Yep, that stimulus package is REALLY paying off:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/president-obama-predicts-unemployment-will-hit-10-this-year.html
It's okay though, because Barry loses sleep at night about the deficit.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/16/AR2009061602610_pf.html
Maybe it's time for another Broadway or Paris date night to help him rest better.
Quote from: guido911 on June 16, 2009, 07:25:30 PM
Yep, that stimulus package is REALLY paying off:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/president-obama-predicts-unemployment-will-hit-10-this-year.html
It's okay though, because Barry loses sleep at night about the deficit.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/16/AR2009061602610_pf.html
Maybe it's time for another Broadway or Paris date night to help him rest better.
This is the best you can do?
Quote from: guido911 on June 16, 2009, 07:25:30 PM
Yep, that stimulus package is REALLY paying off:
Did you honestly expect that the stimulus would have an immediate effect? It wasn't sold that way. These things usually take a minimum of 9 months to a year to have a meaningful effect.
Quote from: nathanm on June 17, 2009, 02:06:52 AM
Did you honestly expect that the stimulus would have an immediate effect? It wasn't sold that way. These things usually take a minimum of 9 months to a year to have a meaningful effect.
Barry told us unemployment would not surpass 8% if the stimulus passed. Ol' plugs said on Sunday the everybody "guessed" wrong on the true state of the economy before we saddled our grand kids with the new debt:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/14/biden-says-guessed-wrong-unemployment-numbers/
Nice to know we use "guessing" practices before we take $787M from taxpayers. Bottom line, Barry lied to use about the stimulus, just as he did with transparency, rendition, military commissions, signing statements, taking public finance, no lobbyists in his administration, and on and on and on.
Come on now Guido, President Obama didn't lie to us, he just didn't know any better. Get it right, bro!
How do you lie when your just guessing?
Guido, you spend 90% of your "valid" posts on making insults of the president. Stick with facts instead of insults and people might read some of your posts and understand what the hell you are trying to say. Everybody just thinks.. oh great, the moron is at it again. (this is in response to your first post). Not speaking in oneliners and weblinks might help too
I think if I explain it in non-angry, FOTD and nathanm will get it.
When Obama came into office they produced a paper that said that unemployment would be kept below 8%. Stimulus passed, and now he is saying that it will hit 10%. The whitepaper was wrong and the metrics put forth to define the effects of the stimulus have failed. There obviously is no single variable metric to show what the stimulus bill has or hasn't done. The "it isn't going to happen overnight" doesn't work because their white paper claimed it would basically. Economic/Job forecasts are always wrong and it is pretty dumb to release specifics like (won't go over 8%). Bush did the same thing with this tax cut that was going to create x million jobs in a year. His job #'s were like 3 years behind.
Projections are nothing more than an educated guess based on past data and forecasts of thin air. All politicians guild the lily when they are holding office and shred it when they are running for someone else's seat. Even figures released by the labor dept. and treasury are approximations.
I'm reluctant to hang all this on the shoulders of someone who assumed office five months ago, especially since this cataclysm has been brewing since the late 1990's at least. POTUS Bush II simply put some large bandages on it early in his term and hoped his tenure would outrun the second coming of the consequences of the greedy 1980's & 1990's.
Don't get me wrong, I have grave concerns of how this administration and Congress are handling the economic crisis, but I don't know anyone who has expected serious signs of recovery until Q-4 this year.
Guido, I do find it somewhat pompous and disrespectful to refer to the POTUS by his first name or college nickname. My dad taught me at an early age, during the Nixon administration, that you may not like the person in the office, but the office is deserving of your respect. That's why I am pretty conscientious about referring to him as President Obama in my written posts. I may not like the guy personally, didn't vote for him, don't like his politics, I may think he's doing everything donkey-backwards, but I am a citizen of the United States and he is my President. I felt some real dooshy libs who would say "your President", "Baby Bush", or "Shrub" when GWB was in office were incredibly disrespectful and immature.
Sorry for getting on my high horse, but petty partisanship and dissention is why this country has been in a steady downward spiral for the last three or four decades. I can understand your sense of frustration, irony, and cynicism- I share it. Just because commentators like Olberdoosh don't show respect for a President they oppose, it doesn't make it right for everyone else. Hell, I even think respect for the office is starting to lag in the MSM as well.
An actual Stimulus bill would have avoided this. We know how to do it. We've done it before, but the practice of lowering taxes and reducing restrictions is not popular with this administration, so rather than learning from history and experience, they will have to learn from hard knocks. It may be a good thing, because in the process citizens will become more economically educated.
The term stimulus is defined as such:
Stimulus: a thing that rouses activity or energy in someone or something; a spur or incentive : if the tax were abolished, it would act as a stimulus to exports (LOL, that's actually the example given in the dictionary).
I'm not going to beat this horse again, it's unnecessary, those who don't understand, don't want to understand.
We will require an actual stimulus bill soon or unemployment will continue to rise, there is no avoiding it.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 17, 2009, 09:42:22 AM
An actual Stimulus bill would have avoided this. We know how to do it. We've done it before, but the practice of lowering taxes and reducing restrictions is not popular with this administration, so rather than learning from history and experience, they will have to learn from hard knocks. It may be a good thing, because in the process citizens will become more economically educated.
The term stimulus is defined as such:
Stimulus: a thing that rouses activity or energy in someone or something; a spur or incentive : if the tax were abolished, it would act as a stimulus to exports (LOL, that's actually the example given in the dictionary).
I'm not going to beat this horse again, it's unnecessary, those who don't understand, don't want to understand.
We will require an actual stimulus bill soon or unemployment will continue to rise, there is no avoiding it.
Didn't you read the part above about how Bush's tax cuts didn't show the effect they claimed. So if the stimulus is a failure by not meeting the metrics, the tax cuts didn't work either. In fact, the exact same thing is happening. Bush claims tax cuts are going to create x MORE jobs than if we didn't pass it. We didn't even meet the forecast for job growth without the tax cuts. Obama says we are going to not lose as many jobs if we pass the stimulus. We end up over the job loss projection that was made (I would bet, note they claimed unemployment % not what it WOULD be in the articles).
Also, if putting money into the economy isn't going to help. How is putting money into the economy going to help? $787 billion in 1 year tax cuts vs $787 billion in spending on projects = $787 billion the government doesn't have. Which is also the same as if they just sent everybody that is in the US $2,500 checks. Or the tax cut approach and you give 1% $50,000 checks, 10% $1500 checks, 39% 500 checks and 50% $100 checks.
Quote from: Trogdor on June 17, 2009, 08:57:51 AM
Guido, you spend 90% of your "valid" posts on making insults of the president. Stick with facts instead of insults and people might read some of your posts and understand what the hell you are trying to say. Everybody just thinks.. oh great, the moron is at it again. (this is in response to your first post). Not speaking in oneliners and weblinks might help too
I think if I explain it in non-angry, FOTD and nathanm will get it.
When Obama came into office they produced a paper that said that unemployment would be kept below 8%. Stimulus passed, and now he is saying that it will hit 10%. The whitepaper was wrong and the metrics put forth to define the effects of the stimulus have failed. There obviously is no single variable metric to show what the stimulus bill has or hasn't done. The "it isn't going to happen overnight" doesn't work because their white paper claimed it would basically. Economic/Job forecasts are always wrong and it is pretty dumb to release specifics like (won't go over 8%). Bush did the same thing with this tax cut that was going to create x million jobs in a year. His job #'s were like 3 years behind.
Here come's the Obama apologists...What makes you think I give a rat's a$$ about your opinion as to who reads my posts. We are consigned to pissing away nearly $1T in money going to repair bridges, feed fish, signs telling people about stimulus money being spent, renovate unused train stations, checks to 10,000 dead people, and gosh only know what else that will do nothing to stimulate the economy. How's that for FACTS wiseguy?
Nice dovetailing of bringing what Bush did into the equation. Interestingly, how often did the media and the likes of you call Bush a liar during his administration? Where was your outrage over that?
Quote from: guido911 on June 17, 2009, 10:09:20 AM
Here come's the Obama apologists...What makes you think I give a rat's a$$ about your opinion as to who reads my posts. We are consigned to pissing away nearly $1T in money going to repair bridges, feed fish, signs telling people about stimulus money being spent, renovate unused train stations, checks to 10,000 dead people, and gosh only know what else that will do nothing to stimulate the economy. How's that for FACTS wiseguy?
Nice dovetailing of bringing what Bush did into the equation. Interestingly, how often did the media and the likes of you call Bush a liar during his administration? Where was your outrage over that?
Four words:
"We do not torture"
Quote from: Trogdor on June 17, 2009, 09:59:29 AM
Didn't you read the part above about how Bush's tax cuts didn't show the effect they claimed. So if the stimulus is a failure by not meeting the metrics, the tax cuts didn't work either. In fact, the exact same thing is happening. Bush claims tax cuts are going to create x MORE jobs than if we didn't pass it. We didn't even meet the forecast for job growth without the tax cuts. Obama says we are going to not lose as many jobs if we pass the stimulus. We end up over the job loss projection that was made (I would bet, note they claimed unemployment % not what it WOULD be in the articles).
Also, if putting money into the economy isn't going to help. How is putting money into the economy going to help? $787 billion in 1 year tax cuts vs $787 billion in spending on projects = $787 billion the government doesn't have. Which is also the same as if they just sent everybody that is in the US $2,500 checks. Or the tax cut approach and you give 1% $50,000 checks, 10% $1500 checks, 39% 500 checks and 50% $100 checks.
LOL, we are not "putting money into the economy" we are taking money from one pocket and putting it in the other. Production of product is the only thing that creates money. Private business, not funded by government, is the only way to create wealth and create sustainable jobs.
Printing money or taking it from one group and giving it to another changes nothing. Bush's tax cuts were not very effective. They were dismal in size compared to previous stimulus actions. Don't try to wrap your head around it, just let it happen.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 17, 2009, 10:21:58 AM
LOL, we are not "putting money into the economy" we are taking money from one pocket and putting it in the other. Production of product is the only thing that creates money. Private business, not funded by government, is the only way to create wealth and create sustainable jobs.
Printing money or taking it from one group and giving it to another changes nothing. Bush's tax cuts were not very effective. They were dismal in size compared to previous stimulus actions. Don't try to wrap your head around it, just let it happen.
If you cut taxes when you have a deficit you are taking money from one pocket and putting it in the other. If you already are losing $10,000 a year and then drop your income another $20,000 you are still in the hole $20k that somebody has to pay back. $20,000 in tax cuts increase the debt $20,000 - income taxes received. $20,000 in spending on stimulus increased the debt $20,000 + administration fees (which should be taxed income) - any income taxes received off the money.
Quote from: Trogdor on June 17, 2009, 10:29:29 AM
If you cut taxes when you have a deficit you are taking money from one pocket and putting it in the other. If you already are losing $10,000 a year and then drop your income another $20,000 you are still in the hole $20k that somebody has to pay back. $20,000 in tax cuts increase the debt $20,000 - income taxes received. $20,000 in spending on stimulus increased the debt $20,000 + administration fees (which should be taxed income) - any income taxes received off the money.
Only in a vacuum.
Result of cutting taxes is jobs and wealth creation. Both deliver taxable income and cause the development of new business and industry, which creates more taxable income. The law of unintended consequences in this instance produces positive results.
Simply increasing debt on government sponsored programs and processes, continues to provide higher rates of dependancy, temporary low wage job creation, and more debt.
Please continue to argue your point. Economic laws are strangely like the laws of physics. They are usually steadfast. They only tend to change as our understanding of the situation increases. We learn through the debate.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 17, 2009, 09:42:22 AM
An actual Stimulus bill would have avoided this. We know how to do it. We've done it before, but the practice of lowering taxes and reducing restrictions is not popular with this administration, so rather than learning from history and experience, they will have to learn from hard knocks. It may be a good thing, because in the process citizens will become more economically educated.
No, in this economic climate all tax cuts will do is give people money to either save or pay down debt with. The government spending $787 billion means $787 billion dollars actually gets spent. But given all the red tape it takes to spend the money (which is a good thing!), it takes these things a while to have an effect.
Gaspar, your argument is probably valid when the top marginal rate is 50% or higher. Tax cuts make a difference then. Once you have the bottom of the barrel rates we have today, each further cut has significantly less effect.
The government spending money on infrastructure projects (and I agree that the stimulus package wasn't nearly enough of that, especially given the large amount that was appropriated to tax cuts, just as you desire, so that folks like yourself would go along..even though there was no way you actually would) is just as stimulating to the economy as any other production, only more so as it is guaranteed that the money will be spent rather than saved or returned to shareholders as profit and then saved.
You're stuck in the late 1970s, apparently.
Quote from: nathanm on June 17, 2009, 04:07:35 PM
No, in this economic climate all tax cuts will do is give people money to either save or pay down debt with. The government spending $787 billion means $787 billion dollars actually gets spent. But given all the red tape it takes to spend the money (which is a good thing!), it takes these things a while to have an effect.
Gaspar, your argument is probably valid when the top marginal rate is 50% or higher. Tax cuts make a difference then. Once you have the bottom of the barrel rates we have today, each further cut has significantly less effect.
The government spending money on infrastructure projects (and I agree that the stimulus package wasn't nearly enough of that, especially given the large amount that was appropriated to tax cuts, just as you desire, so that folks like yourself would go along..even though there was no way you actually would) is just as stimulating to the economy as any other production, only more so as it is guaranteed that the money will be spent rather than saved or returned to shareholders as profit and then saved.
You're stuck in the late 1970s, apparently.
Nathan,
How is it any more likely that individuals would spend more of the $787 bln from the gov't than they would a tax cut? People either get to keep their money (tax cut) or the gov't gives it back to them ("stimulus") what about either way of going about this modifies spending or saving behavior? Anyone worried about losing their job or a drop in income is saving money right now, at least any rational person.
Example: Think about the up to $8000 first time homebuyer credit. We'd like to think that people would take all that money and spend it at Lowe's, but many I know of who have taken advantage of it are planning on using it to pay down their mortgage to get rid of PMI, paying off a vehicle, or putting it in savings in the event they lose their job. I even know of one guy who bought a house in Feb. of this year who doesn't plan to file an amdended return. He's going to wait until he files his taxes next year and plans to pay off a vehicle and save the rest. Go figure...
This guy clearly is not warming up to Obama's economic plan (warning: language/content):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWu-efNN8PM
Quote from: Conan71 on June 17, 2009, 04:16:13 PM
Nathan,
How is it any more likely that individuals would spend more of the $787 bln from the gov't than they would a tax cut? People either get to keep their money (tax cut) or the gov't gives it back to them ("stimulus") what about either way of going about this modifies spending or saving behavior? Anyone worried about losing their job or a drop in income is saving money right now, at least any rational person.
Example: Think about the up to $8000 first time homebuyer credit. We'd like to think that people would take all that money and spend it at Lowe's, but many I know of who have taken advantage of it are planning on using it to pay down their mortgage to get rid of PMI, paying off a vehicle, or putting it in savings in the event they lose their job. I even know of one guy who bought a house in Feb. of this year who doesn't plan to file an amdended return. He's going to wait until he files his taxes next year and plans to pay off a vehicle and save the rest. Go figure...
The savings rate has significantly increased in the last year. Therefore, it stands to reason that a tax cut would largely be saved. If the government spends the money, it is by definition being spent and not saved.
The $8000 is like a tax cut. The individual decides what to do with it. You yourself stated that people aren't spending it, therefore it's not stimulating the economy except in cases where it induced someone to purchase a house that otherwise wouldn't have. (and that's only marginally economically useful, IMO)
The choice isn't between the government just up and giving people money and a tax cut, the choice is between the government spending the money and a tax cut that people will mostly save or pay debt with.
That said, talking about the $787 billion stimulus as if it's all going to be spent by the government is a complete fabrication. Half of that is tax cuts. The Democrats, being the morons they are tried to get the Republicans to go along by agreeing to their demands that the stimulus package include a tax cut. As I expected, the Republicans declined to vote for the stimulus despite their demands being met. Thus the Democrats essentially wasted half of the $787 billion package, significantly reducing the economic effect the bill would have.
At this point I think the Democrats are largely idiots and the Republicans are mostly malicious. Bipartisanship only works when both sides are willing to meet in the middle. Since the Congressional Republicans are completely unwilling to do so, the Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot by even considering their demands.
Since numbers were taken... This was when they entered vs left office.
I mean shouldn't Bush have outdone at least Carter? I am younger and from what I have seen in practice the magical tax cuts haven't produced the blazing job growth that is always claimed. As I said previously, Bush didn't even meet his forecast for job growth WITHOUT the tax cuts.
President Jobs created
George W. Bush 3.0 million
Bill Clinton 23.1 million
George H.W. Bush 2.5 million
Ronald Reagan 16.0 million
Jimmy Carter 10.5 million
Gerald Ford 1.8 million
Richard Nixon 9.4 million
Lyndon Johnson 11.9 million
John F. Kennedy 3.6 million
Dwight Eisenhower 3.5 million
Harry Truman 8.4 million
Quote from: Trogdor on June 17, 2009, 07:03:44 PM
Since numbers were taken... This was when they entered vs left office.
I mean shouldn't Bush have outdone at least Carter? I am younger and from what I have seen in practice the magical tax cuts haven't produced the blazing job growth that is always claimed. As I said previously, Bush didn't even meet his forecast for job growth WITHOUT the tax cuts.
President Jobs created
George W. Bush 3.0 million
Bill Clinton 23.1 million
George H.W. Bush 2.5 million
Ronald Reagan 16.0 million
Jimmy Carter 10.5 million
Gerald Ford 1.8 million
Richard Nixon 9.4 million
Lyndon Johnson 11.9 million
John F. Kennedy 3.6 million
Dwight Eisenhower 3.5 million
Harry Truman 8.4 million
I love that citation. Research congressional actions during those periods.
Quote from: nathanm on June 17, 2009, 04:07:35 PM
No, in this economic climate all tax cuts will do is give people money to either save or pay down debt with. The government spending $787 billion means $787 billion dollars actually gets spent. But given all the red tape it takes to spend the money (which is a good thing!), it takes these things a while to have an effect.
Gaspar, your argument is probably valid when the top marginal rate is 50% or higher. Tax cuts make a difference then. Once you have the bottom of the barrel rates we have today, each further cut has significantly less effect.
The government spending money on infrastructure projects (and I agree that the stimulus package wasn't nearly enough of that, especially given the large amount that was appropriated to tax cuts, just as you desire, so that folks like yourself would go along..even though there was no way you actually would) is just as stimulating to the economy as any other production, only more so as it is guaranteed that the money will be spent rather than saved or returned to shareholders as profit and then saved.
You're stuck in the late 1970s, apparently.
That premise has been proven incorrect historically. . . many many times.
(http://forums.the-dispatch.com/eve/forums/a/ga/ul/7791007088/inlineimg/Y/beating-a-dead-horse.gif)
Quote from: Gaspar on June 17, 2009, 08:01:37 PM
That premise has been proven incorrect historically. . . many many times.
No more than your own.
Actually, now that I think about it WWII is one incredible example of how government spending can turn the economy around. Hell, even during the depression upswings in employment and spending were directly correlated to government spending. When Roosevelt kowtowed to the Republicans and reduced the deficit spending things went right back down into the crapper until the war and its massive deficit spending.
But my premise is the one that's been proven incorrect historically. After all, the 1987 crash, the early 80s recession, and all the rest weren't actually happening in a climate of near continual tax rate reductions. That's just a figment of my imagination.
As Jimmy Stewart said in Harvey "Well I've wrestled with reality for over 35 years, doctor, and I'm happy to say I've finally won out over it." ::)
Quote from: Gaspar on June 17, 2009, 07:58:02 PM
I love that citation. Research congressional actions during those periods.
Lets use a simple sample of oh, say 16 years.
Cut taxes, + 3 million
Raise taxes, +23 million
So raising taxes is worth 20 million more jobs
Quote from: nathanm on June 17, 2009, 06:54:26 PM
The $8000 is like a tax cut. The individual decides what to do with it. You yourself stated that people aren't spending it, therefore it's not stimulating the economy except in cases where it induced someone to purchase a house that otherwise wouldn't have. (and that's only marginally economically useful, IMO)
It's down to hair-splitting at this point Nathan, you're just parsing words. You can call it a tax cut to prove your point, I can call it gov't spending to prove mine. One would assume a tax cut means a cut in remittance to the collecting authority. Stimulus spending would be in the form of a check from the gov't. It's most definitely not a tax cut for someone who buys a house that only paid in $4000 in federal tax this year and they get $8000 back upon filing an amended return. It's the gov't giving back money already paid in taxes and even giving away money they collected from others who don't qualify for such programs.
The scary economy, credit drying up and job picture has far more to do with the savings rate being up than whether it's the government giving money away or lowering taxes. +1 to Gaspar's dead horse.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 18, 2009, 10:45:54 AM
It's down to hair-splitting at this point Nathan, you're just parsing words. You can call it a tax cut to prove your point, I can call it gov't spending to prove mine. One would assume a tax cut means a cut in remittance to the collecting authority. Stimulus spending would be in the form of a check from the gov't. It's most definitely not a tax cut for someone who buys a house that only paid in $4000 in federal tax this year and they get $8000 back upon filing an amended return. It's the gov't giving back money already paid in taxes and even giving away money they collected from others who don't qualify for such programs.
The scary economy, credit drying up and job picture has far more to do with the savings rate being up than whether it's the government giving money away or lowering taxes. +1 to Gaspar's dead horse.
You missed one very important word, so this time I'll italicize it for you.
The $8000 is
like a tax cut.
It has the effect of a tax cut in that whether it is spent or saved is up to the individual receiving it. From what I can tell, most people are saving at least half of it.
Government spending is by definition spent on goods and services. I don't understand what's so difficult to grasp about the concept.