Stimulus now "empirically proved" to have worked

[jonboy79]

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

As Trap correctly pointed out the deficit has increased by about 2 million with Obama in office. 1.2 trillion were already on the books for 2009 before Obama stepped into the White House. The remaining would be his which includes your 787 billion stimulus. Simple math. TARP was in place when he took office as well as unfunded tax cuts for the mega-rich and the loss of revenues from "W"'s economic blunder. Its really not that hard when you look at rationally.

Troop deployent has increased because Afghanistan is not a mysterious war. Afghanistan was and is, along with Pakistan, the primary training ground for terrorist attacks against America. I have no problem with "W" going into Afghanistan and I have no problem with Obama as long as the emphasis is on the border with Pak. Iraq remains a mystery to me even after all the years we have been there. "W" royally screwed Iraq and Obama is trying to get us out of there...there is no increase in troops there but a decrease with a major transition in strategy coming in August.

Don't you mean Trillion?

Obviously no comment on who's budget the 1.2 Trillion came from, the Democratic legislature tha tincluded Obama...

So the bulk of the Military Spending is in Afghanistan which you do agree with but just blamed on Bush?

[effo5231]

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

Riddle me this, Batman. How do you protect yourself from Government?

Voting. How do you protect yourself from corporations?

[NCRAVEN]

Originally Posted by effo5231

Voting. How do you protect yourself from corporations?

Hilarious!!!

You think that would be the answer, but you'd be wrong!

People did vote, and while over 50% of the population at a minimum disagreed with the bailout, housing bailout, stimulus, ominous spending bill, health care reform, financial reform and OVER 70% agree with AZ immigration bill that hasn't stopped Government from governing against the people.

Wanna try another answer to see how to protect yourself from Government?

How do you protect yourself from a corporation? Easy, don't do business with them. Uhhh........... DUH!

[effo5231]

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

Hilarious!!!

You think that would be the answer, but you'd be wrong!

This ought to be good. Go on...

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

People did vote, and while over 50% of the population at a minimum disagreed with the bailout, housing bailout, stimulus, ominous spending bill, health care reform, financial reform and OVER 70% agree with AZ immigration bill that hasn't stopped Government from governing against the people.

People didn't vote against those things genius, they voted FOR the politicians who enacted them. You do understand how a representative government works right? If enough people disagree strongly enough with the choices those politicians are making, said politicians will be voted out of office. Hence, the American people are able to effectively control their own government.

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

Wanna try another answer to see how to protect yourself from Government?

No thanks, voting seems to work.

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

How do you protect yourself from a corporation? Easy, don't do business with them. Uhhh........... DUH!

Oh... Sort of like voting with my wallet huh? Except the difference between that and voting with ya know, a vote, is that wealth doesn't distribute evenly. Thus anytime you put too much power in the hands of private corporations, you allow a tiny minority of wealthy individuals exert greater control than their numbers would indicate they deserve. This is basic stuff man. The idea of laissez faire being acceptable has been debunked for longer than anyone on this board has been alive.

[NCRAVEN]

Quote: This ought to be good. Go on...

My point was voting for hasn't been working cause Government has constantly being doing the opposite of what the people who vote them in want.

Quote: People didn't vote against those things genius, they voted FOR the politicians who enacted them. You do understand how a representative government works right? If enough people disagree strongly enough with the choices those politicians are making, said politicians will be voted out of office. Hence, the American people are able to effectively control their own government.

Thanks for the update. I am aware of how our system is supposed to work. You would think people would be in control of their own Government. But check out this mentality of Politicans (yes I am aware it is one guy, but shocking none the less) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1-eB...layer_embedded


Quote: No thanks, voting seems to work.

Voting should be working but clearly it ain’t. How do we fix it F if I know, but this country is driving towards off a cliff of a financial meltdown and no one is putting on the breaks, no matter who we elect…


Quote: Oh... Sort of like voting with my wallet huh? Except the difference between that and voting with ya know, a vote, is that wealth doesn't distribute evenly. Thus anytime you put too much power in the hands of private corporations, you allow a tiny minority of wealthy individuals exert greater control than their numbers would indicate they deserve. This is basic stuff man. The idea of laissez faire being acceptable has been debunked for longer than anyone on this board has been alive.

I’m not sure we are talking about the same thing here. I am simply saying if you want to protect yourself from a corporation. Don’t do business with them. Not don’t have rules for them or enforce rules. Tell you what, give me an example of how you can’t protect your self or not do business with a corporation and I will give you a solution.

[AirFlacco]

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

I would say that is success. The American auto industry was also saved which diverted a historic disaster. The economy is still wobbling mainly because corporate lobbies and their tea party astroburns prevented Obama and the Dems from putting together a true stimulus as guys like Krugman were lobbying for. That being said, a great depression was avoided and history might view that as a huge success after the political shenanigans are over.

Now there is emerging evidence that large corporations are sitting on earnings and not hiring in a move slow down hiring to make Obama policies look ineffective. Nothing like allowing big corporations to dictate the quality of life for average americans.

But yes Trap...your gal is further proof (if you believe her) that elements of TARP and the stimulus have been effective.

Not really. As Jon said, they didn't even need the money if they
paid it back so fast.

He was right. As my link showed, they paid much with money on
hand. That proves they didn't need it.

They paid the rest selling $19B worth of securities.

This isn't the first time gov't lent money to failed banks. The GOP did it back
in the panic of 1907 when the Heinz Bros bought the Knickerbocker Bank
in NY and started a run on money for all the banks.

They were attacked by JP MOrgan and Rockerfeller by getting public opinion
vs them as well as Congress. In the end they were ruined.

Then the Treasury Dept issued $35M to the banks that had runs on their
money - some lost millions in a couple of hours.

That $35M would be equivalent to billions in today's money.

BTW, those GOPs were very progressive and liberal with Teddy Roosevelt and Taft in
the WH in those days. Six years later Taft would sign the income tax legislation,
the worst legislation every enacted.

And don't forget, before Oby, Bush following the lead of his liberal brethern had
the first buyout in 08.




http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/Panic_of_1907

[4G63]

Originally Posted by effo5231

Oh... Sort of like voting with my wallet huh? Except the difference between that and voting with ya know, a vote, is that wealth doesn't distribute evenly. Thus anytime you put too much power in the hands of private corporations, you allow a tiny minority of wealthy individuals exert greater control than their numbers would indicate they deserve. This is basic stuff man. The idea of laissez faire being acceptable has been debunked for longer than anyone on this board has been alive.

So you're a Socialist?

[4G63]

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

First of all it is refershing to see someone on this side actually put together a cogent argument. I have been posting my blabber here for a couple years now and seen posters come and go...90% conservative/libertarian. There has yet to be one poster...yes, not one poster who took the time to put an argument together that could hold a can of beans. So I applaud your efforts.

Now I know you're a liar. You admitted that Dade gave what you would consider a "cogent" argument in the Global Warming thread a few months ago. You just happened to disagree with his links and their arguments because they differed from yours. Doesn't mean he was wrong.

[Galen Sevinne]

Originally Posted by 4G63

So you're a Socialist?

This is where I wish we could cue audio in this forum. Like some kind of scary "Bumm bumm bumm bummmmmmmmmm"

So it would come off as;

"So YOU are a Socialist" bummmm bummmm bummm bummmmmmmmmmm.....

Stephanie Miller does that great on her radio show during her "From Right Wing Land" bit.

[Galen Sevinne]

Originally Posted by 4G63

Now I know you're a liar. You admitted that Dade gave what you would consider a "cogent" argument in the Global Warming thread a few months ago. You just happened to disagree with his links and their arguments because they differed from yours. Doesn't mean he was wrong.

Yes my apologies to Dade as he has demonstrated the ability to be more than just a "one line wonder". There are two posters...maybe three, if you want to include Traps lengthy diatribes on biblical passages except I don't think they would fit the category of "Cogent" though. That's kinda important too...

The word liar is a bit extreme there 3PO.

[effo5231]

Originally Posted by 4G63

So you're a Socialist?

To a degree, yes. Socialism has not been successfully implemented yet, mostly because it has historically been used as a cover for some tyrannical dictator or another to take over, much the same way "democracy" has been used as a cover to elect brutal "Presidents for life" in Africa.

Visit a Kibbutz in Israel sometimes, that's effective quasi-socialism that I agree with and would gladly live in for the rest of my life.

[jonboy79]

Originally Posted by effo5231

To a degree, yes. Socialism has not been successfully implemented yet, mostly because it has historically been used as a cover for some tyrannical dictator or another to take over, much the same way "democracy" has been used as a cover to elect brutal "Presidents for life" in Africa.

Visit a Kibbutz in Israel sometimes, that's effective quasi-socialism that I agree with and would gladly live in for the rest of my life.

As soon as Socialism is applied to a big enough society you end up with an Oligarchy. That is what is really desired here, IMO.

[NCRAVEN]

Originally Posted by jonboy79

As soon as Socialism is applied to a big enough society you end up with an Oligarchy. That is what is really desired here, IMO.

And you wonder why the majority of the people who want socialism in this country are people that already have a boat load of money or none at all.

The people with a boat load would be part of the ruling class and the people who don't have money now may have a little more than they currently do.

[Galen Sevinne]

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

And you wonder why the majority of the people who want socialism in this country are people that already have a boat load of money or none at all.

The people with a boat load would be part of the ruling class and the people who don't have money now may have a little more than they currently do.

...or there are those who see the evolution of man as one that gravitates towards a cooperative state vs. a competitive state. There is certainly a boatload of evidence for that looking back millions of years in human evolution. As man has learned to cooperate, civilizations have grown and expanded.

Google "$60,000 happiness" for pages of recent research that shows how while excessive money does little to increase happiness, excessive poverty crushes happiness. Somewhere around $60,000 a year is where the graph levels off and any monetary gains beyond that amount are inconsequential when it comes to happiness. In this country it wouldn't be so hard to achieve this for most people if we did "spread the wealth" (cue scary audio ).

Its sad how many hours a week a two parent family has to work to own a home and two cars and daycare for their two kids in this country. That's not wealth...that's slavery to a false ideal. As a society we have gone backwards in social evolution in the past 20-40 years.

[NCRAVEN]

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

...or there are those who see the evolution of man as one that gravitates towards a cooperative state vs. a competitive state. There is certainly a boatload of evidence for that looking back millions of years in human evolution. As man has learned to cooperate, civilizations have grown and expanded.

Google "$60,000 happiness" for pages of recent research that shows how while excessive money does little to increase happiness, excessive poverty crushes happiness. Somewhere around $60,000 a year is where the graph levels off and any monetary gains beyond that amount are inconsequential when it comes to happiness. In this country it wouldn't be so hard to achieve this for most people if we did "spread the wealth" (cue scary audio ).

Its sad how many hours a week a two parent family has to work to own a home and two cars and daycare for their two kids in this country. That's not wealth...that's slavery to a false ideal. As a society we have gone backwards in social evolution in the past 20-40 years.

Surprise surprise, I agree with some of what your saying to a degree.

My belief though is that the obligation to pay the government is what causes a two parent home to work so much. When you add income tax, property tax, sales tax on food, clothing, gas etc plus other taxes. The majority of "the middle class" ( I hate classes) pay up to around 60% of their income to taxes, that is slavery as well. I am not saying no taxes, but there has got to be a limit.

I personally don't feel someone going to work to give to their neighbor really helps anyone. Maybe in the short term for the neighbor who needs the help but if constantly giving something they may never learn for them self.

Spreading the wealth IMO would be a terrible idea, Google the real story of thanksgiving to see why.
http://mises.org/daily/336

[Dont Know]

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

There are few economists or politicians that really stood firm that there should be no stimulus at all. The question was how much and how to use it. Unfortunately it enabled the conservatives to pin the deficit on Obama when the truth is the combination of unfunded tax cuts for the super-wealthy and a mysterious war in Iraq created the majority of the deficit as we stand now.

Lets also not forget about Bush's unfunded medicare "d". People can complain about healthcare reform but as far as the CBO is concerned ( and you used CBO numbers in one of your graphs when it supported your claim) it is deficit reducing. Yet "W"'s medicare d was completely unfunded on the backs of the tax payer. Complaining then?

Oh please. You are putting all the blame on Bush in the same way you are complaining about conservatives blaiming Obama. The problems started much earlier than Bush, but Obama is continuing to make things worse by record-level deficit spending.

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

The boom was also precipitated by a lack of regulation over lending practices. You can't blame it soley on low rates....sure that helped but individuals who had no place in owning a home were being approved. The demand for a house because of easy approval drove prices through the roof.

Sure I can. While fraudulent loan applications helped debt grow faster than it would have under normal circumstances, we would have gotten to the current debt-levels eventually even without all the fraudulent applications.

The only way to avoid that is to regulate capital requirements and leverages in banks, but there is basically no chance of that under the current administration.

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

But don't blame the stimulus for effects from the boom.

I have done no such thing. We have already had the boom. Let's go back to the song for some more guidance.

"The boom gets started with an expansion of credit"

Whether you believe it was due to lack of regulation over lending practices or low federal interest rate doesn't really matter. The expansion of credit has already happened.

So, if an expansion of credit creates a boom, a contraction of credit will lead to a ....?

No amount of goverment spending can avoid this. Sure, you can put it off for as long as the goverment can borrow to offset privat credit contraction but even that will come to and end eventually. Just ask Iceland or Greece....

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

Again no disagreement here except for the fact that "spending like crazy" really stopped shortly after Bush left office. You are assuming that spending will continue while it really hasn't. Unless you are arguiing against unemployment benefits which if you want to see things get really bad then start starving people.

Well, there are your words that the spending has stopped and then there are official statistics. I could just go to this website and look at the debt for the first 6 months of 2010 under the guidance of Obama.

Total Public Debt Outstanding 12/31/2009:
12,311,349,677,512.03 $

Total Public Debt Outstanding 07/01/2010:
13,178,317,356,215.73 $

That is a debt increase of an astonishing 866,967,678,703.7 $ in just 6 months time. I hope you can forgive me for not believing you when the numbers say otherwise.

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

Now you are taking your argument to the absurd which is where you begin to lose me. To think Obama doesn't want to get the deficit under control is to be either a conspircay theorist that Obama is somehow an Al Qaeda plant trying to ruin America or he doesn't want to be elected to a second term. I would bet both are incorrect. There is no gain for him to wrecklessly run up the national debt as his predeccessor did.

Meh, I don't believe in either of those two things. He is no better or drastically worse than his predecessors. It's just as unsustainable. There is a good article in the NY Times by David Stockman on errors by primarily republicans if all you care about is assigning blame to republicans.

But this is like arguing which STD you would prefer. Personally? None, which means no deficit spending at all. Regardless of whether you are rep or dem.

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

I don't think anyone is worshipping Keynes here just posting some work with an empirical backbone (something that gnerally scares conservatives) that suggests some positive effects of the stimulus.

I guess this is where we really differ. There are no positive effects of the stimulus. Can there be short term gains? Sure, but those come at a steep price. The pain suffered later will in turn be greater. I am not willing to trade short term relief for long term pain.

The best way to avoid this all is to not blow an assett price bubble in the first place. Now, that has already been done (Thank you Clinton and Bush). Next best thing then is to burst it as soon as possible. Neither Bush nor Obama seem willing to do it and that's a great shame because it's going to pop sooner or later (just ask Iceland and Greece) whether you want it to or not. And it is NOT going to be pretty.

[NCRAVEN]

And the stimulus just keeps stimulating...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories

[AirFlacco]

The stimulus certainly isn't working for the local gov'ts.

As mentioned Calif cut back all gov't salaries to min wage,
including firemen and policemen. Speaking of Policemen, OAK
laid off 10% of theirs.

Speaking of firemen, Philly shut down some fire houses
and an autistic boy just died an a house fire. The closest
fire hall was closed down.

Another one further away arrived on the scene. It was so bad
that some firemen fell when the stairs collapsed.

Camden, NJ shut down all their libraries.

Local school districts here aren't hiring too many teachers. Harford
county - none, I think.

Baltimore County and Baltimore City hired just under 100 but
hardly any Towson U grads.

When my nephew told a friend he got a job in MIchael Phelps mom's
school out in Reisterstown, the girl said, how did you get a job. I
don't know any grads getting teaching jobs around here.

He said thru Teachers of America. Cities across the country covet their
teachers. Baltimore City and Baltimore County hired 54 of them - about
2/3 of the total hires.

TA gave 4 to Baltimore County and the rest to the city.

This group hires and trains only the best grads. Many good students
are rejected. My nephew had a 4.0 gpa and was home schooled
thru hi school.

His dad has taught in Balto County for 30 years.

Also, my brother's brother in law who is a small business man has
to sell some of his properties including his condos on the beach because
he won't be able to afford the taxes when W's tax breaks expire in Jan.

Just like with the small banks, the small businessman is left out of
the stimulus package.

[AirFlacco]

If the stimulus is working, why is the Fed Reserve trying taking action
to boost the economy, or rather keep it from falling further.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10924941

[NCRAVEN]

More evidence that is actually working

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/presi...ry?id=11463344