• 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!

LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

Another shotgun reply to various folks:

Goldenboy219 in post 121: You forget that during this contraction: "out of thing air" growth is greatly diminished, or even regressive.

Yes that is something that helps define a recession. Recessions occur when investment has not followed the optimal path or when technological advances begin to leave part of the economy behind. So I agree that this 'contraction' had diminished growth. The 'out of thin air' portion of my discussion is where the economy grows. When this is slowed down by investment in non-profitable investments, the economy slows down or shrinks. My contention is that investment in government is non-profitable and thus slows down or shrinks the economy. This investment can take either the form of taxes or that of buying government debt.

Misterman in post 124: A note - I'm not claiming the government is better than the private sector. All I'm saying is that when the private sector is in a slump, it needs the government to step in, temporarily, to get it going again. That's a stimulus.

Noted. There are many economists, particularly Keynes, who totally agree with you and feel that the government actually creates the economy itself. Others do not. I fall in the party that does not and I feel that allowing the private sector to recover on its own is better than having government intervention. Previous to the Great Depression, the majority of the recessions in US history were of 6 months or less followed by greater productivity increases, increased employment, and higher wages. Since the Great Depression recessions tend to be over 12 months and usually 18 or more long. Since the 1980s recoveries have been even slower and the increased employment and higher wages portions have been missing. This is what has led us all to feel that the economy has failed to do much for everyone and just a few have benefited.

Misterman in post 126: How does one make any bank loans without fractional-reserve banking?

It doesn't very easily. Which is why banking did not really take off until the 1680s and later when the Bank of England 'invented' fractional reserve banking. Without the fractional reserve banking, loans were between individuals (either people, companies, or nations).

And now a few more notes in passing.

I do believe that there is a function for the government and government spending. It is even possible that extended and deficit spending in economic downturns helps us get over the downturns. But a better rational behind the 'stimulus' spending is that costs are down and I would rather the government got a better deal for my tax money than spending in a boom economy.

That said, the government has to reign in its spending during good times and pay down the debt in order to help the economy even more. This has not happened in a very long time in the US and both parties are guilty of it and will most likely continue to do so.

I would also like to thank everyone on this discussion for making an effort to actually debate the issue raised in the article and not degenerating into sniping s**t that you can get from just turning on the TV and listening to CNN or Fox.
 
Just again an appeal to populatiry.

Are you afraid to answer the question? If the Austrian school was so relevant, how was it that they yet to publish anything relevant the last 25 years?

I have no problem with decreasing taxes since this would decrease the burden of government. However, if you increase government spending while doing this then you haven't really accomplished anything.

Tax cuts (as expressed during the Bush years) will have little effect on boosting demand due to the high rate of savings.

We would have that or something very close to it with free banking since people would lose confidence in those banks that did not have it.

Wrong! Remember the the deflation thread?

Recessions were common from 1865 to 1917, with 338 months of contraction and 382 months of expansion (compared to 518 months of expansion and 96 months of contraction from 1945 to 1996)

The longest contraction on record was 65 months, from October 1873 to March 1879.

What were you talking about averaging up/down stability? Where is this steady growth you talked about?
 
Last edited:
That said, the government has to reign in its spending during good times and pay down the debt in order to help the economy even more. This has not happened in a very long time in the US and both parties are guilty of it and will most likely continue to do so.

Exactly, and that's a political problem that gets in the way of doing this Keynesian stuff.
 
Exactly, and that's a political problem that gets in the way of doing this Keynesian stuff.

Agreed. You will be hard pressed to find a logical reason to decrease spending during a crisis. As recent history suggests, you will be hard pressed to find a logical politician attempt to decrease spending during a boom!:mrgreen:
 
Agreed. You will be hard pressed to find a logical reason to decrease spending during a crisis. As recent history suggests, you will be hard pressed to find a logical politician attempt to decrease spending during a boom!:mrgreen:

The only "crisis", is spending, period!:doh
 
The only "crisis", is spending, period!:doh

What were you saying between 2001-2009? Did you once time cry, "raise taxes"!!!!!!:2wave:
 
What were you saying between 2001-2009? Did you once time cry, "raise taxes"!!!!!!:2wave:

They never do. Cut taxes, then cut some more. Cut spending, then cut some more. Then whine about government being incompetent.
 
What were you saying between 2001-2009? Did you once time cry, "raise taxes"!!!!!!:2wave:

Was unemployment at 10%?

Were we being threatened with welfare and treehugger taxes?

I was making good money before the Libbos took over.
 
Was unemployment at 10%?

Were we being threatened with welfare and treehugger taxes?

I was making good money before the Libbos took over.

Don't you see Bush waited 8 years to fully tank everything so people like you could blame it on libbos. IT'S ALL PART OF THE MASTER PLAN! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!


IT'S ALL THE REPUBLICANS' FAULT!
 
Was unemployment at 10%?

Of course not, which strikes a serious question mark in regards to the Bush policy. Why was spending not being followed by increased taxation? Now when we are in a very severe downturn, its time to cut spending and taxes?

I think you have it backwards. Unless of course efficiently balancing the budget is of no importance.

Were we being threatened with welfare and treehugger taxes?

Where was the increased taxation to pay for the war, and increased military spending? You know, the conservative thing to do:2wave:

I was making good money before the Libbos took over.

Has nothing to do with the libbos!
 
Of course not, which strikes a serious question mark in regards to the Bush policy. Why was spending not being followed by increased taxation? Now when we are in a very severe downturn, its time to cut spending and taxes?

Bush brought in record amounts of tax revenue. When PBO breaks Bush's revenue record, then you can blame Bush for our problems. Until then, you oughta just accept the fact that the Libbos are only making things worse.
 
Bush brought in record amounts of tax revenue. When PBO breaks Bush's revenue record, then you can blame Bush for our problems. Until then, you oughta just accept the fact that the Libbos are only making things worse.

Tax revenue means jack **** when there is a deficit. Record tax revenue had to be accompanied by record spending in order for the debt to increase nearly 100%....

What about the conservative approach to government, you know.... the ones who are now calling for a balanced budget? Where were they?
 
Tax revenue means jack **** when there is a deficit. Record tax revenue had to be accompanied by record spending in order for the debt to increase nearly 100%....

What about the conservative approach to government, you know.... the ones who are now calling for a balanced budget? Where were they?

I know you didn't really just say that!...:rofl
 
Bush brought in record amounts of tax revenue. When PBO breaks Bush's revenue record, then you can blame Bush for our problems.

Revenue has nothing to do with the recession.
 
I know you didn't really just say that!...:rofl

He obviously meant that if there's a deficit anyway, revenue is nothing to brag about.
 
He obviously meant that if there's a deficit anyway, revenue is nothing to brag about.

Correct.

Especially when the economy was not as ****ed up as it is now....
 
He obviously meant that if there's a deficit anyway, revenue is nothing to brag about.

You two cats are a hoot!...:rofl

Ya really are!

By that logic, it's pointless for the Libbos to raise taxes...:rofl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Never said it did. Read much?

But a recession has everything to do with revenue. So why does BO have to exceed Bush's revenue to prove Bush didn't cause our problems? That makes no sense.
 
You two cats are a hoot!...:rofl

Ya really are!

By that logic, it's pointless for the Libbos to raise taxes...:rofl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're confused, again.
 
But a recession has everything to do with revenue. So why does BO have to exceed Bush's revenue to prove Bush didn't cause our problems? That makes no sense.

Where do you dream this stuff up? I'm serious!

Really, what grade are you in? Anyone with even a little business experience would never say goofy things you say. Obviously, you have none.
 
Where do you dream this stuff up? I'm serious!

Really, what grade are you in? Anyone with even a little business experience would never say goofy things you say. Obviously, you have none.

If you want me to explain, just ask. Drop the personal attacks.
 
What were you saying between 2001-2009? Did you once time cry, "raise taxes"!!!!!!:2wave:

No, I didn't, I said, stop spending, is there a point to this?

Again, you are no libertarian, please remove this absurd suggestion from your bio!

I also said no to NCLB, I said no to the homeland security creation, and I also said no to the medicare part D, and pleaded that this was a complete disaster, I also called GWB the worst president since Wilson.

The question is, where are you today?:confused:
 
Are you afraid to answer the question? If the Austrian school was so relevant, how was it that they yet to publish anything relevant the last 25 years?

Relevant? I never argued that. Right? They sure seem to be.

Tax cuts (as expressed during the Bush years) will have little effect on boosting demand due to the high rate of savings.

The high rate of savings? You have to be kidding. Savings in this country is abysmal.

Wrong! Remember the the deflation thread?

So when there's a bank run, you mean to tell me that banks with a low reserve requirement don't go belly up or face consequences that banks with a high reserve requirement wouldn't?

What were you talking about averaging up/down stability? Where is this steady growth you talked about?

We've never tried it. Instead we've stayed with this same system that has always shown to start a business cycle.
 
Back
Top Bottom