Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 105

Thread: CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul

  1. #71
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul

    Quote Originally Posted by Indy View Post
    I can see that logic. I think they should write something into the bill that specifically states that it is in NO WAY a permanent increase in yearly budgets for these programs. They won't, because the democrats are trying to push pork through when they can, much like republicans do when they are in that position, but one can wish.
    Its always expected when either party creates "emergency" legislation.
    The Rahm Emanual quote about never letting a crisis go to waste applies to the mentality of both parties.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  2. #72
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul

    Quote Originally Posted by Indy View Post
    AAAAAND exit polls are somehow now believable? Oh ok, I wasn't aware Kerry wasn't the pres for the last 4 years.

    The poll is on Obama, Kerry has nothing to do. If you don’t have anything else more believable than the exit poll, you are simply in the state of denial. You want us to believe your fantasies and not to believe polls.

    I did not have any polls, but simple observation shows that policies of democrats are attractable for people who not carry burden of taxes and who do not have education and experience. No polls needed all one has to do is to listen to Obama.




    Quote Originally Posted by Indy View Post
    Again, will somebody please explain why the New England area is ALWAYS blue and yet is comprised of some of the wealthiest states in the nation? You can't have it both ways, either Democrats typically make less and as such pay less in taxes, or they make more and pay more in taxes. Just repeating the same mantra when its shown to be incorrect (see previous maps) is something we've been seeing for 8 years now. Do we really need to continue this?
    Whatsoever you are missing the point, I started my point from making sure that the post was about those who do not carry the burden of taxes, - but not about who pays and who does not pay taxes or who makes /pays more.

    Burden is a very heavy word – how democrats are capable of missing it I don’t know. A body of mine – a good hearted well educated liberal makes $200, 000 (I think), he pays $ 60,000 in ALL taxes, another body makes $ 200, and pays $40,000. The first one pays more, but another one carries the burden, because the first one has a family of 2 and another one a family of 4 and a child who requires a special care and a sister he has to help. How difficult is to understand this?




    Whatsoever you are missing the point, living in CT and in the richest county, I still see that that policies of democrats are attractable for people how do not carry burden of taxes and who do not have education and experience. No polls needed all one has to do is to listen to Obama.

    If to take
    youngest – least experienced voters
    voters who do not carry the burden of taxes
    voters who have the least education
    from Obama and democrats and to make them neutral or give them to republicans, democrats would never make it.

    It is not the question of democrats paying lesser in taxes, although tax evasion promotes democrats to key financial positions in their government. It is that ideas and actions of democrats are attractive to
    youngest – least experienced voters
    voters who do not carry the burden of taxes
    voters who have the least education

    and democrats in order to keep on getting elected try to widen this base.

    In my post I was pointing only to those who do not carry the burden of taxes. As to who pays more taxes – Democrats or Republicans - it belongs to the rest of the voters – of those who carry the burden of taxes, - it is another question, which was not raised by me. If to remove those who voted firstly because of racism from the rest we would have the more or less fair and reasonable rest, - and most likely democrats will not ever be in majority among reasonable voters, even here in CT. Even here I can see that hard working people, small business owners are not for democrats, when people with old money and Wall Street dealers of virtual money often finance Obama, - of course, it is not a rule without exclusions and some of my friends are good hearted liberals here. I meet a lot of people here – it is very difficult to say – but most of them are not pro-democrats at all, - but pro-reason, - when it comes to those who do not carry the burden of taxes, who is lost due to minimal experience in life, and who have lesser education, certainly democrats prevail greatly.. I hang out with hard working small business owners all the time, a lot of them are pissed off by Bush’s stimulus package – forgetting that Obama’s package is even worse; some of them do not see a big deal of trying Obama for a change – they have the idea that the US is set up in such a way that Obama cannot destroy it, that all this craziness is not anything new, - but in all of all they are not democrats at all. The story with Lieberman shows that CT is not ready yet to follow only money.

    It looks like Democrats are more rich than Republicans, - looks like they have the greater difference in income between the top and the bottom of themselves. The top is willing to spend money to keep itself rich and to widen the base of their lowest income, gov-nt dependant, low educated voters. It seems that bring them more money. With Obama overspending McCain and all reasonable limits – one would be surprised if he didn’t win. As one can see Democrats are dependant on money spent on agitation and propaganda so much , that they cannot even think about limits. Democrats are driven by money and for money; they depend on uneducated inexperienced and not carrying the burden of taxes parts of the populations.

  3. #73
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul

    Quote Originally Posted by Dezaad View Post
    The study concluded no such thing. The Washington Times states their own conclusion, but they are deceiving you about what the CBO's conclusions are and are further trying to mislead you about the facts.

    These are the effect on GDP for each of the years indicated. Suppose the annual change in GDP would be -3.0 for 2009. The effect of the stimulus will be to make the annual change in output be between -1.6 to +1.1 for that year. Then suppose the following year would have been -2.5. The effect on the GDP for that year would be to make the annual change in GDP to be between -1.3 to +1.1. And so on.

    Now, as to the longer term effects (which I have already conceded were an obvious expectation):

    So, in 2019, suppose change in GDP for that year would have been +2.3. The stimulus' long term effect will be to make the change in GDP be between +2.0 and +2.2.

    Now, let's attempt to make a comparison, such as we are able to given the amount of information we (and the Washington Times have been given) The comparison is between what would be with no stimulus and what would be with the stimulus. No stimulus is no increase or decrease to the change in GDP for each of the years between 2009 and 2019. The proposed stimulus will increase or decrease the change in GDP as follows:

    Year: GDP Effect:
    2009 +1.4 to +4.1
    2010 +1.2 to +3.6
    2011 +0.4 to +1.2
    2012 -0.1 to -0.3*
    2013 -0.1 to -0.3*
    2014 -0.1 to -0.3*
    2015 -0.1 to -0.3*
    2016 -0.1 to -0.3*
    2017 -0.1 to -0.3*
    2018 -0.1 to -0.3*
    2019 -0.1 to -0.3

    *these numbers are assumed because they are not actually presented anywhere. These are the numbers as presented for the effect in the year 2019. Since the blog and letter both leave out the actual numbers for those years, but indicate that the stimulus effect will have faded, we take the effect for year 2019, though the contractive effect will almost certainly be lower at the start and rise to the 2019 level.

    Making a rough calculation (one which completely ignores the compound effect, which would favor the growth effect since those effects are seen in the early years):

    Total benefit from the stimulus: +3.0 to +8.9
    Total harm from the stimulus: -0.8 to -2.4

    In other words, the Washington Times article could not even be granted the comparatively neutral designation "Spin". It is outright and deliberate deception to state "President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday". They said no such thing. Not even remotely. The report merely indicates that the stimulus would have some negative effects alongside its positive effects, which is a completely different thing.

    Overall, the CBO report indicates that the stimulus will have a beneficial effect. Washington Times has essentially lied to their readers, period. Well, they might actually be really stupid, and not have understood what they were reading. Either way, they have ill served their readership.
    I think there's a critical point here that you might be misreading:

    You're assuming that the projections for 2019 are not taking into account the increases in 09/10 when they detail what will be happening in 2019. That would be an absurd way for the CBO to make the calculations. My reading of the plain language of the CBO's letter, and what I see as the only logical conclusion, is that the projections in 2019 will be lower than it would otherwise be, even when factoring in the increases in 2009/10.

    Think about it. Say it was a three year window they looked at.

    In the first year, GDP grows 4% more than it otherwise would
    In the second year, GDP grows 3% more than it otherwise would
    In the third year, GDP shrinks 1% more than it otherwise would

    The CBO is not going to put out a report saying that "CBO estimates that by third year the legislation would reduce GDP by 1% on net." The only way they would say that is if this were the case:

    In the first year, GDP grows 3% more than it otherwise would
    In the second year, GDP grows 1% more than it otherwise would
    In the third year, GDP shrinks 5% more than it otherwise would

    In that case, it would be appropriate to make the above statement. I think that's what they're saying will happen here, only obviously spread over the decade.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  4. #74
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul

    Quote Originally Posted by Indy View Post
    AAAAAND exit polls are somehow now believable? Oh ok, I wasn't aware Kerry wasn't the pres for the last 4 years.

    Again, will somebody please explain why the New England area is ALWAYS blue and yet is comprised of some of the wealthiest states in the nation? You can't have it both ways, either Democrats typically make less and as such pay less in taxes, or they make more and pay more in taxes. Just repeating the same mantra when its shown to be incorrect (see previous maps) is something we've been seeing for 8 years now. Do we really need to continue this?
    There is usually a red blip in New England that wasn't there this time, and it is a wealthy state with low unemployment as well.

    When I lived in Georgia, nearly all of the wealthy counties voted Republican and the poor/academic countries voted Democrat.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  5. #75
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    There is usually a red blip in New England that wasn't there this time, and it is a wealthy state with low unemployment as well.

    When I lived in Georgia, nearly all of the wealthy counties voted Republican and the poor/academic countries voted Democrat.
    Most of rural Georgia, except for the rural black enclaves and larger cities vote Republican, I thought.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  6. #76
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul

    Quote Originally Posted by Indy View Post
    Did you even bother to follow this thread before posting? If you did you'd notice the multiple maps that discredit this silly notion that Democrats pay less taxes than Republicans since the Democrats come from states with much higher household incomes. Try again genius.
    Because all states are obviously monolithic entities! Everyone in NY is a democrat! Everyone in Texas is a republican!

    Quote Originally Posted by Indy View Post
    AAAAAND exit polls are somehow now believable? Oh ok, I wasn't aware Kerry wasn't the pres for the last 4 years.
    lol. The exit polls in 04 were off by a margin of 1-2 points across the nation. Unless you have any evidence that they were off by FIFTY points in 2008, this is a terrible argument on your part.

    Again, will somebody please explain why the New England area is ALWAYS blue and yet is comprised of some of the wealthiest states in the nation?
    Monolithic entity, etc.

    You can't have it both ways, either Democrats typically make less and as such pay less in taxes, or they make more and pay more in taxes. Just repeating the same mantra when its shown to be incorrect (see previous maps) is something we've been seeing for 8 years now. Do we really need to continue this?
    I seem to recall trying to explain this once, but I'll try again.

    Imagine a city with 10 people in it. In that city, there are 3 millionaires and 7 poor people. 2 of the 3 millionaires are republicans, but 6 of the 7 poor people are democrats. In elections, that city will always vote 70-30 for Democrats, despite the fact that the majority of the rich people are Republicans.

    Do you see why it's foolish to say "Oh, well area X votes for Y and is rich so rich people must support Y"?

    Again, I've provided you with the evidence. If you go back and look at the exit polls for each recent election, you will see that the Republican candidate has always overperformed among the wealthy, while the Democratic candidate has always won massive majorities among the poor. You can yell "BLUE STATE RICH" all you want, but that doesn't change the facts.


    Quote Originally Posted by Indy View Post
    You seem to be missing a very basic idea: If you make more you pay more in taxes. Did I loose you? Here, one more time: If a dish washer makes 4/hour MORE in a blue state than a red state, guess what? He pays more taxes.
    Of course. The point of THAT portion of my post was to disprove your claim that increased income necessarily indicated increased intelligence.

    Crying about how democrats don't pay as much taxes as republicans is silly unless you are trying to claim that famous 1% who pays 20% of the nation's taxes.
    wut

    In this climate I'm not so sure if bragging that you own that coveted 1% of the populous is a good thing.
    So you talk about how the Dems are richer, but then say it's not a good thing to claim that the Dems are richer?

    At least try to maintain consistency throughout the post.

    Also, it isn't hard to understand why a poor person would vote democrat in a southern state if that state is historically controlled by republicans
    LOLOLOL

    Pick up a history book and tell me about how the southern states have been historically controlled by Republicans.

    2008 Party Control Maps

    and that state also has one of the highest income gaps in the nation.
    Where are you getting this garbage from?

    1) New England Has Highest Increase In Income Disparity In The Nation

    New England Has Highest Increase In Income Disparity In The Nation

    Income inequality in New England is rising at the highest rate in the nation, a new brief from the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire finds. Between 1989 and 2004, the region experienced the largest increase in income inequality in the country, due to both growth among top earners and the hollowing out of the middle class caused by significant changes in the nation’s economy.
    2) What state has the highest Gini coefficient? Hint: It's not a southern state:

    Many Eyes: US Gini Coefficient By State: 2006

    NY and Connecticut are 1-2.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  7. #77
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Most of rural Georgia, except for the rural black enclaves and larger cities vote Republican, I thought.
    Most of GEorgia PERIOD votes Republican, but with higher concentrations in the affluent northern suburbs than anywhere else.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  8. #78
    Student
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    northern ca.
    Last Seen
    01-25-10 @ 02:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    184

    Re: CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul

    Quote Originally Posted by Indy View Post
    When you live in the rural areas you forget how the real US lives (meaning the MAJORITY of us). How you can say that farmers are the real world is beyond me. When you farm you forget what its like to actually have to use your brain for an income.
    I take it you must be a city boy?
    Well think about this,if their ever is a severe food shortage, most of the people in the cities will be the first to starve,because if it doesn't come in a box, package,or can,most city folks won't make it.
    And being liberals and smarter then country folks, most won't have weapons,who needs them, we have the police to take care of us.
    Let's just hope that day never comes,because if it does,you'll find out what the real world really is,and not what you thought it was.

  9. #79
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul

    Quote Originally Posted by rudedog View Post
    I take it you must be a city boy?
    Well think about this,if their ever is a severe food shortage, most of the people in the cities will be the first to starve,because if it doesn't come in a box, package,or can,most city folks won't make it.
    And being liberals and smarter then country folks, most won't have weapons,who needs them, we have the police to take care of us.
    Let's just hope that day never comes,because if it does,you'll find out what the real world really is,and not what you thought it was.
    Wow, I totally missed that post. As someone who moved from a farm to a city, I can say with confidence that he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. If you don't need a brain to be a farmer, I wonder why my mom bothered getting her second degree in agricultural science.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  10. #80
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Wow, I totally missed that post. As someone who moved from a farm to a city, I can say with confidence that he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. If you don't need a brain to be a farmer, I wonder why my mom bothered getting her second degree in agricultural science.
    I've troubled myself with a few fruiting plants and a small garden. It is a lot more than tossing some seeds and walking away.

    I do enjoy it though.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... 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
  •