spending and pushing the lefts wacko green economy on everyone.

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.

mkporter
07-07-2011, 12:43 AM
It is stupid to create a system that is so convoluted you cant tell who pays tax fairly. Just give them a fair rate, then get rid of all the loopholes and go simple. its a cluster**** for sure.

Agreed. Easier said than done unfortunately.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
07-07-2011, 12:46 AM
When did we add 65 seats to the House? Edit: Just found out we have 57 states so I assume they come from the extra 7 I didnt know about.

Thats when we annex mexico.

epicSocialism4tw
07-07-2011, 01:26 AM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-s-economists-stimulus-has-cost-278000-job_576014.html

Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job



Read the whole article. There is some evidence Obama's stimulus actually hurt growth. And before people say these are lies, this report came from the White House.

Well, Obama made sure to get money into the Union bosses' pockets. I'm sure they were happy with it.