Page 35 of 41 FirstFirst ... 253334353637 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 404

Thread: CBO: Stimulus hurts economy in the long run

  1. #341
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,259

    Re: CBO: Stimulus hurts economy in the long run

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    The point being, tax increases are a viable means of reform.
    Tax increase on use items is a viable means of raising revenue because people have a choice. If I don't drive I don't pay excise taxes on gasoline. If I choose where I live so I decide on what property tax rate I pay. I choose whether or not to smoke or drink thus whether to pay those taxes as well. Raising taxes does change behavior as evidenced by people fleeing high tax states to the lower taxed states. Human behavior is powerful

  2. #342
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: CBO: Stimulus hurts economy in the long run

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Tax increase on use items is a viable means of raising revenue because people have a choice. If I don't drive I don't pay excise taxes on gasoline. If I choose where I live so I decide on what property tax rate I pay. I choose whether or not to smoke or drink thus whether to pay those taxes as well. Raising taxes does change behavior as evidenced by people fleeing high tax states to the lower taxed states. Human behavior is powerful
    Ok.

    Trust funds/hedge funds/money market funds all have a deep relationship with U.S. sovereigns because they are about as close as to "risk free" as it gets. Reason being, the U.S. can either raise taxes or issue debt to cover the cost of carry.
    Last edited by Kushinator; 11-30-11 at 03:42 PM.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  3. #343
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: CBO: Stimulus hurts economy in the long run

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    You left out raising taxes like Ron and Tip agreed to in 1983.
    You couldn't raise taxes that high.

  4. #344
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: CBO: Stimulus hurts economy in the long run

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    You couldn't raise taxes that high.

    Unsupportable claims often occur due to a general lack of data.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  5. #345
    Professor
    finebead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,558

    Re: CBO: Stimulus hurts economy in the long run

    [QUOTE=1Perry;1059989974]The collapse did not cause the downfall of GM and Chrylser. That had failed long ago but with the easy money and things seemingly going well they were able to continue to kick their problems down the road just like Europe is doing now. The problem is, they did not fix their problems. They also have simply kicked their problems down the road concerning their unsustainable legacy costs. A proper bankruptcy could have addressed this. I would have even supported limitied government involvement to make sure that at least a portion of these were retained before GM and CHrysler were allowed to start paying out bonuses and such.[\quote]
    Poor management and product line up were factors in the bankruptcy of Chrysler and GM, but it occurred 6 quarters into the longest recession since the great depression. The great recession was the triggering event of their bankruptcy.

    Indeed. I wasn't terrified.
    Good for you, but that attitude is not representative of what most felt during the recession.

    I completely dismiss this arguement. It was said that the markets would collapse without TARP. We enacted TARP and the markets collapsed. We shoul dhave left it alone right there. We should not have went on a program that's only purpose was to get the markets back up to where they were before the crash. I lost no money in the crash. I didn't make any but I also didn't lose any. (Yes, I was invested in my retirement account). I'm in for the long haul, not to move in/out in/out in/out to find the next bubble.
    The stock market did not collapse at any time, nor did the economy. That's the point of TARP and Stimulus. DJIA dropped a serious 60%, but it did not collapse 90% like it did in the great depression. I do not remember any mention in the arguments over TARP that it would save the stock market from collapse anyhow. The purpose of TARP was to prevent widespread insolvency of the banking system, since the country needs a functioning banking system. By preventing widespread insolvency and giving Treasury time to arrange orderly takeovers of banks with serious problems, we prevented a serious credit crunch, where banks would not lend to anyone for fear they would go bankrupt and the bank would not be repaid. Indirectly that would be somewhat beneficial to the stock market, but that was not a primary objective of TARP.

    Greenspan is a ****ing idiot. It was his idiotic policies that allowed the bubble in the first place. Anyone that would listen to anything that Greenspan has to say, well, I do not want to atract the ire of the mods but making no personal accusations to anyone but anyone that cares what Greenspan has to say has to be an idiot.
    Greenspan had interest rates too low with fed funds at 1% in 2003-2004, and he failed to use his power to regulate the financial markets, but he was fed chairman for 16 years, 4 terms, and he is no idiot. He did not tell one bank to loan money to people with no chance to pay it back, and he did not tell one wall st. investment bank to load up their balance sheet with toxic debt; they did that all on their own.

    The government is not a spender. They are a transferer.
    You are playing semantics for the sake of argument, without much point really. Of course the govt. is a spender, they spend a lot of money with my company, and many others like General Dynamics and Raytheon. I don't care where they got the money, I just care that they spent it with me.


    But, at the end of the day, you have chosen to pick semantic arguments, and you have NOT described what you other plan was to deal with the financial crisis, how it would have worked, how many industries would be affected, how deeply they would be affected, how many bankruptcies would have occurred, and how high the unemployment rate would have risen? If you don't know that, you don't have a plan, you just have a desire.
    Last edited by finebead; 12-01-11 at 02:34 AM.

  6. #346
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: CBO: Stimulus hurts economy in the long run

    [QUOTE=finebead;1059992375]
    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post

    Good for you, but that attitude is not representative of what most felt during the recession.
    I do not know anyone who was terrified. Everyone I knew simply carried on like they always had. Granted I don't know anyone that had million dollar bonuses to protect.

    The stock market did not collapse at any time, nor did the economy.
    They went from what? (I would have to look up the exact numbers) 14,000 to 7800?

    That's the point of TARP and Stimulus. DJIA dropped a serious 60%, but it did not collapse 90% like it did in the great depression. I do not remember any mention in the arguments over TARP that it would save the stock market from collapse anyhow. The purpose of TARP was to prevent widespread insolvency of the banking system, since the country needs a functioning banking system. By preventing widespread insolvency and giving Treasury time to arrange orderly takeovers of banks with serious problems, we prevented a serious credit crunch, where banks would not lend to anyone for fear they would go bankrupt and the bank would not be repaid. Indirectly that would be somewhat beneficial to the stock market, but that was not a primary objective of TARP.
    Indeed they did not want those who run the banks to freak. Main street was not going to freak, they had no reason to. As I said in another post, the government should have done the same thing that FDR did. He put the heads in a rook and told them they were not leaving until they came up with an agreement to not cannabalize each other.

    Greenspan had interest rates too low with fed funds at 1% in 2003-2004, and he failed to use his power to regulate the financial markets, but he was fed chairman for 16 years, 4 terms, and he is no idiot. He did not tell one bank to loan money to people with no chance to pay it back, and he did not tell one wall st. investment bank to load up their balance sheet with toxic debt; they did that all on their own.
    No, they did not do it on their own. Greenspan knew what was going on or you agree that he was an idiot.

    You are playing semantics for the sake of argument, without much point really. Of course the govt. is a spender, they spend a lot of money with my company, and many others like General Dynamics and Raytheon. I don't care where they got the money, I just care that they spent it with me.
    This is NOT semantics. They spend nothing. They simply transfer money from one person to another. That is not semantics. That is exactly what they do.

    But, at the end of the day, you have chosen to pick semantic arguments, and you have NOT described what you other plan was to deal with the financial crisis, how it would have worked, how many industries would be affected, how deeply they would be affected, how many bankruptcies would have occurred, and how high the unemployment rate would have risen? If you don't know that, you don't have a plan, you just have a desire.
    LOL, the government said that the stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8%. They have buildings full of people figuring this stuff but for me to get you to understand that the government does not spend, I should provide more than the entire federal government provided. LOL

  7. #347
    Professor
    finebead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,558

    Re: CBO: Stimulus hurts economy in the long run

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry
    I do not know anyone who was terrified. Everyone I knew simply carried on like they always had. Granted I don't know anyone that had million dollar bonuses to protect.
    It was a global phenomenon, in the US and around the world. If you don't know this, or refuse to acknowledge the obvious, they will be little for us to discuss. I provide my documentation just below, from a neutral site in Europe, one that offers investment advice, not one that is politicized. So, where is your support for your position?
    Many seasoned of investors were startled - and millions were shocked - by the market's plunge in 2008 and the first quarter 2009.

    I was one of them (more shocked than startled) and I am sure you were too.
    Investment rule #2


    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry
    Indeed they did not want those who run the banks to freak. Main street was not going to freak, they had no reason to. As I said in another post, the government should have done the same thing that FDR did. He put the heads in a rook and told them they were not leaving until they came up with an agreement to not cannabalize each other.
    Translation = I have no plan, I will ask someone else to fix this. Actually FDR got numerous programs enacted to spend money to public works programs, to get people back to work, to put money in their pockets, so they could consume and get the rest of the economy pumping, programs like the WPA and the CCC. He also enacted financial reform with the SEC and Glass-Steagal.


    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry
    No, they did not do it on their own. Greenspan knew what was going on or you agree that he was an idiot.
    Greenspan the lifelong republican, appointed by repub president Bush in 2002. The legacy of republican failures from 2001-2006 when they controlled the house, senate, white house and federal reserve is why I DON'T want to vote for those fools today.

    What about Chris Cox role at SEC in 2004, where he allowed the biggest banks to radically increase their leverage by relaxing the Net Capital Rule, which is what allowed them to buy all the junk mortgages up in 2004-2006, which directly lead to the crisis?

    What about Bill Frist (R-Tenn), senate majority leader who would not bring S-190 by Chuck Hagel to the senate floor in 2005 for a vote, a bill to reign in Fannie and Freddie? The house of rep. had already passed the companion bill, H-1464 if memory serves, by a wide majority from both parties, the vote was 330 to 90 in favor IIRC.


    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry
    This is NOT semantics. They spend nothing. They simply transfer money from one person to another. That is not semantics. That is exactly what they do.
    It is just semantics at best, or plain wrong at worst. See below:
    The first two types of government spending, namely government final consumption expenditure and government gross capital formation, together constitute one of the major components of gross domestic product.
    From the Wiki article on GOVERNMENT SPENDING: Government spending - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry
    LOL, the government said that the stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8%. They have buildings full of people figuring this stuff but for me to get you to understand that the government does not spend, I should provide more than the entire federal government provided. LOL
    Translation = I have no plan.
    Last edited by finebead; 12-02-11 at 01:27 AM.

  8. #348
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: CBO: Stimulus hurts economy in the long run

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Business is more of a protected class than poor folk. And you applaud their being a protected class.
    Excuse me if I believe that a strong business sector means not only employment for the middle class, but economic health for the country.

    This is one of those things that sounds true but likley isn't. The rate change would not amount to enough to really justify passing it on. And the likely don't. But it helps in making an excuse to exclude them for any responsibility to pay for the benefits they use. A protected class if you will.

    There you go again. "likely" means you don't know for a fact, but then follow that with definitive, absolute statements show your complete fundamental misunderstanding of how business works. You want to dissect a true "protected class"? Check out public sector unionized employees like teachers.

    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  9. #349
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: CBO: Stimulus hurts economy in the long run

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Excuse me if I believe that a strong business sector means not only employment for the middle class, but economic health for the country.
    At least you are ok with being hypocritical. Protecting a particular aspect of the nation is acceptable if and only if you agree with it. But when ideology jumps in, the aspect of the nation which you disagree with should not receive political interest.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  10. #350
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: CBO: Stimulus hurts economy in the long run

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    At least you are ok with being hypocritical. Protecting a particular aspect of the nation is acceptable if and only if you agree with it. But when ideology jumps in, the aspect of the nation which you disagree with should not receive political interest.

    GB, I think you are a pretty smart guy when it comes to the minutia of crunching economic numbers to fit the argument you are making. That's a compliment. But, in simple terms, what happens to small business, and even larger business when their bottom line profit shrinks?

    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

Page 35 of 41 FirstFirst ... 253334353637 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •