• 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!

Government stimulus

?

  • It helps the economy.

    Votes: 12 38.7%

  • It hurts the economy.

    Votes: 16 51.6%

  • I don't know.

    Votes: 3 9.7%
  • Total voters
    31
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....

Catawba said:
Right, spending on WW2 helped bail us out just as spending helped bail us out of this recession.
Click to expand...
 
cpwill said:
hilarious.
Click to expand...

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! :sun
 
Are you a Communist?

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

Catawba said:
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! :sun
Click to expand...
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I think the choices are not an "either or" situation.
Government spending can stimulate the economy and hurt it at the same time.
Click to expand...

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.
 
garb said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Blue Dog said:
FDR tried to spend his way out of the great depression, and failed. WW2 ended up bailing us out. Anytime legislation interferes with the forces of the market recovery tends to be delayed. The invisible hand does work, sometimes less regulation works better, especially during recessions. Is the law of supply and demand perfect, no. However, spending does not work. You can't dig yourself out of a hole.
Click to expand...

The idea that wars help the economy is based off of the idea that government spending helps the economy. It creates false supply and demand, more popularly known among realistic economists as "bubbles".
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
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.
Click to expand...

How does the redistribution of wealth stimulate the economy? Again, it gives the low income people you mentioned the illusion that things are better, but you have to get that money from somewhere. Either from other people or from the printing press. Both of those things hurt the economy.
 
cpwill said:
let's see. we're going to take money from a small business owner through taxes, or from an investor through the sale of bonds


.....and spend it studying robot bees.


yeah, i can't see the economic inefficiency there. the business owners and investors probably would have spent that money on something foolish, like hiring new employees.
Click to expand...

What about spending on military? Hey wait, that is stimulative, and does create jobs. In fact since it is not a one for one relationship, it creates more jobs than it costs.

The concept that if businesses if they have more money will hire more people is retarded. Businesses hire more people when they need more employees to meet demand, not because they want to spend money. Mindless conservative talking points don't do well in debate.
 
Redress said:
What about spending on military? Hey wait, that is stimulative, and does create jobs. In fact since it is not a one for one relationship, it creates more jobs than it costs.

The concept that if businesses if they have more money will hire more people is retarded. Businesses hire more people when they need more employees to meet demand, not because they want to spend money. Mindless conservative talking points don't do well in debate.
Click to expand...

Right, but imposing those taxes on them sometimes makes it much more difficult to hire additional employees does it not?
 
garb said:
Right, but imposing those taxes on them sometimes makes it much more difficult to hire additional employees does it not?
Click to expand...

Probably not. If demand is sufficient, jobs are made. If demand is not there, jobs are not created. Demand for a product/service is the overwhelming largest factor in employment and hiring/firing.
 
Right....transpose this on now.....taxes will kill job growth...ain't no way round it...;)

Geeeezus....ever owned a bidness?

Redress said:
Probably not. If demand is sufficient, jobs are made. If demand is not there, jobs are not created. Demand for a product/service is the overwhelming largest factor in employment and hiring/firing.
Click to expand...
 
Redress said:
Probably not. If demand is sufficient, jobs are made. If demand is not there, jobs are not created. Demand for a product/service is the overwhelming largest factor in employment and hiring/firing.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that capitalism can operate effectively with little or no capital? Not trying to be a smart***, I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from, becuase your position really seems self-contradictory.
 
Catawba said:
Unreferenced graphs prove nothing.
Click to expand...

let me help: the top graph is what Obama's Keyensian mathematics told him (and then he told us) that could lower unemployment through spending. "with" the "stimulus" we were supposed to top out at about 8% and immediately begin dropping. "without" it, we were supposed to climb up to 9%, and delay there a bit longer before dropping.

the irony, of course, comes in that his math was precisely 100% incorrect - we passed the "stimulus" and with the stimulus, unemployment climbed above 9% and stayed there. two years later we still have yet to drop down to what Obama claimed the highest point of unemployment would be.
 
Amazed said:
Right....transpose this on now.....taxes will kill job growth...ain't no way round it...;)

Geeeezus....ever owned a bidness?
Click to expand...

This addresses what I said how?
 
garb said:
So you're saying that capitalism can operate effectively with little or no capital? Not trying to be a smart***, I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from, becuase your position really seems self-contradictory.
Click to expand...

No, obviously not true. However, the driving force for employment is not tax rates, but demand for products and services. A hypothetical company with enough employees to meet demand but a large profit is not going to hire more employees, while a company that is losing money but not able to meet demand will probably perforce still have to hire more employees. Neither situation is entirely likely, and the second one is in fact fairly uncommon, however they illustrate the point. Please do not read more into my words than what I am actually saying.
 
Amazed said:
Whether or not Taxes hurt the hiring capabilities of businesses?

Have you....or have you not?
Click to expand...

To an extent they absolutely do. Never claimed otherwise. Do you want to address any point I have actually made, or are you going to once again try and assign positions to me?
 
garb said:
Does government spending stimulate the economy or hurt it?
Click to expand...
The private sector was shedding jobs and was not hiring. So the stimulus was meant keep certain people in the public sector like police, fire and teachers in their jobs to keep demand for products/services up. This helps keep those people in the private sector from losing their jobs as well. Other money was used for infrastructure projects. These help with jobs in the private sector.
 
Answer the question....have you EVER owned a bidness....or are you just once again going to assign ME an infraction for questioning you?


Demand means NOTHING if the REVENUES do not support the growth.

Redress said:
Probably not. If demand is sufficient, jobs are made. If demand is not there, jobs are not created. Demand for a product/service is the overwhelming largest factor in employment and hiring/firing.
Click to expand...
 
Amazed said:
Answer the question....have you EVER owned a bidness....or are you just once again going to assign ME an infraction for questioning you?


Demand means NOTHING if the REVENUES do not support the growth.
Click to expand...

Businesses that are losing money hire new employees. Companies with excess money but enough employees to meet demand do not. Are you saying this is not true?
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: 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.
Click to expand...

oh, since we are discussing comparative responses and results; I ran across this little nugget:

Had the U.S. economy recovered from the current recession the way it bounced back from the other 10 recessions since World War II, our per-capita gross domestic product (GDP) would be $3,553 higher than it is today, and 11.9 million more Americans would be employed.
 
Amazed said:
Have you EVER owned a business.....yes or no?
Click to expand...

Owned no, been involved in management and running one, yes. Do you have any other irrelevant questions? Do you plan on actually addressing the points made?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I think the choices are not an "either or" situation.
Government spending can stimulate the economy and hurt it at the same time.
Click to expand...

Or sometimes one or the other.

I mean the whole idea that government spending doesn't create jobs is simply, obviously, not true.

We sit here fighting about whether government spending creates jobs on the internet, which was born in the military, paid for by govt.

Microwave ovens, microcircuitry, velcro, lots of things that we take for granted were born under government contract.

Private enterprise commodified them and brought them to market, but govt gave the grants to the universities/companies that made the core discoveries.

We have complex problems that are going to require complex solutions.

Reductionist arguments are not going to help us solve anything.

Maybe its time the people figured out what to do amongst ourselves and then told the govt what we want them to do.

But that means a genuine exchange of ideas.

Which for some reason seems possible here lately.:2wave:
 
Propping up the economy artificially, does nothing good for the economy. All it does is delay the inevitable, when the government injects money into the economy its akin to giving a patient pain pills when in fact the patient needs surgery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom