• 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!

CBO: Stimulus hurts economy in the long run

Are you ever going to recognize that FIT do not fund the highway system? Just as I thought, you don't have a clue what the tax dollars fund?

Just take out the letter I in FIT and substitute a G.

Feel better? Still a tax.
 
Last edited:
I guess we can all agree that tax cuts don't stimulate the economy.

So let's start with repealing the biggest cuts first.
 
I would feel better if taxes were used for their purpose and not put on budget to spend on whatever they want

We'd all feel better if you'd post a link proving your statement. (not a far-rightie blogger, please. We don't give two craps about the conspiracy theories spewed out Malkins trap)
 
Last edited:
I guess we can all agree that tax cuts don't stimulate the economy.

So let's start with repealing the biggest cuts first.

Wow, we all believe tat tax cuts don't stimulate the economy? Where did you get that idea? Further what do you do when you get more spendable income from tax cuts? Think about it and its affect on the economy.
 
Wow, we all believe tat tax cuts don't stimulate the economy? Where did you get that idea? Further what do you do when you get more spendable income from tax cuts? Think about it and its affect on the economy.

Um... SAVE. According to ALL economists.

You realize a good part of the stimulus was tax cuts... or maybe they don't teach that on Fox.
 
We'd all feel better if you'd post a link proving your statement. (not a far-rightie blogger, please. We don't give two craps about the conspiracy theories spewed out Malkins trap)

Social Security Online - HISTORY: Budget Treatment of Social Security Trust Funds

SS on Budget

"On-Budget"-
In early 1968 President Lyndon Johnson made a change in the budget presentation by including Social Security and all other trust funds in a"unified budget." This is likewise sometimes described by saying that Social Security was placed "on-budget."
This 1968 change grew out of the recommendations of a presidential commission appointed by President Johnson in 1967, and known as the President's Commission on Budget Concepts. The concern of this Commission was not specifically with the Social Security Trust Funds, but rather it was an effort to rationalize what the Commission viewed as a confusing budget presentation. At that time, the federal budget consisted of three separate and inconsistent sets of measures, and often budget debates became bogged-down in arguments over which of the three to use. As an illustration of the problem, the projected fiscal 1968 budget was either in deficit by $2.1 billion, $4.3 billion, or $8.1 billion, depending upon which measure one chose to use. Consequently, the Commission's central recommendation was for a single, unified, measure of the federal budget--a measure in which every function and activity of government was added together to assess the government's fiscal position.
 
Hey finebead, how you been? I have a question for you. My understanding is that WWII spurred a huge manufacturing effort to sustain our military, and if what you say is true that we suffered a recession immediately following the war due to that dropping off, then what pulled us out? Could it be that an equally strong demand for goods such as houses, cars, durable goods, textiles, ag products etc. all manufactured in this country did that trick? If so then it was American business, and manufactured goods that spurred economic growth, not government nannyism.

j-mac

Hi j-mac, I have been doing well! I'm still employed in a good job, mainframe computer software related. It's been nearly recession proof, we don't sell more in bad times, but we charge an annual maintenance fee and since nobody throws us out, we have a steady source of income. Yes, I count my blessings!

Let me recap this thread. CPwill starts with article that says CBO finds the stimulus is now retarding growth. I say that is not unusual, whenever you print a lot of money, something bad will happen. That is not the point to me, the point is, what was the alternative and how would it have worked out (which nobody has answered)? Then the UCLA study is posted saying FDR's New Deal retarded the recovery in the great depression, which I don't believe (and what was the alternative)? Then I hear "New Deal didn't end the depression, WWII ended the depression". I agreed that all that govt. spending stimulated the economy, like the current $800 billion stimulus did. Then I was told, no it was not the spending, it was the happiness over the end of the war that ended the depression. Then I pointed out that there was a recession immediately following the end of the war, caused by the withdrawal of govt. spending.

As to your point about the aftermath of the war, and the demand for new houses and cars and was that stimulative, sure it was. There are natural business cycles from recession to recovery and back that go on continuously. They can be fairly regular unless they are impacted by extraordinary events like a big war or big bubble/bust, then they get distorted. But this line of reasoning is mighty far from the original premise of the thread. We were talking about the Obama stimulus and it's effect, and using the FDR new deal as a similar stimulus to analyze the effect. Then this got pulled to WWII, and now nobody knows where this thread is anymore.

My problem with this, and why I post much less these days, is I work a full time job, and I have to watch my investments closely these days. At Whistlestopper, there were not that many posters, and you could leave a thread in the morning and hop back in at night and it had not moved that far. I came back tonight and this thing added 4 pages, not 4 posts. And we're off on another tangent. Given my life, there does not appear to be a way for me to participate meaningfully. I'll just have to settle for an occasional comment, sans much followup.

How are you doing? You can PM me, I'd like to know.
 
It's the 'hurts' the economy part of this hackery that is so laughable.
 
Um... SAVE. According to ALL economists.

You realize a good part of the stimulus was tax cuts... or maybe they don't teach that on Fox.

Great, where do you put that savings and what does the savings institution do with the money?

As for the Obama stimulus funding most were not tax cuts, 235 billion were targeted tax cuts that required a specific action. Guess MSNBC didn't tell you that.
 
It's the 'hurts' the economy part of this hackery that is so laughable.

Anything that takes cash out of the hands of the taxpayers is detrimental to a private sector economy
 
You do realize SS puts cash into taxpayers hands.

Do you realize that your employer and you contributed to SS that you receive when you retire? Payroll taxes fund SS so now you want to do what most liberals do, kick the can down the road, live for today and figure out how to repay the fund tomorrow
 
Quote conservative

The answer to our economy is to recognize first it is private sector driven, second that individual responsibility exists thus consequences for failure, third, social engineering isn't the role of the Federal govt.

You’re right on the private sector driven economy. Check this graph out,


View attachment 67118867

Notice corp. profits as a % of GDP seems to be going up? It seems to me that the CORP PEOPLE seem to be doing OK though. Especially when you peek at that graph that shows CORP PEOPLES taxes as a % of GDP.

That second graph, the one that shows personal wages and salary as a % of income must make you proud EH?We both know that its not representing the top % don’t we? :(


What do you consider social engineering? Do you think that stimulating the economy via Keynesian economics as social engineering? If so, you must be frowning deeply about the money we spend on missiles and bombs then.
 
I guess we can all agree that tax cuts don't stimulate the economy.

So let's start with repealing the biggest cuts first.

IIRC in the BTCs the lowest bracket was reduced from 15% to 10% making the reduction 30%...is that the one you want to start with???
 
You’re right on the private sector driven economy. Check this graph out,


View attachment 67118867

Notice corp. profits as a % of GDP seems to be going up? It seems to me that the CORP PEOPLE seem to be doing OK though. Especially when you peek at that graph that shows CORP PEOPLES taxes as a % of GDP.

That second graph, the one that shows personal wages and salary as a % of income must make you proud EH?We both know that its not representing the top % don’t we? :(


What do you consider social engineering? Do you think that stimulating the economy via Keynesian economics as social engineering? If so, you must be frowning deeply about the money we spend on missiles and bombs then.

So you think it is right to take someone else's earning and give it to another person? Not sure exactly what your solution is but one would bet it has nothing to do with free enterprise and capitalism. You certainly seem concerned about revenue going to the govt. but not at all concerned about the 3.7 trillion dollar budget. Wonder why?
 
Anything that takes cash out of the hands of the taxpayers is detrimental to a private sector economy

So then you agree that the Bush tax cuts should be ended, I never thought that you and I would agree
 
So then you agree that the Bush tax cuts should be ended, I never thought that you and I would agree

Apparently you don't understand the concept of keeping more of your money. You claim you worked in the private sector? what happened when your taxes were cut, did you get more or less money?
 
So as an employer you contribute to someone else's SS as well. You don't think cutting FICA affects the money that goes into the SS fund?

I think cutting FICA takes some of the burden off me as an employer.
 
Kind of selfish for a liberal as apparently you don't care about the shortage in the SS fund

Fine raise FICA and take money out of my pocket as well as employees. *shrug*
 
So you think it is right to take someone else's earning and give it to another person? Not sure exactly what your solution is but one would bet it has nothing to do with free enterprise and capitalism. You certainly seem concerned about revenue going to the govt. but not at all concerned about the 3.7 trillion dollar budget. Wonder why?


Unlike you, I’m looking for a real solution to our unemployment problem. You must have forgot the post where I showed you where some of the money will come from.

Here is where more of it will come from, third graph titled “corp taxes as a % of corp profits”.We can make that line a little more level. I’m sure that will knock some of the deficit down, if not here is plan B….A tax on financial transactions, as put forth by Senator Tom Harkin and Representative Peter DeFazio .:2wave:
 
Fine raise FICA and take money out of my pocket as well as employees. *shrug*

You don't seem to understand the purpose of SS and supposedly the money you are setting aside mandated by the Govt. is to go to a retirement supplement. Seems that a business owner would have known that
 
Back
Top Bottom