View Poll Results: ?

Voters
35. You may not vote on this poll
  • It helps the economy.

    12 34.29%
  • It hurts the economy.

    20 57.14%
  • I don't know.

    3 8.57%
Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 106

Thread: Government stimulus

  1. #21
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Government stimulus

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Dog View Post
    WW2 ended up bailing us out.
    Right, spending on WW2 helped bail us out just as spending helped bail us out of this recession.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  2. #22
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Government stimulus

    Quote Originally Posted by Badmutha View Post
    Perhaps there would be truth to your statement.......if all evidence didnt prove it was an outright lie........






    Unemployment Rate Since Obama's "Stimulus/Jobs Bill"



    ......and yet there are those that still believe in the fantasy of Government Stimulus via massive government spending.......
    .
    .
    .
    .

    Unreferenced graphs prove nothing.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  3. #23
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Government stimulus

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post

    The three trillion dollar war


    The cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts have grown to staggering proportions

    "Because there are so many costs that the Administration does not count, the total cost of the war is higher than the official number. For example, government officials frequently talk about the lives of our soldiers as priceless. But from a cost perspective, these “priceless” lives show up on the Pentagon ledger simply as $500,000 - the amount paid out to survivors in death benefits and life insurance. After the war began, these were increased from $12,240 to $100,000 (death benefit) and from $250,000 to $400,000 (life insurance). Even these increased amounts are a fraction of what the survivors might have received had these individuals lost their lives in a senseless automobile accident. In areas such as health and safety regulation, the US Government values a life of a young man at the peak of his future earnings capacity in excess of $7 million - far greater than the amount that the military pays in death benefits. Using this figure, the cost of the nearly 4,000 American troops killed in Iraq adds up to some $28 billion....

    ...From the unhealthy brew of emergency funding, multiple sets of books, and chronic underestimates of the resources required to prosecute the war, we have attempted to identify how much we have been spending - and how much we will, in the end, likely have to spend. The figure we arrive at is more than $3 trillion... A $3 trillion figure for the total cost strikes us as judicious, and probably errs on the low side. Needless to say, this number represents the cost only to the United States. It does not reflect the enormous cost to the rest of the world, or to Iraq."
    hilarious. even if you seek out every possible way to stretch expanding the cost of the wars as far as you can (accounting for the future productivity of casualties? really? even though this doesnt' increase the cost to the government one red cent?) and engage in mathematical shenanigans that are beyond the ridiculous (that last bolded bit tells the story - they are looking for something that "feels" right, not something reflected in the math), and then if you just extend these projections into the future, you still can't get their combined costs over a decade to come to more than our deficit spending for the past two years alone.

    look man, i know that you hate them, but the fact is that the wars are winding down, and they just plain aren't the long-term drivers of our debt. they contributed to the deficit,to be sure; so did boosting spending on education. but up until the Bush Administration decided to engage in keynesian "stimulus" (which you ought to be in favor of - i find it intriguing that you attack the cost of the wars, when your own economic strategy says that they were boosting the economy) the deficits were problematic, but relatively small - from 2001 to 2007 they averaged around 1/10th of Obama's. From 2000 to 2008[, the debt held by the public went from 35.1% of GDP to 40.8% -- a 5.7% of GDP increase; certainly that's not good. But under the Presidents' plan, between 2008 and 2016, it is expected to reach 77.5% -- a 36.7% of GDP increase.

    here, a pretty basic visual imaging of the budget differences in the context of the late budget debate:



    Cutting taxes for the rich without cutting spending is what got us into this trouble to begin with.
    i would like to see any evidence that you can provide that this fantastic claim is correct. up until 2009 (when we went into a keynsian-inspired recession), our tax revenues remained on their historical average as a % of GDP, and other threads in these forums have demonstrated how tax revenues in total went up after Reagan reformed the tax structure. Revenues have historically been fine - it's the spending that expands far beyond revenues' ability to keep up that is the problem.

    It all began in 1981 under the Reagan Administration. Spending has to be cut before we reduce revenues or we just end up with more debt. We have 30 years of experience to show is this is true. When they decide to cut the spending for our optional wars and the rich start paying their fair share again,
    actually, No Country Leans on Upper-Income Households as Much as U.S., and Over the past 30 years it has actually become more progressive as measured by revenues.

    because people are rational actors and avoid high tax rates.

    and it's the revenues that are important - not the rates. the rates only matter if - like the President - you care less about revenue and more about tearing down the rich because you think that's "fair" (a highly subjective value).

    It did increase revenue when they were raised under Clinton. We went from a budget deficit to a budget surplus.
    actually the tax hike under clinton came in significantly under predictions; it's open to question if we had even seen an increase at all that wasn't driven by coming out of the recession that had elected him. Now, Clinton DID see a dramatic increase in revenues when he cut capital gains tax rates.

    I agree we need to eliminate tax loopholes, then we need to look at targeted tax cuts to those that actually produce jobs and not to continue to give money to someone just because they are rich.
    we need to close the loopholes straight up - and again i would say that's with the exception of the child-credit. low income families with kids are unlikely to qualify for a serious amount of other deductions, but they deserve that break. but "giving tax breaks to those who produce jobs" is just creating a whole new series of loopholes. the only way i can think of to do this without just recreating the problem is to reduce the employers' side of the payroll tax.

    OR we could start reducing job-killing regulation; and tell the EPA to shut up about Cap-and-Tax. that's another cost-free way that we could increase employment.

    Most of that is due to health care costs. Eventually we will have to go to National health care like the rest of the first world nations to address that problem. We have the most expensive health care system in the world and it is completely unaffordable.
    the problem with that solution is that it makes healthcare more unaffordable, less responsive, and requires the government to impose strict rationing in order to survive. we would be far better off if we go with the model that has already been demonstrated to reduce costs without reducing the quality of care.

    SS is an easy fix. Just lock the funds and raise the Cap.
    as i've told you before; locking the funds at this point is useless because we are already running a deficit in social security - money is flowing from the general fund to the trust fund, not other way 'round. and raising the cap doesn't bring in enough revenue to cover the shortfalls. not by a long shot.

    our unfunded liability for the entitlement programs is larger than world GDP, there isnt' enough money in existance. we have written ourselves a series of bad checks, chargeable to the younger generation, and now those checks are about to start bouncing. we have three basic options:

    1. reform the entitlement system in such a way as to cut future expenditures while doing the least harm to seniors
    2. hyperinflate the money supply while holding benefits below the rate of inflation (which is really another version of #1; but comes along with world economic collapse)
    3. do nothing and see an economic collapse within the decade as our creditors refuse to lend us any more money to feed into what is clearly a broken system. we are forced by our creditors to begin throwing the elderly off the entitlements whole-sale.

    as a side note; currently the President, the Democrats in Congress, and progressives on this board are urging us to pursue option #3.
    Last edited by cpwill; 04-24-11 at 10:05 PM.

  4. #24
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Government stimulus

    I'll go with the economist's assessment thanks.
    as will I. the fact is that economists disagree on this matter, the problem is that keynsians are stuck on a circular argument, which is why their position is 1. self-reinforcing and 2. non-falsifiable. but it's interesting you don't have anything to dispute the fact that recessions met with increases in government intervention tend to last longer, but those met with government tax cuts don't, and those met with government tax and spending cuts recover fastest of all.

    Here: some light reading for you on the comparative "stimulus" of government spending v tax cuts.

    ...Some excellent work on this topic has come from Valerie Ramey of the University of California, San Diego. Ramey finds a government-spending multiplier of about 1.4 — a figure close to what the Obama administration assumed, but much smaller than the tax multiplier identified by the Romers. Similarly, in recent research, Andrew Mountford (of the University of London) and Harald Uhlig (of the University of Chicago) have used sophisticated statistical techniques that try to capture the complicated relationships among economic variables over time; they conclude that a "deficit-financed tax cut is the best fiscal policy to stimulate the economy." In particular, they report that tax cuts are about four times as potent as increases in government spending.

    Perhaps the most compelling research on this subject is a very recent study by my colleagues Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna at Harvard. They used data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to identify every major fiscal stimulus adopted by the 30 OECD countries between 1970 and 2007. Alesina and Ardagna then separated those plans that were in fact followed by robust economic growth from those that were not, and compared their characteristics. They found that the stimulus packages that appeared to be successful had cut business and income taxes, while those that evidently did not succeed had increased government spending and transfer payments.

    The data in the Alesina-Ardagna study are mostly European; only a small portion comes from the United States. But the evidence leads to conclusions that are very similar to those from Mountford and Uhlig's work using American data. These conclusions are also consistent with the work of Ramey and the Romers, which looked at the historical record to identify multipliers. There appears to be a growing body of evidence, then, suggesting that taxes may be a better tool for fiscal stimulus than conventional models have indicated....
    hope that helps.

    The bygone middle-class golden era

    “Dubbed ‘median wage stagnation’ by economists, the annual incomes of the bottom 90 per cent of US families have been essentially flat since 1973 – having risen by only 10 per cent in real terms over the past 37 years. [...]
    these fools are measuring against CPI to produce "real" income instead of inflation.

    SURPRISE! it costs more to buy a home computer in 2010 than it did not to buy one in 1975!!! who could have guessed?

    the middle class today lives in bigger, better houses; it drives more, better cars (CPI also doesn't account for increases in quality); it recieves more, higher quality healthcare; more of them attend college, own computers, about the only thing they have "suffered" on is that now they are taught in a comparatively weaker public school system (thanks, unions!) and they aren't saving like their forebears did.

    why do we know that our children will be worse off? because we're going to make them pay for the massive amount of government spending we've loaded onto ourselves.

    Have you noticed the what the thread topic happens to be?
    yes. have you noticed yet that you completely tried to change the subject from the failures of FDR's "Stimulus"?

    Thanks for your opinion.
    it's not my opinion; it's basic fact. we lost jobs through that period, we certainly didn't gain 3 million. the only way you can get to that number is to ignore reality on the ground and just run "Dollars Spent" through "Desired Multiplier".

    look; i can do it too: I just went and bought a six-pack; and paid too much because i bought it from my hotels' shoppette; i paid $9.

    however, so long as we assume that the multiplier is higher than historical evidence suggests (if you will read the report above, for example, you will note that the multiplier that Obama's team ordered utilized - poor CBO, everyone abuses them - was '3', whereas most keynsians have stuck to around '1.4'), and is actually 1.55 trillion, then I have just doubled the GDP of the United States. however, GDP hasn't moved all that much in actual terms. hmm. well, we know that I spent the 9 dollars. and we know that our multiplier is 1.55 Trillion.

    GASP!

    i just saved the entire US economy!. because 14 trillion minus 14 trillion is zero... then that means that once you take out the effects of my purchasing that six pack, the economy doesn't exist... which means that my six pack purchase is directly responsible for over a hundred million jobs saved or created.

    you're welcome, your welcome, your welcome.... those of you who still have a job, you better reelect me to the White House, or I won't be able to buy another six-pack...

    Please reference our responsibility to control the world through hegemony in the Constitution. There is no such thing. We are only charged with providing for the common defense.
    you are correct - but the Founding Fathers don't say how forward leaning providing for the commond defense is. Is keeping our economy from crashing by protecting vital trade routes defense? is keeping near-peer competitors from rising to challenge the US by maintaining strong regional alliances with fellow democracies defense?

    the Founding Fathers, it's worth noting, discussed the inevitable American Empire, which they saw as stretching from Canada to (in some cases) South America. their notion of "common defense" included the Monroe Doctrine, which extended our power over the entire hemisphere. they invaded lands in North Africa, and kept a forward-deployed naval fleet. when France seemed to be turning into a representative government, they leapt to form a lasting bond with her, held back only by those who feared (accurately) her rapid descent into terror and tyranny.

    we are safer and wealthier because of the current world order; a system whose lynchpin is our own military and economic might. getting rid of either of those crashes the system, which endangers Americans.

  5. #25
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Government stimulus

    I'll go with the economist's assessment thanks.
    as will I. the fact is that economists disagree on this matter, the problem is that keynsians are stuck on a circular argument, which is why their position is 1. self-reinforcing and 2. non-falsifiable. but it's interesting you don't have anything to dispute the fact that recessions met with increases in government intervention tend to last longer, but those met with government tax cuts don't, and those met with government tax and spending cuts recover fastest of all.

    Here: some light reading for you on the comparative "stimulus" of government spending v tax cuts.

    ...Some excellent work on this topic has come from Valerie Ramey of the University of California, San Diego. Ramey finds a government-spending multiplier of about 1.4 — a figure close to what the Obama administration assumed, but much smaller than the tax multiplier identified by the Romers. Similarly, in recent research, Andrew Mountford (of the University of London) and Harald Uhlig (of the University of Chicago) have used sophisticated statistical techniques that try to capture the complicated relationships among economic variables over time; they conclude that a "deficit-financed tax cut is the best fiscal policy to stimulate the economy." In particular, they report that tax cuts are about four times as potent as increases in government spending.

    Perhaps the most compelling research on this subject is a very recent study by my colleagues Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna at Harvard. They used data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to identify every major fiscal stimulus adopted by the 30 OECD countries between 1970 and 2007. Alesina and Ardagna then separated those plans that were in fact followed by robust economic growth from those that were not, and compared their characteristics. They found that the stimulus packages that appeared to be successful had cut business and income taxes, while those that evidently did not succeed had increased government spending and transfer payments.

    The data in the Alesina-Ardagna study are mostly European; only a small portion comes from the United States. But the evidence leads to conclusions that are very similar to those from Mountford and Uhlig's work using American data. These conclusions are also consistent with the work of Ramey and the Romers, which looked at the historical record to identify multipliers. There appears to be a growing body of evidence, then, suggesting that taxes may be a better tool for fiscal stimulus than conventional models have indicated....
    hope that helps.

    The bygone middle-class golden era

    “Dubbed ‘median wage stagnation’ by economists, the annual incomes of the bottom 90 per cent of US families have been essentially flat since 1973 – having risen by only 10 per cent in real terms over the past 37 years. [...]
    these fools are measuring against CPI to produce "real" income instead of inflation.

    SURPRISE! it costs more to buy a home computer in 2010 than it did not to buy one in 1975!!! who could have guessed?

    the middle class today lives in bigger, better houses; it drives more, better cars (CPI also doesn't account for increases in quality); it recieves more, higher quality healthcare; more of them attend college, own computers, about the only thing they have "suffered" on is that now they are taught in a comparatively weaker public school system (thanks, unions!) and they aren't saving like their forebears did.

    why do we know that our children will be worse off? because we're going to make them pay for the massive amount of government spending we've loaded onto ourselves.

    Have you noticed the what the thread topic happens to be?
    yes. have you noticed yet that you completely tried to change the subject from the failures of FDR's "Stimulus"?

    Thanks for your opinion.
    it's not my opinion; it's basic fact. we lost jobs through that period, we certainly didn't gain 3 million. the only way you can get to that number is to ignore reality on the ground and just run "Dollars Spent" through "Desired Multiplier".

    look; i can do it too: I just went and bought a six-pack; and paid too much because i bought it from my hotels' shoppette; i paid $9.

    however, so long as we assume that the multiplier is higher than historical evidence suggests (if you will read the report above, for example, you will note that the multiplier that Obama's team ordered utilized - poor CBO, everyone abuses them - was '3', whereas most keynsians have stuck to around '1.4'), and is actually 1.55 trillion, then I have just doubled the GDP of the United States. however, GDP hasn't moved all that much in actual terms. hmm. well, we know that I spent the 9 dollars. and we know that our multiplier is 1.55 Trillion.

    GASP!

    i just saved the entire US economy!. because 14 trillion minus 14 trillion is zero... then that means that once you take out the effects of my purchasing that six pack, the economy doesn't exist... which means that my six pack purchase is directly responsible for over a hundred million jobs saved or created.

    you're welcome, your welcome, your welcome.... those of you who still have a job, you better reelect me to the White House, or I won't be able to buy another six-pack...

    Please reference our responsibility to control the world through hegemony in the Constitution. There is no such thing. We are only charged with providing for the common defense.
    you are correct - but the Founding Fathers don't say how forward leaning providing for the commond defense is. Is keeping our economy from crashing by protecting vital trade routes defense? is keeping near-peer competitors from rising to challenge the US by maintaining strong regional alliances with fellow democracies defense?

    the Founding Fathers, it's worth noting, discussed the inevitable American Empire, which they saw as stretching from Canada to (in some cases) South America. their notion of "common defense" included the Monroe Doctrine, which extended our power over the entire hemisphere. they invaded lands in North Africa, and kept a forward-deployed naval fleet. when France seemed to be turning into a representative government, they leapt to form a lasting bond with her, held back only by those who feared (accurately) her rapid descent into terror and tyranny.

    we are safer and wealthier because of the current world order; a system whose lynchpin is our own military and economic might. getting rid of either of those crashes the system, which endangers Americans.

  6. #26
    Educator
    Amazed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    North of Dorothy's Home.
    Last Seen
    04-30-15 @ 10:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,001

    Re: Government stimulus

    Says the Left.....I would suggest reading "The Forgotten Man".

    All of that crap PROLONGED the depression....

    Be careful...you'll find out things about FDR you don't want to know....

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Right, spending on WW2 helped bail us out just as spending helped bail us out of this recession.
    Obama is NOT 50 feet tall, he is ONE inch deep.
    Mark Levin

  7. #27
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Government stimulus

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    hilarious.
    We are never going to agree. You support the rich and I support the working class. You propose business as usual for the last 30 year except now you wish to add the dismantling of the programs that made our middle class strong. As I have observed the effect of trickle down economics over the last 3 decades and how it has hurt the middle class, I will continue to vote against it and support the working class in this country. See you at the polls in 2012!
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  8. #28
    Educator
    Amazed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    North of Dorothy's Home.
    Last Seen
    04-30-15 @ 10:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,001

    Re: Government stimulus

    Are you a Communist?

    Do you know of FDR'S connections to it....do you care?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    We are never going to agree. You support the rich and I support the working class. You propose business as usual for the last 30 year except now you wish to add the dismantling of the programs that made our middle class strong. As I have observed the effect of trickle down economics over the last 3 decades and how it has hurt the middle class, I will continue to vote against it and support the working class in this country. See you at the polls in 2012!
    Obama is NOT 50 feet tall, he is ONE inch deep.
    Mark Levin

  9. #29
    User
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    06-19-12 @ 08:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18

    Re: Government stimulus

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    I think the choices are not an "either or" situation.
    Government spending can stimulate the economy and hurt it at the same time.
    I see your point, but I would argue that government stimulus doesn't help the economy, it only creates the illusion that things are getting better. It might not seem like an "either or" situation, but I believe that it obviously is.

  10. #30
    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: Government stimulus

    Quote Originally Posted by garb View Post
    I see your point, but I would argue that government stimulus doesn't help the economy, it only creates the illusion that things are getting better. It might not seem like an "either or" situation, but I believe that it obviously is.
    While I typically disagree with stimulus' and things of that nature, as long as we are operating an economy using an inflationary monetary policy and the fed, it's best to stimulate it in other ways.

    Giving checks to low income people would be a better way to stimulate the economy, than the craziness that goes on now, low income people are most likely to spend on consumer goods that would tickle the economy like stimulus programs are supposed to do.

    If it were a perfect world I wouldn't want it to happen 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 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •