Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
yeah, thats it....the long run decrease in economic activity or gdp....is good for the economy
APP - Obama needs to shout his achievements out loud
- Thread starter cancel2 2022
- Start date
yeah, thats it....the long run decrease in economic activity or gdp....is good for the economy
yeah, thats it....the long run decrease in economic activity or gdp....is good for the economy
That's weak. The question is whether it's better to have higher growth now - during a recession - than have growth a few tenths of a percent lower 10 years from now. It is.
You should read the letter. It's online, and says nothing about "overall" harm, or anything that could be paraphrased as "overall."
You realize the Washington Times is a conservative paper, correct? Honestly, the quotes you keep using represent very shoddy reporting. Read the letter (it isn't that long), and see if you come to the same conclusions.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
thus, i harms the economy in the long run or overall and we would be better off had obama done nothing
That's not a sound conclusion based on the verbiage you posted.
Why can't you just admit that the Times & your reliance on it is wrong? It would be far less embarassing at this point.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
no, you're wrong....even the dems and obama went on the defensive after this letter came out, it was never accepted as a letter that was positive for the stimulus bill...
They were defensive, because a lot of outlets (particularly conservative ones) picked up on the writer's completely erroneous conclusions from the Times.
You haven't looked up the actual letter yet, have you?
It doesn't say what you think it says, or what the Times wrote that it says. Read it. In fact, it basically says that the stimulus is going to do exactly what it is designed to do - create millions of jobs and grow the economy 3-4% in the short-term.
The trade of is that - in 2019 - it's possible that growth could be .1 to .3 % less than what it would normally be, which is built on top of what is assumed will be a normally functioning economy at that point, which can absorb a tiny decline in GDP without much of an issue.
And that's it. The writer wanted to get some attention, so he went with an eye-catching headline & sensationalist, inaccurate conclusion.
Read the letter. Like I said - you're embarassing yourself.
I've gotta say, too - it's pretty shameful that you kept posting (like, over & over again) the same incorrect conclusion that the writer from the Times drew, and claiming it was "what the CBO said." It wasn't "what the CBO said." It was what the Times writer seemed to think they said, which was pretty wrong.
After reading the letter, I'm kind of amazed the guy still has a job. The Times is a big paper; they have a conservative bent, but they still have pretty high standards. His conclusion that things would be better had Obama done nothing is particularly egregious - there is nothing whatsoever in the CBO letter to support that.
After reading the letter, I'm kind of amazed the guy still has a job. The Times is a big paper; they have a conservative bent, but they still have pretty high standards. His conclusion that things would be better had Obama done nothing is particularly egregious - there is nothing whatsoever in the CBO letter to support that.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
lmao....you obviously haven't read the letter, because i put the direct words from the letter in a quote box a few posts up (#123) and you even replied to it
lmao....you obviously haven't read the letter, because i put the direct words from the letter in a quote box a few posts up (#123) and you even replied to it
Um, no - I did recognize it as a cherrypicked portion of the letter, which is 9 pages. It's out of context, and still doesn't support the conclusion that you want it to support.
I'm really not trying to be patronizing here; have you read the entire letter? Do you agree with the writer from the Times & the conclusions drawn in that paper?
Why not address some of the other points I'm addressing here? You're really off your game tonight....
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
your desperation in trying to ignore that the CBO report was not positive in the long is humorous
Really? That's it?
Yikes.
I read it, and I was actually quite encouraged by it. It doesn't fill me with dread that in 2019, we might have a growth rate of 3.6% instead of 3.8%. I'll take a few million jobs now for that.
Again, it's great to see you roll out the facts & citations when you're involved in a discussion like this; it is much, much appreciated. And I didn't really believe you before when you have said you would readily admit you are wrong when presented with facts that dispute your claim; I am pleasantly surprised at how willing you are to do that.
Kudos....
TuTu Monroe
A Realist
Tab from stimulus program jumps, CBO says
By Stephen Dinan
Washington Times
UPDATED:
The cost of President Obama's stimulus plan has jumped another $75 billion, the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday, and part of the reason is more people are getting unemployment benefits because they've lost jobs the bill was supposed to preserve.
The nonpartisan CBO, in a new report looking at the country's financial outlook, also found that the country faces giant budget deficits for the foreseeable future and has the biggest debt problem it has seen since just after World War II. The report is designed to give Congress guidance as it prepares to receive President Obama's budget for fiscal year 2011.
The CBO now says the stimulus package, passed by Congress last February, will cost $862 billion over 10 years because of the added unemployment-related costs. The program had originally been estimated to cost $787 billion when Mr. Obama signed it in February.
Some $21 billion of that increase comes from higher unemployment compensation payments, CBO analysts said. The rest of the increase comes from higher food assistance payments and increased federal payments to help states and localities pay interest on taxable government bonds they issued.
Last edited:
cancel2 2022
Canceled
There has to be oversight but there needs to be a fast track process to get the funds out more speedily.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
It really makes you want to puke, these guys desperately want the stimulus to fail for their own narrow partisan viewpoint. You can say, until the cows come home, that unemployment is a lagging indicator yet they will still regurgitate the same old shit.. err.. yeh I know but what about unemployment?
WTF, haven't any of these clowns ever been on an economics course?
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/177.asp
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
The problem is not US you dimwit! Take a goddamn look at the polls! The American people opposed the stimulus, just as they oppose nationalized health care, but you arrogantly just don't give a shit what the American people want!
I would love nothing more than for the "stimulus" to work! I would also love nothing more than for trees to sprout money and for it to rain beer, but I am realistic enough to understand none of that is going to happen, it's impossible! Whatever 'effect' the stimulus has, is going to be temporary. What part of that are you not comprehending in your tiny pinhead brain? We pour a bunch of taxpayer money into the system to do all kinds of little odd jobs, and put people back to work, and that is all well and good, but we can't sustain it... eventually, we run out of money, it's gone... then what? It's not like, we spend this money and suddenly, these temp jobs will just magically become permanent and the money will just start pouring in to fund them. That isn't going to happen, and it's a pipe dream to believe it will.
We have artificially stimulated the economy, and it will last as long as the money holds out, when it's gone, the people who are benefiting from the stimulus, will again be unemployed and looking for a job. We've created NO permanent jobs, created NO environment to encourage new jobs or even any corporate growth, because this administration is too busy waging war on corporate America!
This is NOT personal or partisan, it is a fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals! You think the government can fix this problem, just as you believe government can fix ANY problem, and we know for a fact, government CAN'T fix the economy... it just CAN'T! Think about it, I know that's asking a lot here, but really try hard.... IF Government COULD fix the economy, then politicians in power would DO SO every time the economy began declining, in order to remain in power! We would have never had a recession or depression, because Government would have fixed the problem... BUT, the reality is, they CAN'T!
At the very BEST, Government can get the hell out of the way, encourage business and growth by cutting taxes, and stop deficit spending so we have some credibility in the world financial sectors and stability with the dollar. The rest is up to capitalism and the free market.
"We have artificially stimulated the economy, and it will last as long as the money holds out, when it's gone, the people who are benefiting from the stimulus, will again be unemployed and looking for a job. We've created NO permanent jobs, created NO environment to encourage new jobs or even any corporate growth, because this administration is too busy waging war on corporate America! "
Dixie, you understand as much about the economy as you do about evolution.
At the time of the stimulus, no one was spending. Not consumers, not businesses. That's the idea - you stimulate, and then consumers & businesses follow.
By their very nature, many of the jobs created from the stimulus will be temporary. But they will get consumers spending again, and when consumers spend, businesses do better. When businesses do better, they hire. When people get hired, they spend more. And it keeps going like that.
And hey - how 'bout that 5.7% GDP, anyway?
But why am I explaining this to you? You won't hear anything as long as you have your hands over your ears and keep screaming "the stimulus isn't working!"
Dixie, you understand as much about the economy as you do about evolution.
At the time of the stimulus, no one was spending. Not consumers, not businesses. That's the idea - you stimulate, and then consumers & businesses follow.
By their very nature, many of the jobs created from the stimulus will be temporary. But they will get consumers spending again, and when consumers spend, businesses do better. When businesses do better, they hire. When people get hired, they spend more. And it keeps going like that.
And hey - how 'bout that 5.7% GDP, anyway?
But why am I explaining this to you? You won't hear anything as long as you have your hands over your ears and keep screaming "the stimulus isn't working!"
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Where the hell in your convoluted mind, do you presume government spending is going to cause consumers to start spending? Were not talking about masturbating in a room full of sex addicts, where that theory might apply!
Consumers start spending when they are confident in the economy turning around. Like, when their town gets a new auto plant and hires 1,500 new workers! Like when their company hands out bonus checks because profits were so good this year! THEN consumers "feel" like they can spend, and they do! What you have tried to do, is throw some money out there to fund a few temp jobs, which helps those who are unemployed and struggling for sure, but does little to nothing to foster consumer confidence, because the consumer knows the programs are temporary!
Congrats... the record-setting $2 trillion this Congress has spent in the past year, has raised the GDP by 5.7% All that money HAD to create some effect! The problem is... what now????? THAT has always been the problem with this! WHAT NOW????
We have created NO encouragement for commercial growth, in fact, Obama's policies discourage growth. We haven't established any kind of measure to ensure long-term jobs in America, or economic prosperity in any way, and the out of control spending and debt has dramatically reduced the value of the dollar! The unemployment rate is still above 10%, in some places as high as 20% and among blacks 18-31, it is around 50% in some areas. This problem is not solved, and you trumpeting the increased GDP as if it is some indicator of a rebounding economy, illustrates how little YOU know about economics.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
I see we got to ten pages...did any liberal come up with an accomplishment of Obama yet?
apple0154
MEOW
The stimulus is being used, in some cases, to improve infrastructure and renovate/insulate old government buildings. When there is high unemployment the government has a larger pool from which to choose employees plus it means less unemployment is being paid out. The best time for governments to spend (hire employees, buy materials, etc) is when the economy is slow.
The purpose of the stimulus is to help now, not necessarily to create jobs for the future. The economy will take care of that as it always has.
For example, let's say a guy gets laid off. He can sit at home and do nothing while collecting unemployment or he can start a project. Maybe building a deck and doing some landscaping or finishing the basement. Normally, he wouldn't have the time/energy to do that when working at a full time job.
So, what is the best use of his time? Sit at home and lament his position or buy some building materials and do a project? He doesn't have to pay cash for his materials. He can spread the payments out knowing that when he returns to work in six months or a year he'll have the funds to pay the entire loan. Meanwhile, he has increased the value of his home. He has kept busy which is good for morale and when he does return to work he can enjoy what he built during the time he was out of work.
The same "philosophy" applies to the stimulus package along with the bonus the people who have temporary jobs having money to spend now. As the economy picks up and full time jobs are created the government collects taxes and pays off the money it spent during the slow time.
The government has a choice. Either pay unemployment/welfare/food stamps and watch the people lose their homes and other possessions due to being unable to meet their payments and all the while accomplishing absolutely nothing or put those people to work doing something constructive.
A bigger pool of employees, lower wage costs as the government is not competing with the private sector for the same individuals, providing jobs for individuals so they can keep their homes and, finally, ending up having accomplished necessary and beneficial improvements. It's a win-win situation all around.