Page 27 of 63 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 628

Thread: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

  1. #261
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackboot View Post
    That is still the claim, they are.
    The term you are looking for is "crowding out", and due to the low level of business investment being pursued, we are not experiencing it. Crowding out is typically experienced during expansions in which government spending is exceeding government income.
    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

  2. #262
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    01-21-10 @ 02:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    744

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Can you back that up with evidence? Link?
    I don't need a link, it is really explained quite simply...

    The banks are worried about the government spending, they are waiting to see how this turns out first. You then add in the bills before congress, and you have just made this insecurity ten times greater. You also factor in the fed, and the fact that they are trying desperately to control inflation, so the banks are between a rock and a hard place.

  3. #263
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackboot View Post
    I don't need a link, it is really explained quite simply...

    The banks are worried about the government spending, they are waiting to see how this turns out first. You then add in the bills before congress, and you have just made this insecurity ten times greater. You also factor in the fed, and the fact that they are trying desperately to control inflation, so the banks are between a rock and a hard place.
    WTF are you talking about?
    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

  4. #264
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    01-21-10 @ 02:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    744

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    The term you are looking for is "crowding out", and due to the low level of business investment being pursued, we are not experiencing it. Crowding out is typically experienced during expansions in which government spending is exceeding government income.
    What?

  5. #265
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    01-21-10 @ 02:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    744

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    WTF are you talking about?
    You have the absolute nerve to suggest this...."Crowding out is typically experienced during expansions in which government spending is exceeding government income"

    And then double down by asking me "WTF am I talking about"

    You are obviously on another planet!

  6. #266
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackboot View Post
    You have the absolute nerve to suggest this...."Crowding out is typically experienced during expansions in which government spending is exceeding government income"

    And then double down by asking me "WTF am I talking about"

    You are obviously on another planet!
    You must have misunderstood me. We are currently in a recession (which is why deficit spending is not only natural but positive). During times of economic expansion, crowding out by sovereign debt markets is quite real.
    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

  7. #267
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    That is a straw man and you know it.
    Nope, it's a point. We want the failing businesses to get smaller and the succeeding businesses to get larger.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  8. #268
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    Nope, it's a point. We want the failing businesses to get smaller and the succeeding businesses to get larger.
    You are confusing economic contraction with vertical and horizontal integration. While this type of business behavior can occur in a recessionary climate, the two are not mutually synonymous. The reason businesses fail can be ambiguous, which is why entrepreneurs are not lining up to open shop.

    During severe contractions (exogenous/endogenous shocks), business failure rates go way up, where as during mild contractions they closely mimic a steady state.
    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

  9. #269
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackboot View Post
    The banks are worried about the government spending, they are waiting to see how this turns out first.
    Why would they be worried about government spending?

    You then add in the bills before congress, and you have just made this insecurity ten times greater.
    Which bills?

    You also factor in the fed, and the fact that they are trying desperately to control inflation, so the banks are between a rock and a hard place.
    Well, that may be a factor, yes, but the Fed is hardly worried about inflation right at this moment. Deflation is more like it. The Fed has pushed interest rates really really low and lowered the discount rate as well to make it easier for banks to loan out money.

  10. #270
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,402

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Again your error is in regards to time frame. Savings fuels long run growth.
    No, savings insures a better chance of survival in bad times. You never use your savings to grow your business. You use your savings as security to take out a loan to grow your business because you can see that that growth will be lucritive.

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    This isn't about banks, it's about their customers. Is there a shortage of money to borrow?
    There's is when the banks are afraid to loan money in this economic environment. Ultimately, it's the banks and the consumer. Neither want to make a loan, right now.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Page 27 of 63 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... 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
  •