• 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: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul

I guess I should of said natural world. Even that doesn't sound right though. Farming takes some talent and finesse.

I've had the luxury of living in both settings, I have to say living in the country has been harder on me. I do appreciate the country more because of my last 5 years here. I also enjoy not being confined in the man made jungle.

It takes brains to do some of the agricultural work, at least more than you think.

I gotta go out for a little while but I'll be back to respond. :2wave:

No problem. I'll be around later. :2wave:
 
And thank you for your input. Now, if you will excuse us we'll go with the plan of the man we voted into office.
When I look into your ear, I suddenly see the light. It's awesome.
 
When I look into your ear, I suddenly see the light. It's awesome.

And you wonder why people treat you like a joke on this forum.
 
It does appear that some of you simply fail to see the picture.
Perhaps a visit to this clip on facebook might change your mind.
There again, perhaps not.
So let me put it another way.
If the US prints money and thus increases the money supply without making any wealth, what happens is that INFLATION sets in, do not believe me?, ask your wife or whoever buys your groceries.
YouTube - Inconvenient Debt - Glenn Beck
 
So.... over 50% of america doesn't pay taxes? You sir are an idiot.

A late response, but look at the idiot calling another an idiot. Although more than 50% do pay taxes, most pay a microscopic percentage compared with more successful taxpayers. Usually, those more successful taxpayers are successful because of their hard work, not because of the government. You seem to be the type who would follow the president over the cliff like a brainless lemming!
 
DOes anyone actually take you seriously? He studied in a university in a system with a completely FAILED economic system called the USSR.

I already proved that your blind Russo phobia makes you only lie each and every time you open your mouth. Do I need to prove it the 25# time?

Putin got his degree in international law when the USSR was a strong player on the international stage.

His degree in economics was awarded to him when there was no USSR, it was not about economics of the USSR or socialism in any way or measure. It included Western and American literature in references and quotes. He speaks and reads German BTW.

Both degrees are backed up by his very successful practical achievements in the both fields, - you can hardly find a professor with such a record. Actually you will not find any here.

Just a reminder for the public - each time you and your friend open your mouths about Russia you spit nothing else but lies.
 
Last edited:
This article is from the Washington Times which is owned by the Rev Sung Myung Moon. I'll wait for a more reliable source even critical ones bofore I make up my mind.

CBO: Obama Stimulus Plan Lowers Long-Run Growth - Capital Commerce (usnews.com)

And here's the actual report:

Congressional Budget Office - Estimated Macroeconomic Effects of the Inouye-Baucus Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 1


I make under 50k along with almost every other person I know and we all pay taxes. But thanks for grouping us in the category "weak minded". You are aware that evangelicals voted overwhelmingly republican correct? Wouldn't that lead one to believe that Republican's have their own group of weak minded individuals? And don't give me this nonsense about populist propaganda, need I remind you of the chant "drill baby drill"?

Oh yeah, McCain also supported the suspension of the gas tax even though EVERY economist said it was a stupid idea. Yeah... Democrats have the corner on the "populist propaganda". :roll:

FWIW:

Local Exit Polls - Election Center 2008 - Elections & Politics from CNN.com

Vote by income:

Under $15k - 75% O, 25% M
$15k-30k - 60% O, 37% M

Vote by education:

No High School: 63% O - 35% M


I will part with this one thing, if Democrats typically are stupider and understand the economy less, then why are the richest states in the nation Blue?

The claims you're advancing in this post and your subsequent ones rely on several assumptions, many of which are flawed:

1) Income is a proxy for intelligence/understanding the economy
2) Absolute income is a good way to measure earning potential (If a dishwasher earns $6/hr in rural alabama but $10/hour in manhattan due to COL, is the dishwasher in manhattan really richer than the guy in alabama?)
3) States/counties are monolithic entities, and the south is generically Republican while the north is generically liberal (In reality, the places with the greatest income disparity and highest levels of poverty are generally large cities, wherever they are found.)
 
Right in NY, I looked it up after I saw your post. And I do think there are legit concerns as with anything else. The Wash Times is just creepy. I would never use it as a primary source.
 
Last edited:
Right in NY, I looked it up after I saw your post. And I do think there are legit concerns as with anything else. The Wash Times is just creepy. I would never use it as a primary source.
Interpretation: I wouldn't let the facts get in the way of a good story no matter how correct they might be.
 
CBO: Obama Stimulus Plan Lowers Long-Run Growth - Capital Commerce (usnews.com)

And here's the actual report:

Congressional Budget Office - Estimated Macroeconomic Effects of the Inouye-Baucus Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 1




FWIW:

Local Exit Polls - Election Center 2008 - Elections & Politics from CNN.com

Vote by income:

Under $15k - 75% O, 25% M
$15k-30k - 60% O, 37% M

Vote by education:

No High School: 63% O - 35% M




The claims you're advancing in this post and your subsequent ones rely on several assumptions, many of which are flawed:

1) Income is a proxy for intelligence/understanding the economy
2) Absolute income is a good way to measure earning potential (If a dishwasher earns $6/hr in rural alabama but $10/hour in manhattan due to COL, is the dishwasher in manhattan really richer than the guy in alabama?)
3) States/counties are monolithic entities, and the south is generically Republican while the north is generically liberal (In reality, the places with the greatest income disparity and highest levels of poverty are generally large cities, wherever they are found.)


This is actually so unsurprising it is laughable that anyone would think that anyone would think otherwise. Of course having money invested in debt in the future is going to harm future GDP to some extent. But, the cost of NOT doing an effective stimulus is considered more harmful than that future harm to the GDP. It would be even more harmful to the overall short-term and medium term future GDP than the debt will be.

You do realize that all of our debt is having precisely the same effect, right, except that that debt was not focused on stimulating the economy? Pondering that, it doesn't seem plausible that we would be intoxicatingly more prosperous if there was no national debt... which, to me, calls into question whether the study has the entire picture.

In my view, one of the biggest problems we have right now is that we have a vast amount of wealth that is sitting on the sidelines, doing nothing to generate prosperity. In order to preserve jobs, we must replace the 'work' that that missing wealth would normally be doing.

I also think that people forget that we are in a spiral. People are losing jobs, which is causing more investors to put money on the sidelines, which is causing more people to lose jobs, and so on. We can stop that spiral, but not by "Letting people keep more of their 'own' money", when all they are going to do is to follow suit and put that money on the sidelines, rather than spend it.

We simply must assist the flow of money through the economic system. The most politically palatable way to do that is to deficit spend.

Of course, I think we should implement a temporary tax on 'idle' wealth. That would provide a way for there to be no deficit spending as well as an incentive for people to get money into the job creation system. But, you can imagine the offense so many would take toward such a heavy handed approach, however effective it would be.
 
Right in NY, I looked it up after I saw your post. And I do think there are legit concerns as with anything else. The Wash Times is just creepy. I would never use it as a primary source.

I can understand that, and if this were an article talking about something from "anonymous sources," I wouldn't have bothered posting it. I only went with the wash times because it was the only paper i could find that had a relevant title/snippet, and it was a CBO report, so I figured they couldn't **** up reporting on it THAT badly.

This is actually so unsurprising it is laughable that anyone would think that anyone would think otherwise. Of course having money invested in debt in the future is going to harm future GDP to some extent. But, the cost of NOT doing an effective stimulus is considered more harmful than that future harm to the GDP. It would be even more harmful to the overall short-term and medium term future GDP than the debt will be.

Simply saying that that's the case doesn't convince me that it is. In fact, that's directly contrary to what this study concluded - it concluded that with the stimulus package, GDP will be lower than without the stimulus.
 
I can understand that, and if this were an article talking about something from "anonymous sources," I wouldn't have bothered posting it. I only went with the wash times because it was the only paper i could find that had a relevant title/snippet, and it was a CBO report, so I figured they couldn't **** up reporting on it THAT badly.



Simply saying that that's the case doesn't convince me that it is. In fact, that's directly contrary to what this study concluded - it concluded that with the stimulus package, GDP will be lower than without the stimulus.

The study concluded no such thing. The Washington Times states their own conclusion, but they are deceiving you about what the CBO's conclusions are and are further trying to mislead you about the facts.

From the report summary said:
CBO estimates that the Senate legislation would raise output by between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent by the fourth quarter of 2009; by between 1.2 percent and 3.6 percent by the fourth quarter of 2010; and by between 0.4 percent and 1.2 percent by the fourth quarter of 2011. CBO estimates that the legislation would raise employment by 0.9 million to 2.5 million at the end of 2009; 1.3 million to 3.9 million at the end of 2010; and 0.6 million to 1.9 million at the end of 2011

These are the effect on GDP for each of the years indicated. Suppose the annual change in GDP would be -3.0 for 2009. The effect of the stimulus will be to make the annual change in output be between -1.6 to +1.1 for that year. Then suppose the following year would have been -2.5. The effect on the GDP for that year would be to make the annual change in GDP to be between -1.3 to +1.1. And so on.

Now, as to the longer term effects (which I have already conceded were an obvious expectation):

From the report summary said:
Including the effects of both crowding out of private investment (which would reduce output in the long run) and possibly productive government investment (which could increase output), CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net.

So, in 2019, suppose change in GDP for that year would have been +2.3. The stimulus' long term effect will be to make the change in GDP be between +2.0 and +2.2.

Now, let's attempt to make a comparison, such as we are able to given the amount of information we (and the Washington Times have been given) The comparison is between what would be with no stimulus and what would be with the stimulus. No stimulus is no increase or decrease to the change in GDP for each of the years between 2009 and 2019. The proposed stimulus will increase or decrease the change in GDP as follows:

Year: GDP Effect:
2009 +1.4 to +4.1
2010 +1.2 to +3.6
2011 +0.4 to +1.2
2012 -0.1 to -0.3*
2013 -0.1 to -0.3*
2014 -0.1 to -0.3*
2015 -0.1 to -0.3*
2016 -0.1 to -0.3*
2017 -0.1 to -0.3*
2018 -0.1 to -0.3*
2019 -0.1 to -0.3

*these numbers are assumed because they are not actually presented anywhere. These are the numbers as presented for the effect in the year 2019. Since the blog and letter both leave out the actual numbers for those years, but indicate that the stimulus effect will have faded, we take the effect for year 2019, though the contractive effect will almost certainly be lower at the start and rise to the 2019 level.

Making a rough calculation (one which completely ignores the compound effect, which would favor the growth effect since those effects are seen in the early years):

Total benefit from the stimulus: +3.0 to +8.9
Total harm from the stimulus: -0.8 to -2.4

In other words, the Washington Times article could not even be granted the comparatively neutral designation "Spin". It is outright and deliberate deception to state "President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday". They said no such thing. Not even remotely. The report merely indicates that the stimulus would have some negative effects alongside its positive effects, which is a completely different thing.

Overall, the CBO report indicates that the stimulus will have a beneficial effect. Washington Times has essentially lied to their readers, period. Well, they might actually be really stupid, and not have understood what they were reading. Either way, they have ill served their readership.
 
Last edited:
The study concluded no such thing. The Washington Times states their own conclusion, but they are deceiving you about what the CBO's conclusions are and are further trying to mislead you about the facts.



These are the effect on GDP for each of the years indicated. Suppose the annual change in GDP would be -3.0 for 2009. The effect of the stimulus will be to make the annual change in output be between -1.6 to +1.1 for that year. Then suppose the following year would have been -2.5. The effect on the GDP for that year would be to make the annual change in GDP to be between -1.3 to +1.1. And so on.

Now, as to the longer term effects (which I have already conceded were an obvious expectation):



So, in 2019, suppose change in GDP for that year would have been +2.3. The stimulus' long term effect will be to make the change in GDP be between +2.0 and +2.2.

Now, let's attempt to make a comparison, such as we are able to given the amount of information we (and the Washington Times have been given) The comparison is between what would be with no stimulus and what would be with the stimulus. No stimulus is no increase or decrease to the change in GDP for each of the years between 2009 and 2019. The proposed stimulus will increase or decrease the change in GDP as follows:

Year: GDP Effect:
2009 +1.4 to +4.1
2010 +1.2 to +3.6
2011 +0.4 to +1.2
2012 -0.1 to -0.3*
2013 -0.1 to -0.3*
2014 -0.1 to -0.3*
2015 -0.1 to -0.3*
2016 -0.1 to -0.3*
2017 -0.1 to -0.3*
2018 -0.1 to -0.3*
2019 -0.1 to -0.3

*these numbers are assumed because they are not actually presented anywhere. These are the numbers as presented for the effect in the year 2019. Since the blog and letter both leave out the actual numbers for those years, but indicate that the stimulus effect will have faded, we take the effect for year 2019, though the contractive effect will almost certainly be lower at the start and rise to the 2019 level.

Making a rough calculation (one which completely ignores the compound effect, which would favor the growth effect since those effects are seen in the early years):

Total benefit from the stimulus: +3.0 to +8.9
Total harm from the stimulus: -0.8 to -2.4

In other words, the Washington Times article could not even be granted the comparatively neutral designation "Spin". It is outright and deliberate deception to state "President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday". They said no such thing. Not even remotely. The report merely indicates that the stimulus would have some negative effects alongside its positive effects, which is a completely different thing.

Overall, the CBO report indicates that the stimulus will have a beneficial effect. Washington Times has essentially lied to their readers, period. Well, they might actually be really stupid, and not have understood what they were reading. Either way, they have ill served their readership.

Yea but the negative lasts longer than the short term positive effects.

Over time when the government does things that produce long term slight negative effects to the economy they add up.
 
Yea but the negative lasts longer than the short term positive effects.
That is not a conclusion you can draw from this report. The positive effect of the early years carries over into later years in ways not measured by this analysis.

Over time when the government does things that produce long term slight negative effects to the economy they add up.
Sometimes, but not in this case.
 
That is not a conclusion you can draw from this report. The positive effect of the early years carries over into later years in ways not measured by this analysis.

Sometimes, but not in this case.

I thought I read that it was cause a .1 decline in yearly GDP. It may not seem much but that really is a lot from my perspective when you consider a lot of the measures inside the stimulus bill will be permanent in my opinion.
 
A late response, but look at the idiot calling another an idiot. Although more than 50% do pay taxes, most pay a microscopic percentage compared with more successful taxpayers. Usually, those more successful taxpayers are successful because of their hard work, not because of the government. You seem to be the type who would follow the president over the cliff like a brainless lemming!

Did you even bother to follow this thread before posting? If you did you'd notice the multiple maps that discredit this silly notion that Democrats pay less taxes than Republicans since the Democrats come from states with much higher household incomes. Try again genius.
 
FWIW:

Local Exit Polls - Election Center 2008 - Elections & Politics from CNN.com

Vote by income:

Under $15k - 75% O, 25% M
$15k-30k - 60% O, 37% M

Vote by education:

No High School: 63% O - 35% M

AAAAAND exit polls are somehow now believable? Oh ok, I wasn't aware Kerry wasn't the pres for the last 4 years. :roll:

Again, will somebody please explain why the New England area is ALWAYS blue and yet is comprised of some of the wealthiest states in the nation? You can't have it both ways, either Democrats typically make less and as such pay less in taxes, or they make more and pay more in taxes. Just repeating the same mantra when its shown to be incorrect (see previous maps) is something we've been seeing for 8 years now. Do we really need to continue this?
 
Last edited:
The claims you're advancing in this post and your subsequent ones rely on several assumptions, many of which are flawed:

1) Income is a proxy for intelligence/understanding the economy
2) Absolute income is a good way to measure earning potential (If a dishwasher earns $6/hr in rural alabama but $10/hour in manhattan due to COL, is the dishwasher in manhattan really richer than the guy in alabama?)
3) States/counties are monolithic entities, and the south is generically Republican while the north is generically liberal (In reality, the places with the greatest income disparity and highest levels of poverty are generally large cities, wherever they are found.)

You seem to be missing a very basic idea: If you make more you pay more in taxes. Did I loose you? Here, one more time: If a dish washer makes 4/hour MORE in a blue state than a red state, guess what? He pays more taxes. Crying about how democrats don't pay as much taxes as republicans is silly unless you are trying to claim that famous 1% who pays 20% of the nation's taxes. In this climate I'm not so sure if bragging that you own that coveted 1% of the populous is a good thing.

Also, it isn't hard to understand why a poor person would vote democrat in a southern state if that state is historically controlled by republicans and that state also has one of the highest income gaps in the nation. In fact, one would think that perhaps republicans formulate and enforce policies that protect the rich and cause the income gap to widen. If this is not the case, again please explain the maps I've posted before.
 
Last edited:
I thought I read that it was cause a .1 decline in yearly GDP. It may not seem much but that really is a lot from my perspective when you consider a lot of the measures inside the stimulus bill will be permanent in my opinion.

I should of reworded that better. I think a lot of the "welfare" type programs will be permanent.
 
I should of reworded that better. I think a lot of the "welfare" type programs will be permanent.

I can see that logic. I think they should write something into the bill that specifically states that it is in NO WAY a permanent increase in yearly budgets for these programs. They won't, because the democrats are trying to push pork through when they can, much like republicans do when they are in that position, but one can wish.
 
I can see that logic. I think they should write something into the bill that specifically states that it is in NO WAY a permanent increase in yearly budgets for these programs. They won't, because the democrats are trying to push pork through when they can, much like republicans do when they are in that position, but one can wish.

Its always expected when either party creates "emergency" legislation.
The Rahm Emanual quote about never letting a crisis go to waste applies to the mentality of both parties.
 
AAAAAND exit polls are somehow now believable? Oh ok, I wasn't aware Kerry wasn't the pres for the last 4 years.


The poll is on Obama, Kerry has nothing to do. If you don’t have anything else more believable than the exit poll, you are simply in the state of denial. You want us to believe your fantasies and not to believe polls.

I did not have any polls, but simple observation shows that policies of democrats are attractable for people who not carry burden of taxes and who do not have education and experience. No polls needed all one has to do is to listen to Obama.




Again, will somebody please explain why the New England area is ALWAYS blue and yet is comprised of some of the wealthiest states in the nation? You can't have it both ways, either Democrats typically make less and as such pay less in taxes, or they make more and pay more in taxes. Just repeating the same mantra when its shown to be incorrect (see previous maps) is something we've been seeing for 8 years now. Do we really need to continue this?
Whatsoever you are missing the point, I started my point from making sure that the post was about those who do not carry the burden of taxes, - but not about who pays and who does not pay taxes or who makes /pays more.

Burden is a very heavy word – how democrats are capable of missing it I don’t know. A body of mine – a good hearted well educated liberal makes $200, 000 (I think), he pays $ 60,000 in ALL taxes, another body makes $ 200, and pays $40,000. The first one pays more, but another one carries the burden, because the first one has a family of 2 and another one a family of 4 and a child who requires a special care and a sister he has to help. How difficult is to understand this?




Whatsoever you are missing the point, living in CT and in the richest county, I still see that that policies of democrats are attractable for people how do not carry burden of taxes and who do not have education and experience. No polls needed all one has to do is to listen to Obama.

If to take
youngest – least experienced voters
voters who do not carry the burden of taxes
voters who have the least education
from Obama and democrats and to make them neutral or give them to republicans, democrats would never make it.

It is not the question of democrats paying lesser in taxes, although tax evasion promotes democrats to key financial positions in their government. It is that ideas and actions of democrats are attractive to
youngest – least experienced voters
voters who do not carry the burden of taxes
voters who have the least education

and democrats in order to keep on getting elected try to widen this base.

In my post I was pointing only to those who do not carry the burden of taxes. As to who pays more taxes – Democrats or Republicans - it belongs to the rest of the voters – of those who carry the burden of taxes, - it is another question, which was not raised by me. If to remove those who voted firstly because of racism from the rest we would have the more or less fair and reasonable rest, - and most likely democrats will not ever be in majority among reasonable voters, even here in CT. Even here I can see that hard working people, small business owners are not for democrats, when people with old money and Wall Street dealers of virtual money often finance Obama, - of course, it is not a rule without exclusions and some of my friends are good hearted liberals here. I meet a lot of people here – it is very difficult to say – but most of them are not pro-democrats at all, - but pro-reason, - when it comes to those who do not carry the burden of taxes, who is lost due to minimal experience in life, and who have lesser education, certainly democrats prevail greatly.. I hang out with hard working small business owners all the time, a lot of them are pissed off by Bush’s stimulus package – forgetting that Obama’s package is even worse; some of them do not see a big deal of trying Obama for a change – they have the idea that the US is set up in such a way that Obama cannot destroy it, that all this craziness is not anything new, - but in all of all they are not democrats at all. The story with Lieberman shows that CT is not ready yet to follow only money.

It looks like Democrats are more rich than Republicans, - looks like they have the greater difference in income between the top and the bottom of themselves. The top is willing to spend money to keep itself rich and to widen the base of their lowest income, gov-nt dependant, low educated voters. It seems that bring them more money. With Obama overspending McCain and all reasonable limits – one would be surprised if he didn’t win. As one can see Democrats are dependant on money spent on agitation and propaganda so much , that they cannot even think about limits. Democrats are driven by money and for money; they depend on uneducated inexperienced and not carrying the burden of taxes parts of the populations.
 
The study concluded no such thing. The Washington Times states their own conclusion, but they are deceiving you about what the CBO's conclusions are and are further trying to mislead you about the facts.

These are the effect on GDP for each of the years indicated. Suppose the annual change in GDP would be -3.0 for 2009. The effect of the stimulus will be to make the annual change in output be between -1.6 to +1.1 for that year. Then suppose the following year would have been -2.5. The effect on the GDP for that year would be to make the annual change in GDP to be between -1.3 to +1.1. And so on.

Now, as to the longer term effects (which I have already conceded were an obvious expectation):

So, in 2019, suppose change in GDP for that year would have been +2.3. The stimulus' long term effect will be to make the change in GDP be between +2.0 and +2.2.

Now, let's attempt to make a comparison, such as we are able to given the amount of information we (and the Washington Times have been given) The comparison is between what would be with no stimulus and what would be with the stimulus. No stimulus is no increase or decrease to the change in GDP for each of the years between 2009 and 2019. The proposed stimulus will increase or decrease the change in GDP as follows:

Year: GDP Effect:
2009 +1.4 to +4.1
2010 +1.2 to +3.6
2011 +0.4 to +1.2
2012 -0.1 to -0.3*
2013 -0.1 to -0.3*
2014 -0.1 to -0.3*
2015 -0.1 to -0.3*
2016 -0.1 to -0.3*
2017 -0.1 to -0.3*
2018 -0.1 to -0.3*
2019 -0.1 to -0.3

*these numbers are assumed because they are not actually presented anywhere. These are the numbers as presented for the effect in the year 2019. Since the blog and letter both leave out the actual numbers for those years, but indicate that the stimulus effect will have faded, we take the effect for year 2019, though the contractive effect will almost certainly be lower at the start and rise to the 2019 level.

Making a rough calculation (one which completely ignores the compound effect, which would favor the growth effect since those effects are seen in the early years):

Total benefit from the stimulus: +3.0 to +8.9
Total harm from the stimulus: -0.8 to -2.4

In other words, the Washington Times article could not even be granted the comparatively neutral designation "Spin". It is outright and deliberate deception to state "President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday". They said no such thing. Not even remotely. The report merely indicates that the stimulus would have some negative effects alongside its positive effects, which is a completely different thing.

Overall, the CBO report indicates that the stimulus will have a beneficial effect. Washington Times has essentially lied to their readers, period. Well, they might actually be really stupid, and not have understood what they were reading. Either way, they have ill served their readership.

I think there's a critical point here that you might be misreading:

You're assuming that the projections for 2019 are not taking into account the increases in 09/10 when they detail what will be happening in 2019. That would be an absurd way for the CBO to make the calculations. My reading of the plain language of the CBO's letter, and what I see as the only logical conclusion, is that the projections in 2019 will be lower than it would otherwise be, even when factoring in the increases in 2009/10.

Think about it. Say it was a three year window they looked at.

In the first year, GDP grows 4% more than it otherwise would
In the second year, GDP grows 3% more than it otherwise would
In the third year, GDP shrinks 1% more than it otherwise would

The CBO is not going to put out a report saying that "CBO estimates that by third year the legislation would reduce GDP by 1% on net." The only way they would say that is if this were the case:

In the first year, GDP grows 3% more than it otherwise would
In the second year, GDP grows 1% more than it otherwise would
In the third year, GDP shrinks 5% more than it otherwise would

In that case, it would be appropriate to make the above statement. I think that's what they're saying will happen here, only obviously spread over the decade.
 
AAAAAND exit polls are somehow now believable? Oh ok, I wasn't aware Kerry wasn't the pres for the last 4 years. :roll:

Again, will somebody please explain why the New England area is ALWAYS blue and yet is comprised of some of the wealthiest states in the nation? You can't have it both ways, either Democrats typically make less and as such pay less in taxes, or they make more and pay more in taxes. Just repeating the same mantra when its shown to be incorrect (see previous maps) is something we've been seeing for 8 years now. Do we really need to continue this?

There is usually a red blip in New England that wasn't there this time, and it is a wealthy state with low unemployment as well.

When I lived in Georgia, nearly all of the wealthy counties voted Republican and the poor/academic countries voted Democrat.
 
There is usually a red blip in New England that wasn't there this time, and it is a wealthy state with low unemployment as well.

When I lived in Georgia, nearly all of the wealthy counties voted Republican and the poor/academic countries voted Democrat.

Most of rural Georgia, except for the rural black enclaves and larger cities vote Republican, I thought.
 
Back
Top Bottom