- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 69,534
- Reaction score
- 15,450
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
you have yet to establish that 30 million of our money will be spent in our economy.
I'm sorry you refuse to understand.
you have yet to establish that 30 million of our money will be spent in our economy.
If the money paid to the people digging and filling ditches doesnt come from taxes where then does it come from?You claimed this would be taxing people to create jobs. That is false.
Yes.People who work buys goods. This creates demand for goods. More demand for goods means that businesses make a profit and then can expand.
I didn't think it was fair to you thats all.I don't mind the dogpile. You don't have to bow out.
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'm sorry you refuse to understand.
If the money paid to the people digging and filling ditches doesnt come from taxes where then does it come from?
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.
Yeah, I have a hard time understanding illogic and ignorant speculation based on party politics. :2wave:
I didn't think it was fair to you thats all.
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.
Ah -- that's SO much better. :roll:It comes from printing more money. This, in theory, is supposed to be covered by repayment from govt. loans and future tax revenues.
There's no thought needed here. Busiwork is meaningless. ItsYou may think some jobs are meaningless.
This is a deliberate misrepresntation of my position on your part.Unemployed people don't have money to keep.
Again, a deliberate misrepresntation of my psotion.You want to create a condition to increase supply first.
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.
All I have heard from you is that 40k jobs don't count.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
no it's not. It could be 30 million to buy up some swamps from a single person for all we know.
You want to call it "stimulus" for no other reason than "I love Obama and he can do no wrong".
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.
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?
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.
: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 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 wetlands count for "in the city".