• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul

RightinNYC said:
This actually surprised me quite a bit. The report notes that it will help GDP growth over the next two years, but the effect will trail off after that.
Click to expand...

This article is from the Washington Times which is owned by the Rev Sung Myung Moon. I'll wait for a more reliable source even critical ones bofore I make up my mind.
 
PeteEU said:
Hogwash. You are not looking at the facts of the situation and your "historical" view is blinded by partisan goggles.

... but solely depending on tax cuts and on that the private sector make new jobs is beyond idiotic.. much like doing tax cuts and starting a major war.... oh yea that was the Republicans too..
Click to expand...
Pete, you are a member of Old Europe through and through.
That's not a term of endearment, but derision.

I am a partisan, that's true... but I used to be a socialist and have seen the misery EU governments have wrought on their people. They claim to want to assist the average person, but what they do is keep them down.

You are a partisan too, but I doubt you've changed your spots much since being indoctrinated by the Euro Socialist school system and media.

So, of two partisans, you are the one who isn't open minded... I've changed mine 180 degrees.

Government throwing money WHERE THEY THINK THE PROBLEM IS does not solve the problem, if it did Japan would have recovered fast and strong. Instead they have what is now called "the lost decade". Government couldn't move the ball, and though a trillion is a big number for government to bang about, it's a trickle in the perspective of the total economy.

New Zealand, near bankruptcy trashed its socialist ways and prospered.

Tax cuts alone could work. Cuts of all kinds, lots of cuts... I'm not picky.

Tax cuts work every time they have been tried.

What happens after government blows this money and nothing happens? What happens when it gets worse?
Confiscate more wealth and run it though the government meat grinder?

What's idiotic is you myopic view of the world, but it's no wonder as you've been spoon fed the rubbish that passes for news in Europe.

Want to see how well YOUR system works? Click on the TIMBRO link below and see how feeble the best EU economies are when compared to US States.

PS.

1. As for the war, not that facts mean anything to socialists, but Democrats voted to send the troops into battle. They spoke vehemently about the threat Saddam posed when The Clintons were president.

2. Bush entered office with a recession and then 911... his tax cuts helped keep the economy running at rates better than the celebrated Clinton Tech Bubble economy.

Chew on that for a while. :)
 
Last edited:
Has anyone read the actual report? It's unfortunate that the Washington Times neglected to put a link to the original in their article.
Sometime what gets reported isn't the whole picture. This may actually be better than it seems, or it may be worse than it seems.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Has anyone read the actual report? It's unfortunate that the Washington Times neglected to put a link to the original in their article.
Sometime what gets reported isn't the whole picture. This may actually be better than it seems, or it may be worse than it seems.
Click to expand...

This is quote from the CBO blog. You can read the report in pdf to.


"In contrast to its positive near-term macroeconomic effects, the Senate legislation would reduce output slightly in the long run, CBO estimates, as would other similar proposals. The principal channel for this effect is that the legislation would result in an increase in government debt."

Director’s Blog Blog Archive Macroeconomic Effects of the Senate Stimulus Legislation
 
justone said:
This gov-nt cares not about the people but about being in power for next 8 years, - because American taxpayers did not elect it, - but those who did not carry the burden of taxes did elect it. This gov-nt does not care about American taxpayers, but it uses their money to inlarge its base of those who do not pay taxes, - and so the Treasure Secretary is appointed to the position.
Click to expand...

So... Obama is elected by those who "did not carry the burden of taxes"?

Forgive me but when you say "this government cares not about the people" yada yada yada, and the government that was elected is a large majority democratic, what the hell is that supposed to mean?

Feel free to take some time to formulate a coherent response.
 
Last edited:
Indy said:
So... Obama is elected by those who "did not carry the burden of taxes"?

Forgive me but when you say "this government cares not about the people" yada yada yada, and the government that was elected is a large majority democratic, what the hell is that supposed to mean?

Feel free to take some time to formulate a coherent response.
Click to expand...

There can be an argument made that a large portion of the people who don't pay taxes voted for Obama.

Also the way the elections, voting, and campaigning laws are structured to favor democrats and republicans could be a way to say that it was manipulated so that individuals couldn't make a true informed decision.
 
PeteEU said:
Nope, the core of the credit problem is intra bank (between banks). They dont want to loan each other money because they can not or do not want to value their toxic assets. The toxic assets arise because of falling house prices (which were frankly way inflated), and as long as house prices are falling, then the more toxic assets will come and the banks will continue to not loan each other money. And as long as banks dont want to loan to each other, then forget about companies and people getting credit.

Getting a tax cut that will be used to pay off debt or save up, wont do squat. Sure it might help VISA and Mastercard since that is the debt that will most likely be paid off, but on the flip side, both companies and other CC companies will just cut your credit line drasticlly if you do that.

Tax cuts will not pay off mortgages and that is where the huge majority of the toxic debt is tied too. After all the problem arised when American's got more and more loans in houses that had inflated prices, prices that are now falling so that American's owe more in their house than it is worth.... and that is the crux of the toxic assets and why it is so hard to value them. That and because of lack of regulation and rules, banks and the markets "mixed" toxic debt with good debt and no one has a clear view over what is what.. hence all debt is potentially toxic, and no one can trust the valuation that the debt was bought on.
Click to expand...

Yea but think about it. If the credit cards are out of the way it releases more funds to pay larger bills like mortgages. Cutting taxes will have a trickle up effect in my opinion.

I'd also like to add that the intrabank credit isn't as bad as everyone thinks it is. Look at the foreign currency trade houses. They rely on liquidity providers(market makers) and they are still doing business to this day with out much of a problem.

Liquidity has softened but that is expected.

PeteEU said:
Only the stupid politicians are looking for that.. The pain will be here for months if not years to come, even Obama has said so many times. And any politician that even hints that tax cuts or any form of stimulus will "work instantly" should be removed from his position for incompetence.
Click to expand...

Totally agree.
PeteEU said:
The problem is that the US politicians and somewhat the UK and other European politicians are not willing to go against their ideological conservative free market principles, that have so clearly failed.

The US should do as the Swedes did, when they went through exactly the same problem back in the early 1990s. Nationalise banks that are failing, consolidate and improve and then sell off. One of the healthiest banks in the world today is Nordea, an entity of nationalised Swedish banks that since hence have been privatised and has emerged as a juggernaut in banking in Scandinavia and Northern Europe. It was painful but it worked, but it also goes against the "conservative mindset", which is the US biggest problem at the moment.

Basicly we need to cut off the foot to save the life of the patient.
Click to expand...

Nationalizing the banks is a horrible idea, especially with the political classes track record of major ****ing up.

I think the problem is that these big banks under normal market conditions would collapse from their own giganticism.

In my mind they are to big to exist.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
There can be an argument made that a large portion of the people who don't pay taxes voted for Obama.

Also the way the elections, voting, and campaigning laws are structured to favor democrats and republicans could be a way to say that it was manipulated so that individuals couldn't make a true informed decision.
Click to expand...

Um, yes, but the argument can also be made that a large portion of the people who don't pay taxes voted for McCain. Your point?

This is basically trying to put a greater value on the poor of one political ideology than another which is ridiculous.

I'll agree with you on the whole "the voters aren't informed" statement which is true in almost every election and on both sides of the aisle. Problem is that we can't require voters to take a basic knowledge test before casting their ballots. Too bad.
 
Indy said:
Um, yes, but the argument can also be made that a large portion of the people who don't pay taxes voted for McCain. Your point?

This is basically trying to put a greater value on the poor of one political ideology than another which is ridiculous.

I'll agree with you on the whole "the voters aren't informed" statement which is true in almost every election and on both sides of the aisle. Problem is that we can't require voters to take a basic knowledge test before casting their ballots. Too bad.
Click to expand...

Check this out CNN.com - Elections 2006

It says that people making $50,000 a year or less voted for democrats more than republicans.

Now that doesn't necessarily mean that they don't pay taxes, it means that the probability is higher with this group that they don't pay.

That doesn't mean I'm all excited about poor people voting for Democrats is so horrible and makes Republicans better.

It just means, in my opinion, their populist propaganda is appealing to the weakest minded and the Republicans aren't strong on this front.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Check this out CNN.com - Elections 2006

It says that people making $50,000 a year or less voted for democrats more than republicans.

Now that doesn't necessarily mean that they don't pay taxes, it means that the probability is higher with this group that they don't pay.

That doesn't mean I'm all excited about poor people voting for Democrats is so horrible and makes Republicans better.

It just means, in my opinion, their populist propaganda is appealing to the weakest minded and the Republicans aren't strong on this front.
Click to expand...

I make under 50k along with almost every other person I know and we all pay taxes. But thanks for grouping us in the category "weak minded". You are aware that evangelicals voted overwhelmingly republican correct? Wouldn't that lead one to believe that Republican's have their own group of weak minded individuals? And don't give me this nonsense about populist propaganda, need I remind you of the chant "drill baby drill"?

Oh yeah, McCain also supported the suspension of the gas tax even though EVERY economist said it was a stupid idea. Yeah... Democrats have the corner on the "populist propaganda". :roll:
 
Last edited:
Indy said:
I make under 50k along with almost every other person I know and we all pay taxes. But thanks for grouping us in the category "weak minded". You are aware that evangelicals voted overwhelmingly republican correct? Wouldn't that lead one to believe that Republican's have their own group of weak minded individuals? And don't give me this nonsense about populist propaganda, need I remind you of the chant "drill baby drill"?
Click to expand...

I didn't say all persons making under $50,000 were weak minded. That would include me to.

I didn't say the republicans message was any better either. I pointed that out in fact. My wording is a bit off I suppose.

I was trying to point out that Democrats typically target lower income people for their votes. Using populist crap tactics. The Republicans use a different approach to target middle to upper income people, it is populist non the less.

I'm sorry to inform you that both use populist crap to get people to vote for them. Very little of it has any real substance based in logic. It's nearly all emotion.

Obama targeted people who don't understand economics and are weak minded and he won. Look at his campaign website. It is also valid that people who don't pay taxes most likely voted for him.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Obama targeted people who don't understand economics and are weak minded and he won. Look at his campaign website. It is also valid that people who don't pay taxes most likely voted for him.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately it looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree here. It seems to me that the exact opposite it true but hey, that's what debating is all about right?

Just to clarity, do you really think that the evangelical base is not weak minded and that they have a firm grasp on macro and micro economics? Global trade deals, international politics, etc.? Very, very few people do.

I will part with this one thing, if Democrats typically are stupider and understand the economy less, then why are the richest states in the nation Blue?

cover_map1.gif



cover_map2.gif


election_map_200811a.png
 
Last edited:
Indy said:
Unfortunately it looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree here. It seems to me that the exact opposite it true but hey, that's what debating is all about right?
Click to expand...

I was just adding that lower income people who most likely don't pay taxes voted for Obama. That is my point really.


Indy said:
Just to clarity, do you really think that the evangelical base is not weak minded and that they have a firm grasp on macro and micro economics? Global trade deals, international politics, etc.? Very, very few people do.
Click to expand...

I know the evangelical base is full of morons. Believe me I live in the south I experience it everyday.


Indy said:
I will part with this one thing, if Democrats typically are stupider and understand the economy less, then why are the richest states in the nation Blue?
Click to expand...

The cities with the highest concentration of people are blue typically. Their economic prosperity is slowly going down the **** tubes.

Auto manufacturing is moving to the south and is sustainable here.

More and more white collar jobs are coming here from northern states because its just cheaper to do business here than it is their.

Because of the development of our nation the typically democrat states already had the infrastructure in place to support higher income jobs. Those businesses are slowly but surely moving to the southern but it takes time and money to relocate existing resources.

Check out how the Detroit auto makers are flopping and closing plants but in my regional area we have had many, many auto parts suppliers set up shop. In the 3 border state area there have been about 3 or 4 new auto manufacturers opening plants.

The writing is on the wall for Democratic states as far as jobs go. They simply tax way to much.
 
Okay then. If that helps you sleep at night.
 
Here's a really interesting POVERTY map. Notice a trend?

specialreports_2edb.map_poverty_USA.gif
 
Here's an income equality map, meaning what's the difference between the poor and rich:

us_income_inequal_5_15_2006.jpg


Again I see a trend.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Thats funny when you over lay your map with this map I found about the 2008 elections it shows generally what I was saying

Look at the 4th map of the US down. Voting results by county.

Election maps
Click to expand...

So if you are poor in the south you vote blue, rich in the south you vote red? That's the only real place on the map that matched what you were saying. Why is the south so difficult to deal with?
 
Just to kick sand in your face :)

US_obesity.jpg
 
Indy said:
So if you are poor in the south you vote blue, rich in the south you vote red? That's the only real place on the map that matched what you were saying. Why is the south so difficult to deal with?
Click to expand...

I'll go one further and say that many of those blue areas have higher racial minorities.

If you are poor you think it is ok to take another persons money for yourself.
I guess it proves my point that people who generally don't pay taxes voted for Obama.

Whats difficult to deal with?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I'll go one further and say that many of those blue areas have higher racial minorities.

If you are poor you think it is ok to take another persons money for yourself.
I guess it proves my point that people who generally don't pay taxes voted for Obama.

Whats difficult to deal with?
Click to expand...

The racial minority thing I don't have any issue with. It's hard to argue that there are more blacks in Az than Il. I attribute that to the fact that blue states have larger urban areas and since blacks weren't allowed to hold land for so long, it isn't surprising that most of the lesser populated states (land owners) are white.

Notice the bastion of liberalism (New England) is not poor in the slightest but yet they vote blue every single time. Explain that one.

I tried doing an overlay in photoshop to post on here but I couldn't get it to look right (readable). Basically it looks like if you live in the south and are poor you vote blue, but that's basically as far as I'll go with you. Appalachia voted red and they are poor as hell, so the ball is in your court.

ALSO, the percentage of the population that lives in those poor blue counties in the south is a very small percentage of the overall Democratic voting block.
 
Last edited:
Indy said:
The racial minority thing I don't have any issue with. It's hard to argue that there are more blacks in Az than Il. I attribute that to the fact that blue states have larger urban areas and since blacks weren't allowed to hold land for so long, it isn't surprising that most of the lesser populated states (land owners) are white.

Notice the bastion of liberalism (New England) is not poor in the slightest but yet they vote blue every single time. Explain that one.
Click to expand...

Its mentality I suppose. New England states have higher population expansive cities.

I'm speculating but it may be the "I'm to busy to donate to charity have government handle deal."

I think at times living in a city also removes you from realities of the real world, outside of the white collar trades.

Imagine what a farmer see's and does on a daily basis that forms his or her world view.

When you live in a city you don't see where your food comes from and many other things that are taken for granted. Like I said though I'm speculating.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Its mentality I suppose. New England states have higher population expansive cities.

I'm speculating but it may be the "I'm to busy to donate to charity have government handle deal."

I think at times living in a city also removes you from realities of the real world, outside of the white collar trades.

Imagine what a farmer see's and does on a daily basis that forms his or her world view.

When you live in a city you don't see where your food comes from and many other things that are taken for granted. Like I said though I'm speculating.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Indy said:
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.
Click to expand...

I guess I should of said natural world. Even that doesn't sound right though. Farming takes some talent and finesse.

I've had the luxury of living in both settings, I have to say living in the country has been harder on me. I do appreciate the country more because of my last 5 years here. I also enjoy not being confined in the man made jungle.

It takes brains to do some of the agricultural work, at least more than you think.

I gotta go out for a little while but I'll be back to respond. :2wave:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom