COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

Status
Not open for further replies.
koalabear said:
Who pays for the already paid for "stimulus".

Obama said the proposal would be fully paid for. In an earlier briefing for reporters, administration officials said Obama would pay for the program by asking lawmakers to close tax breaks for oil and gas companies and multinational corporations.

Who pass on the costs to the consumer.
Click to expand...


Do you support tax breaks for Exxon, which regularly posts the largest profit of any financial entity in the history of the world despite the fact that we're in a serious economic downturn? Not that they pay corporate income tax here anyway (though they pay other taxes).

Regardless, the infrastructure improvements are paid for one way or another by consumers simply because all infrastructure needs to be maintained. Why not front load it and use it to help stimulate the economy? You still haven't said why you're against it.
 
Last edited:
firespin said:
Sorry to disillusion you here, but yeah, we've established your "credentials" here. Don't believe me? Post a poll.

The point that's being made by lots of economic commentators is that way too many legislative solutions to alleged problems in health insurance availability, financiall system regulatory reform, executive compensation, etc., are being layed on an increasingly skeptical business community, with the effect that people are not getting hired, so money is not going into the economy, taxes are not going up, mortgages are going into default, etc.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of truth to this. Business is always cautious about growth when the government has things in an uproar. It certainly does now. It has handed out the authority to create agencies than can create regulations without the approval of congress and without notice and with a minimum of guidelines. It makes it difficult to plan for the future when the future is that unknown. It is making it especially difficult on small business which (if memory serves) is about half of all jobs.

Both the financial changes and the insurance changes will create confusion for years, perhaps decades.
 
Slowlane said:
There is a lot of truth to this. Business is always cautious about growth when the government has things in an uproar. It certainly does now. It has handed out the authority to create agencies than can create regulations without the approval of congress and without notice and with a minimum of guidelines. It makes it difficult to plan for the future when the future is that unknown. It is making it especially difficult on small business which (if memory serves) is about half of all jobs.

Both the financial changes and the insurance changes will create confusion for years, perhaps decades.
Click to expand...


Yet Republicans will oppose tax cuts for small businesses that the Democrats are about to submit...

When Republicans cut taxes, all it does is help the economy. When Democrats cut taxes, all it does it create deficit. :rolleyes:
 
mercury14 said:
Yet there were heaps of business tax breaks in the stimulus and the Dems are in the process of putting together a package of small-bizness tax cuts. Here's why Republicans are stupid on the economy though and why they can't get together a coherent plan to fix it (which is what John McCain said in his Fox News interview yesterday):


1) They think Obama needs to do something to boost the economy.

2) They think that it's not the president's role to intervene in the economy, including any attempts to boost the economy.

3) They want tax cuts but not if they cause deficit increases - which all tax cuts do.

4) They say that Obama hasn't done enough to focus on the economy, despite the Recovery Act being ready to roll from day 1 of his presidency, along with saving the American auto industry from going the way of the dodo, saving the financial sector (and thus the entire economy) from a complete meltdown, and other things.

5) They also say that Obama has done too much to help the economy and that he should simply let the market fix itself no matter how long it takes or how painful it is.

6) Republicans agreed with Dems that there needed to be financial reform on the crazy parts of the financial system where lenders could take high risks with no exposure to loss. Then when the Dems addressed the issue it was criticized by Repubs for being both too little intervention and too much intervention.

7) Republicans bitch about socialism all day in ways that would make Joe McCarthy proud, and then turn around and support a wide range of socialist policies.

8) Republicans say that tax breaks are the answer. Then when Obama gave America the biggest single-year tax cut in US history, they changed their story to say that tax breaks don't help and all they do is increase the deficit.


None of this shit makes any sense. The Republican party has no coherent message on the economy, probably because it's leaders are the hypocrites Beck, Palin, and Limbaugh.
Click to expand...

mercury14 said:
And the latest:

9) The Republican-approved part of the stimulus were the "shovel-ready" construction/infrastructure jobs. According to Republicans, those are "real jobs". But now that Obama is submitting a $50 billion stimulus that's entirely for shovel-ready construction work, Republicans flip-flopped and now say that this sort of thing will not create any real jobs.



And nevermind that the government is going to have to pay for this infrastructure maintenance/repair anyway. The fact that Obama is involved makes Republicans sell out their own positions just so they can oppose him.
Click to expand...

original.jpg
 
mercury14 said:
And the latest:

9) The Republican-approved part of the stimulus were the "shovel-ready" construction/infrastructure jobs. According to Republicans, those are "real jobs". But now that Obama is submitting a $50 billion stimulus that's entirely for shovel-ready construction work, Republicans flip-flopped and now say that this sort of thing will not create any real jobs.



And nevermind that the government is going to have to pay for this infrastructure maintenance/repair anyway. The fact that Obama is involved makes Republicans sell out their own positions just so they can oppose him.
Click to expand...

Many of the first set of jobs that were suppose to be "shovel ready" weren't. I said from the beginning I didn't care what the government spent as long as they were only moving projects forward and Spending the money on infrastructure. Obama said he would do that with the first bill. As usual Obama lied. Although some of the money was spent on that much of it went to speculation. He can't be trusted to do what he says - let alone do anything right. I vote against giving him money for anything.

Government money (especially that spent by democrats) that is spent on jobs is heavily weighted and not available for fair distribution. Until that is changed no amount of money can help as much as it should.
 
mercury14 said:
Do you support tax breaks for Exxon, which regularly posts the largest profit of any financial entity in the history of the world despite the fact that we're in a serious economic downturn? Not that they pay corporate income tax here anyway (though they pay other taxes).

Regardless, the infrastructure improvements are paid for one way or another by consumers simply because all infrastructure needs to be maintained. Why not front load it and use it to help stimulate the economy? You still haven't said why you're against it.
Click to expand...

So much for the line it is already paid for.
 
mercury14 said:
The plan calls for rebuilding 150,000 miles of roads; building and maintaining 4,000 miles of rail lines and 150 miles of airport runways, and installing a new air navigation system to reduce travel times and delays.

That's going to employ a ton of people in well-paying jobs, create a load of demand for equipment and materials, generate a whole lot of spending, get people off welfare, get more folks paying taxes, get more folks healthcare, and boost a staggering amount of local economies. And like I said, we're going to be footing the bill for all this anyway. Why not front-load it and use it to boost the economy when we really need it.

You aren't giving any reason not to.
Click to expand...

You are such a frickin' moron I can't believe it. Try totaling up the cost of doing those things and see why it can't possibly be true. Idiot.
 
firespin said:
You are such a frickin' moron I can't believe it. Try totaling up the cost of doing those things and see why it can't possibly be true. Idiot.
Click to expand...


*facepalm* Why are you so concrete in your thinking, 'Spin?

I realize that every cent would not be paid with the $50 billion. States own infrastructure and would foot a portion of the bill. And that 150k roads does not necessarily equal the amount of roads to be maintained by the bill.
 
mercury14 said:
*facepalm* Why are you so concrete in your thinking, 'Spin?

I realize that every cent would not be paid with the $50 billion. States own infrastructure and would foot a portion of the bill. And that 150k roads does not necessarily equal the amount of roads to be maintained by the bill.
Click to expand...

So where is the state contribution coming from? Either it's already accounted for, it replaces other planned spending, or it's a tax hike.

The stimulus has been creating jobs at about $200,000 apiece. (I don't know why that's the case, but do that math, and that's what's happened.) So $50B would be 250,000 jobs, assuming zero dollars for anything else, which seems farfetched in a construction job. That would bump the unemployment number by 0.2%. Zzzzz.
 
firespin said:
So where is the state contribution coming from? Either it's already accounted for, it replaces other planned spending, or it's a tax hike.

The stimulus has been creating jobs at about $200,000 apiece. (I don't know why that's the case, but do that math, and that's what's happened.) So $50B would be 250,000 jobs, assuming zero dollars for anything else, which seems farfetched in a construction job. That would bump the unemployment number by 0.2%. Zzzzz.
Click to expand...

You're pre-supposing that the entire stimulus has gone towards creating jobs, which of course, it hasn't.
 
firespin said:
So where is the state contribution coming from? Either it's already accounted for, it replaces other planned spending, or it's a tax hike.

The stimulus has been creating jobs at about $200,000 apiece. (I don't know why that's the case, but do that math, and that's what's happened.) So $50B would be 250,000 jobs, assuming zero dollars for anything else, which seems farfetched in a construction job. That would bump the unemployment number by 0.2%. Zzzzz.
Click to expand...


Newsflash: States are already paying to maintain their infrastructure. Where their funds to pay for those duties comes from is a topic outside this discussion.
 
richard_daily said:
You're pre-supposing that the entire stimulus has gone towards creating jobs, which of course, it hasn't.
Click to expand...

Well in theory the whole purpose of the stimulus was to create jobs, either directly or indirectly, through spending, transfer payments, tax cuts, etc., where giving people more money through grants, jobs, tax savings was supposed to flow back into the economy.

But if you have a different number, then by all means, let's hear it.

Here's somebody that used a higher number end of last year, btw.

http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2009/12/07/cost-benefit-analysis-of-jobs-stimulus/
 
mercury14 said:
Newsflash: States are already paying to maintain their infrastructure. Where their funds to pay for those duties comes from is a topic outside this discussion.
Click to expand...

That would happen anyway, so you can't claim that the federal stimulus would create a ripple effect if the same money would be spent in a slightly different way.
 
firespin said:
That would happen anyway, so you can't claim that the federal stimulus would create a ripple effect if the same money would be spent in a slightly different way.
Click to expand...

Yeah it would happen over a decade or so. But let's front-load it and create jobs, spending, and economic demand that we need this year.
 
firespin said:
Well in theory the whole purpose of the stimulus was to create jobs, either directly or indirectly, through spending, transfer payments, tax cuts, etc., where giving people more money through grants, jobs, tax savings was supposed to flow back into the economy.

But if you have a different number, then by all means, let's hear it.

Here's somebody that used a higher number end of last year, btw.

http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2009/12/07/cost-benefit-analysis-of-jobs-stimulus/
Click to expand...

No, that wasn't the theory at all.

The purpose of the two stimulus packages was to stimulate the economy, and pave way for it's return to growth, in theory. Jobs are a part of that economy, but again, you're pre-supposing that every dollar from the stimulus package is supposed to create a job.

That's just not the case.

Your base assumption is off, and yet you run with it.
 
richard_daily said:
No, that wasn't the theory at all.

The purpose of the two stimulus packages was to stimulate the economy, and pave way for it's return to growth, in theory. Jobs are a part of that economy, but again, you're pre-supposing that every dollar from the stimulus package is supposed to create a job.

That's just not the case.

Your base assumption is off, and yet you run with it.
Click to expand...

We're dealing with ratios, so at some point your concerns are irrelevant, accurate though they could certainly be.

The case was made that a $50B stimulus would produce jobs, with no quantification of how many.

The original stimulus has spent $600B or so and produced 3M jobs or so. (So they say.) It doesn't really matter how much of that $600B went to create jobs vs. something else, that was the net effect.

This new one proposes to spend $50B, so a straightforward extrapolation would be 250,000 jobs. It could certainly be different, but the programs are more similar than different to the original stimulus, so it would be something close to that, you'd expect.

But the point is not that this is the exact number, just that it's something like that, and that's not so many in the overall scheme of things.
 
firespin said:
quantification of how many.

The original stimulus has spent $600B or so and produced 3M jobs or so. (So they say.) It doesn't really matter how much of that $600B went to create jobs vs. something else, that was the net effect.

.
Click to expand...

nobody says THAT anymore, unless you MISSED the recent comments by teh WH and CBO

in fact, now the WH says it TOUCHED THE LIVES of 3 million:rolleyes:
 
Ulaven_Demorte said:
Giving meme a run for it's money eh Cap'n. :rolleyes:

I'm surprised.. Nay, amazed that the opinion columnists at the "thinker" and "reason" think that Obama and the Democratic lead congress are doing the wrong things.

Completely unexpected, especially considering the lack of any actual plan of their own to deal with the problems brought on by Conservative economic policies, except more of the same policies that caused the mess in the first place.

“I don’t see them presenting any alternatives, any new options or any new thinking, If the Republicans get back in power, what are they going to do? There is no articulation. It’s just a ‘no no no, I’m against Obama because he’s a socialist and he’s taking America in the wrong direction.’ That’s certainly an opinion, but what about you, Mr. Republican? What would you do?” - Former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE)

The Party of No. No new ideas. No plan. No future. Like petulant children stomping their feet and refusing to cooperate with, well, anyone or anything. Social luddites ruled by irrational fear of anything different than what's "traditional".. Sexuality, skin color, culture, etc. etc..
Click to expand...

If you don't see any ideas being offered, it might be your limited reading selection...

I see Obama has plans.

All of them call for more spending, and like Health Care, they all pay for themselves...

... in theory...
__________________
Promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.

Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.

Disgust and alarm with the federal government's unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.

Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.

Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia.

Now we know why the country has become "ungovernable," last year's excuse for the Democrats' failure of governance: Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?

Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. ... What's a liberal to do? Pull out the bigotry charge, the trump that preempts debate and gives no credit to the seriousness and substance of the contrary argument.
Charles Krauthammer

I can add one Mr. Krauthammer:
Opposition to man-made Global Warming models? Denier. Creationist.
Another now...
Opposition to any of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid legislation? Tea bagger.
A_J, the Stupid
 
Last edited:
mercury14 said:
Do you support tax breaks for Exxon, which regularly posts the largest profit of any financial entity in the history of the world despite the fact that we're in a serious economic downturn? Not that they pay corporate income tax here anyway (though they pay other taxes).

Regardless, the infrastructure improvements are paid for one way or another by consumers simply because all infrastructure needs to be maintained. Why not front load it and use it to help stimulate the economy? You still haven't said why you're against it.
Click to expand...

Do you know the percentage? It's in line with all other businesses, they just happen to do more business.

Why are you calling people morons?
 
mercury14 said:
The plan calls for rebuilding 150,000 miles of roads; building and maintaining 4,000 miles of rail lines and 150 miles of airport runways, and installing a new air navigation system to reduce travel times and delays.

That's going to employ a ton of people in well-paying jobs, create a load of demand for equipment and materials, generate a whole lot of spending, get people off welfare, get more folks paying taxes, get more folks healthcare, and boost a staggering amount of local economies. And like I said, we're going to be footing the bill for all this anyway. Why not front-load it and use it to boost the economy when we really need it.

You aren't giving any reason not to.
Click to expand...

Not really. Road resurfacing is an equipment-intensive activity, most of which is almost always in use, this would just guarantee some jobs would not be lost in out-lying years. In short, if there were any shovel-ready projects in the FIRST stimulus, the one that kept us to 8% unemployment, then those jobs have already been created. So you might get a couple of pounds of jobs out of it, and again, it's Bastiat's Broken Windows fallacy.

If the roads were going to get maintenance already, then you create no jobs. If you DO create some jobs artificially, then you have robbed the private sector of capital and the jobs that would have otherwise been created, so you actually lose in the long run because you retard economic activity with "make-work."
__________________
You loot the private sector, strip every dollar of 40¢ for overhead, and then give the other 60¢ to your political base in order to revitalize the looted.

What's not to like about that plan?
A_J, the Stupid
 
mercury14 said:
Yeah it would happen over a decade or so. But let's front-load it and create jobs, spending, and economic demand that we need this year.
Click to expand...

Broken Window Fallacy

__________________
You loot the private sector, strip every dollar of 40¢ for overhead, and then give the other 60¢ to your political base in order to revitalize the looted.

What's not to like about that plan?
A_J, the Stupid
 
Frisco_Slug_Esq said:
If you don't see any ideas being offered, it might be your limited reading selection...

I see Obama has plans.

All of them call for more spending, and like Hewalth Care, they all pay for themselves...

... in theory...
Click to expand...

Oh there are plenty of ideas being offered by Republicans (and Not-Republicans who seem to agree with the vast majority of the Republican platform), the same tired old ideas that landed us in the spot we're in. My "limited" reading selection has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with "Conservatives" having zero new ideas. Funny that you, who would seem to read nothing but pajamas media, the "thinker", "reason", and other like minded echo chambers would try to cast aspersions on someone else's "limited reading selection" Cap'n Ad Hominem.

The GOP has decided to ride out the "Party of No" and hope it carries them to victory in the coming elections. Even their own supporters are beginning to ask what they have planned if they do win other than keep saying No.. Only the most die-hard think that denial is a plan. Republicans spent the majority of the final year of Bush's second term in denial of the economic repercussions of their policies and deregulation and now seem more than willing to continue to whistle past the economic graveyard on their way back to similar behavior, purging their ranks of anyone remotely moderate along the way.
 
So, you misrepresented the Republicans...



Yeah, the new, fresh ideas straight of of the Soviet are working gangbusters...

Doing so well that Obama's popping out spending ideas right and left. Even the Democrats aren't buying the new ideas anymore, so maybe it's time to CHANGE!
__________________
The more government impedes upon the market with good intention and positive interference, the more expensive that market becomes and the maxim that you get what you pay for becomes outed as an out-and-out lie.
A_J, the Stupid
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Counselor706
Joe Biden and the powerless presidency
Replies
5
Views
259
John_von_Neumann
J
Ulaven_Demorte
New and Improved "Doom and Gloom™" Thread
2 3
Replies
51
Views
3K
IrezumiKiss
IrezumiKiss
K
Paul Krugman: "In Defense of Obama"
5 6 7
Replies
155
Views
5K
IrezumiKiss
IrezumiKiss
Ulaven_Demorte
About all of the minimum wage "Doom and Gloom"
2
Replies
30
Views
811
bronzeage
bronzeage
4
Investing In a World of Make Believe
Replies
8
Views
263
eyer
E
Back
Top