• 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!

House OKs $787B stimulus bill with GOP opposition

You claimed this would be taxing people to create jobs. That is false.
If the money paid to the people digging and filling ditches doesnt come from taxes where then does it come from?

People who work buys goods. This creates demand for goods. More demand for goods means that businesses make a profit and then can expand.
Yes.
But, to create that demand, you look to create meaningless busywork at the taxpayer expense.
I look to create that demand by creating -true- opporunity thru letting epople keep their money.

-That's- the difference between the two, like it or not.
 
Last edited:
I don't mind the dogpile. You don't have to bow out.
I didn't think it was fair to you thats all.


It is certainly debateable as to what the ramifications of letting the bubble pop would be. A slow deflation of the bubble will be less traumatic. Many states couldn't handle the increased demand on their resources. I can agree a correction is in order. How we go about that is where the difference lies.

I personally believe in the tough love scenario. The states didn't save enough for hard times but spent like thieves during the good times.

It should teach them a lesson as well as teach consumers to save unforeseen events.
 
If the money paid to the people digging and filling ditches doesnt come from taxes where then does it come from?

It comes from printing more money. This, in theory, is supposed to be covered by repayment from govt. loans and future tax revenues.


Yes.
But, to create that demand, you look to create meaningless busywork at the taxpayer expense.
I look to create that demand by creating true opporunity by letting epople keep their money.

That's the difference between the two, like it or not.

You may think some jobs are meaningless. You have yet to support that claim but cling to the hyperbole of it.

Unemployed people don't have money to keep. You want to create a condition to increase supply first. GM isn't going to hire any new people until they sell the cars they already have. Corporate tax cuts won't create demand. In case you haven't noticed, they were in effect and we still got to where we are today.

This "busywork" will probably also purchase vehicles, tools, and other consumer goods.
 
I didn't think it was fair to you thats all.

Thanks for your consideration. I expected the dogpile when I posted. It's entirely fair.


I personally believe in the tough love scenario. The states didn't save enough for hard times but spent like thieves during the good times.

It should teach them a lesson as well as teach consumers to save unforeseen events.

I just worry about the cost on society as a whole in learning this lesson. You are right about the lessons that need to be learned. But we are all interconnected and these lessons won't be learned in a vacuum.
 
It comes from printing more money. This, in theory, is supposed to be covered by repayment from govt. loans and future tax revenues.
Ah -- that's SO much better. :roll:

You may think some jobs are meaningless.
There's no thought needed here. Busiwork is meaningless. Its

Unemployed people don't have money to keep.
This is a deliberate misrepresntation of my position on your part.

You want to create a condition to increase supply first.
Again, a deliberate misrepresntation of my psotion.

At this point, its pretty clear you arent REALLY interested in the 'difference'.
 
However, he never said that this could be used by the Repubs as a tactic to stall things. 'Oh, someone changed a punctuation mark so we need to repost it and reread it', for another 5 days... rinse, repeat.

The Bill has been gone over with a fine tooth comb and the only thing that needs reading are the changes. The changes are not all 1100 pages... sounds like the repubs are the liars. But who's surprised...

You're an even bigger liar. This bill has not been gone over with a fine tooth comb. The bill was given to lobbyist before it was given to the majority of our elected officials who received it 12 hours prior to the vote.

Obama distictively said he would post bills in their entirety 5 days prior, there was no asterick next to his words.
 
You're an even bigger liar. This bill has not been gone over with a fine tooth comb. The bill was given to lobbyist before it was given to the majority of our elected officials who received it 12 hours prior to the vote.

Obama distictively said he would post bills in their entirety 5 days prior, there was no asterick next to his words.

Link please.
 
That would be you misunderstanding my point.



You have failed as usual to show any evidence for you claim that mouse conservation is stimulous.

You've failed to listen to the points I made about them purchasing consumer goods in order to preserve the wetlands. You are pretending that they will just dump a few truckloads of money in the wetlands and the mice will make nests with it.
 
You've failed to listen to the points I made about them purchasing consumer goods in order to preserve the wetlands.

Not one link to what that dollar amount of "goods" would be.

Not one link to any hires

Not one link to any shred of evidence that this money will stimulate ANY economy.

FAIL.


You are pretending that they will just dump a few truckloads of money in the wetlands and the mice will make nests with it.



I am? pleasse quote me.
 
Can you explain the difference? The money has to go into the pockets of someone who will in turn spend it thus stimulating the economy.


Depending on our Marginal_Propensity_to_Consume domestic goods, the amount of money spent on a given time, will have a multiplier effect due to the original injection of dollars, and the remaining transactions (known as steps 2 through infinity) provide the multiplier effect.

Here is a very very very very basic example of a Keynesian multiplier effect, that is semi representitive of our economy in the US:

In one year, unemployment has jumped 2.7%. According to Okun's Law, a 1% rise in unemployment equates to a 2% loss in GDP. So we have a decrease in GDP (income) of around $740 billion from January of last year. Full employment GDP (market equilibrium) is probably in the 3% ranges.

Most people would think, "hell our stimulus package is greater than the GDP shortfall, so we are gonna be ok."

But we forgot about the multiplier effect. Say for instance that our marginal propensity to consume domestic goods is 50%, giving a multiplier of 2. From steps to through infinity (when the money stops trickling), an additional $740 billion of economic activity (GDP) occurs (assuming there are no leakages).

Does $1.48 billion sound like it possesses the sheer quantity to overt asset liquidation? Consider the consequences of 10% unemployment, or $1.9 trillion in GDP shortfall. This money does not filter into the system until the end of the summer, when they plan spend something like $150 billion tops by the end of 2009. By that time, unemployment could be higher than 10%...

Missing the mark is really bad, even worse than going way over the shortfall, because it will fail to turn the tide, and could lead to higher prices (stagflation). But that is not the worse possible consequence of this fake ass stimulus.

This money has to come from somewhere, and it forms a zero sum game with private investment. More and more money flowing into the treasury to pay for this endeavor equates to less and less investment in the private sector. Private sector innovation creates greater worker productivity, and higher standards of living.

Future generations will be far more harmed by the crowding out of private investment, much more so than this big debt number that has eclipsed $10 trillion.
 
Last edited:
Not one link to what that dollar amount of "goods" would be.

Not one link to any hires

Not one link to any shred of evidence that this money will stimulate ANY economy.

FAIL.






I am? pleasse quote me.

It's all logical that they will buy consumer goods and employ people.

Just because they don't have the particulars worked out doesn't mean that they won't spend money on employing people and buying consumer goods.

You are essentially saying that it goes into a black hole because the specifics haven't been laid out. This is fallacious.
 
It's all logical that they will buy consumer goods and employ people.


no it's not. It could be 30 million to buy up some swamps from a single person for all we know.


Just because they don't have the particulars worked out doesn't mean that they won't spend money on employing people and buying consumer goods.

You are essentially saying that it goes into a black hole because the specifics haven't been laid out. This is fallacious.



You want to call it "stimulus" for no other reason than "I love Obama and he can do no wrong".
 
It's all logical that they will buy consumer goods and employ people.

Just because they don't have the particulars worked out doesn't mean that they won't spend money on employing people and buying consumer goods.

You are essentially saying that it goes into a black hole because the specifics haven't been laid out. This is fallacious.

Do you believe a mass consumption future is healthy, let alone sustainable?

They were supposed to build roads, bridges, trains, science facilities, complete coverage of wireless internet, etc.... They needed double the quantity of funds, and they needed a $1 trillion injection before next year.
 
Depending on our Marginal_Propensity_to_Consume domestic goods, the amount of money spent on a given time, will have a multiplier effect due to the original injection of dollars, and the remaining transactions (known as steps 2 through infinity) provide the multiplier effect.

Here is a very very very very basic example of a Keynesian multiplier effect, that is semi representitive of our economy in the US:

In one year, unemployment has jumped 2.7%. According to Okun's Law, a 1% rise in unemployment equates to a 2% loss in GDP. So we have a decrease in GDP (income) of around $740 billion from January of last year. Full employment GDP (market equilibrium) is probably in the 3% ranges.

Most people would think, "hell our stimulus package is greater than the GDP shortfall, so we are gonna be ok."

But we forgot about the multiplier effect. Say for instance that our marginal propensity to consume domestic goods is 50%, giving a multiplier of 2. From steps to through infinity (when the money stops trickling), an additional $740 billion of economic activity (GDP) occurs (assuming there are no leakages).

Does $1.48 billion sound like it possesses the sheer quantity to overt asset liquidation? Consider the consequences of 10% unemployment, or $1.9 trillion in GDP shortfall. This money does not filter into the system until the end of the summer, when they plan spend something like $150 billion tops by the end of 2009. By that time, unemployment could be higher than 10%...

Missing the mark is really bad, even worse than going way over the shortfall, because it will fail to turn the tide, and could lead to higher prices (stagflation). But that is not the worse possible consequence of this fake ass stimulus.

This money has to come from somewhere, and it forms a zero sum game with private investment. More and more money flowing into the treasury to pay for this endeavor equates to less and less investment in the private sector. Private sector innovation creates greater worker productivity, and higher standards of living.

Future generations will be far more harmed by the crowding out of private investment, much more so than this big debt number that has eclipsed $10 trillion.

I appreciate your response. I can agree that the multiplier effect is lacking with much of the stimulus package.

And you are correct, it is a zero sum game. Money has been sucked out of private investment for multiple reasons. The backlash from bad investments on overvalued investments has brought us here. Confidence has been lost. Without an injection of capital into the system, we may have zero private investment. We will have to wait and see as to how it works out.
 
no it's not. It could be 30 million to buy up some swamps from a single person for all we know.

Or it could be used to send these mice to Mars. :roll:

You want to call it "stimulus" for no other reason than "I love Obama and he can do no wrong".

You fail at mindreading. I have criticized him and you have thanked those posts. Just like you have given him credit and you point to that when people accuse you of ODS. Why don't you grow up? You say that you give what you get. Where did I accuse you of ODS in this thread?
 
Do you believe a mass consumption future is healthy, let alone sustainable?

They were supposed to build roads, bridges, trains, science facilities, complete coverage of wireless internet, etc.... They needed double the quantity of funds, and they needed a $1 trillion injection before next year.

I think it's a parachute for our descent as opposed to a freefall.

I don't pretend that this is a cure all at all. I don't think it's been presented as such. It is the beginning. They will reassess as time continues. I have to agree it is flawed.
 
Or it could be used to send these mice to Mars. :roll:



You fail at mindreading. I have criticized him and you have thanked those posts. Just like you have given him credit and you point to that when people accuse you of ODS. Why don't you grow up? You say that you give what you get. Where did I accuse you of ODS in this thread?




:lol: I am sick and grumpy today. Dont mind me....



Why the hell would we want to save rats or mice in a city anyway?
 
The backlash from bad investments on overvalued investments has brought us here. Confidence has been lost. Without an injection of capital into the system, we may have zero private investment.


I just refuse to accept the notion that such a puny injection fix's an estimated $20 trillion in lost wealth in the US alone.
 
:lol: I am sick and grumpy today. Dont mind me....



Why the hell would we want to save rats or mice in a city anyway?

I don't think wetlands count for "in the city".
 
I just refuse to accept the notion that such a puny injection fix's an estimated $20 trillion in lost wealth in the US alone.

I don't think it is a complete fix nor was it passed off as one.
 
Back
Top Bottom