18 months and still no miracles

[The Rabbi]

So, to be clear, you don't think that pumping 5 Trillion dollars into the economy would boost the economy?

That;'s correct. That's because they cannot "pump" even one dollar into the economy. All they can do is cycle the money from somewhere else. That somewhere else could be using hte money for more productive purposes.

Not reading at all?

A tax credit would only require that 1 of the 5 Trillion come from the government. The other up to 4 Trillion would come from people who have the money sitting around, but are not spending it. It's probably too late now since there are no dollars of any type left.

If you are rich and pay allot of tax, your tax rate would allow a greater credit and you could add a wing to the old house and cause a contractor to hire more employees. If you're not so rich and just buy a gallon or two of paint and a couple brushes, someone had to sell them them to you, someone had to stock the shelf, someone had to make the stuff and someone had to deliver it.

Someone had to build the vehicles and the roads to transport these things.

With a tax credit, the spending is incented, the tax dollars are multiplied and the economy moves. A tax credit, in an economy moved to dismal pessimism, that is, this one, only incents people to hold on to the money and wait for the next misdirected false step from the Big 0.

Stupid much?
No one has "money sitting around". THey have money invested somewhere. Even if it is in the bank, the bank is investing it somewhere. If someone pulls money from his bank account to add a wing to his house he is depriving the bank's borrower of that money--money that would probably be put to more productive uses than building a diminishing resource.
If the gov't gives a tax incentive, they must make up the revenue somewhere else, either taxing someone else or borrowing it from someone, who might use the money to make loans that actually produce something.
Your understanding of the problem is itself the problem. Unfortunately, most of the Obama Administration thinks like you.

 

[code1211]

I'm the oddball democrat that was vehimently against the bailouts and the stimulus.
It's tough being a social liberal and a fiscal conservative.

The most beautiful phrase in the English language is this: "Congress shall make no law..."

I used to think that I was a Social liberal and a fiscal Conservative until I I started thinking a little more deeply about it. Conservatism is mostly predicated on the idea that less government is better government.

Please no slippery slide responses to that.

As a Conservative, "make no law" would apply to the blue laws, the Jim Crow laws and the plethora of other social engineering laws that intrude into my life and yours and allow the government to punish or reward based on abstract and changing social standards.

A law is needed to protect the weak from the strong. A law is not needed to protect me from an idea. If the idea is good, it will rise above alternatives, if not, it will be exposed.

Any law that supports the idea of a permanent under class is a bad one whether it is Jim Crow or affirmative action. Any law that restricts the availability of a right to one group excluding another is bad. Any law that expands the reach of the powerful over the weak is bad.

The government is like wall paper. If you notice it above all else, it's probably the wrong design.

 

[topspin]

how is that not Ok with socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
Or are you saying conservatives waste money on defending ideas?

 

[code1211]

That;'s correct. That's because they cannot "pump" even one dollar into the economy. All they can do is cycle the money from somewhere else. That somewhere else could be using hte money for more productive purposes.

Not reading at all?

A tax credit would only require that 1 of the 5 Trillion come from the government. The other up to 4 Trillion would come from people who have the money sitting around, but are not spending it. It's probably too late now since there are no dollars of any type left.

If you are rich and pay allot of tax, your tax rate would allow a greater credit and you could add a wing to the old house and cause a contractor to hire more employees. If you're not so rich and just buy a gallon or two of paint and a couple brushes, someone had to sell them them to you, someone had to stock the shelf, someone had to make the stuff and someone had to deliver it.

Someone had to build the vehicles and the roads to transport these things.

With a tax credit, the spending is incented, the tax dollars are multiplied and the economy moves. A tax credit, in an economy moved to dismal pessimism, that is, this one, only incents people to hold on to the money and wait for the next misdirected false step from the Big 0.

Stupid much?
No one has "money sitting around". THey have money invested somewhere. Even if it is in the bank, the bank is investing it somewhere. If someone pulls money from his bank account to add a wing to his house he is depriving the bank's borrower of that money--money that would probably be put to more productive uses than building a diminishing resource.
If the gov't gives a tax incentive, they must make up the revenue somewhere else, either taxing someone else or borrowing it from someone, who might use the money to make loans that actually produce something.
Your understanding of the problem is itself the problem. Unfortunately, most of the Obama Administration thinks like you.

Sorry to burst your balloon. I have money sitting around. If there was the right incentive to do so, I'd probably spend it.

The way the economy gets heated up is that money moves through it. The faster it moves, the hotter things get.

If the folks who have the money don't spend it, nothing happens. That is what's happening right now.

Chin up, though. Several of my clients are reporting that they are finding an uptick in their business right now and hiring. We may be coming near the end of the worst of it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Not reading at all?

A tax credit would only require that 1 of the 5 Trillion come from the government. The other up to 4 Trillion would come from people who have the money sitting around, but are not spending it. It's probably too late now since there are no dollars of any type left.

If you are rich and pay allot of tax, your tax rate would allow a greater credit and you could add a wing to the old house and cause a contractor to hire more employees. If you're not so rich and just buy a gallon or two of paint and a couple brushes, someone had to sell them them to you, someone had to stock the shelf, someone had to make the stuff and someone had to deliver it.

Someone had to build the vehicles and the roads to transport these things.

With a tax credit, the spending is incented, the tax dollars are multiplied and the economy moves. A tax credit, in an economy moved to dismal pessimism, that is, this one, only incents people to hold on to the money and wait for the next misdirected false step from the Big 0.

Stupid much?
No one has "money sitting around". THey have money invested somewhere. Even if it is in the bank, the bank is investing it somewhere. If someone pulls money from his bank account to add a wing to his house he is depriving the bank's borrower of that money--money that would probably be put to more productive uses than building a diminishing resource.
If the gov't gives a tax incentive, they must make up the revenue somewhere else, either taxing someone else or borrowing it from someone, who might use the money to make loans that actually produce something.
Your understanding of the problem is itself the problem. Unfortunately, most of the Obama Administration thinks like you.

Sorry to burst your balloon. I have money sitting around. If there was the right incentive to do so, I'd probably spend it.

The way the economy gets heated up is that money moves through it. The faster it moves, the hotter things get.

If the folks who have the money don't spend it, nothing happens. That is what's happening right now.

Chin up, though. Several of my clients are reporting that they are finding an uptick in their business right now and hiring. We may be coming near the end of the worst of it.

Fortunately the economy isn't dependent on the pennies in your piggy bank.
You fail.

 

[code1211]

Stupid much?
No one has "money sitting around". THey have money invested somewhere. Even if it is in the bank, the bank is investing it somewhere. If someone pulls money from his bank account to add a wing to his house he is depriving the bank's borrower of that money--money that would probably be put to more productive uses than building a diminishing resource.
If the gov't gives a tax incentive, they must make up the revenue somewhere else, either taxing someone else or borrowing it from someone, who might use the money to make loans that actually produce something.
Your understanding of the problem is itself the problem. Unfortunately, most of the Obama Administration thinks like you.

Sorry to burst your balloon. I have money sitting around. If there was the right incentive to do so, I'd probably spend it.

The way the economy gets heated up is that money moves through it. The faster it moves, the hotter things get.

If the folks who have the money don't spend it, nothing happens. That is what's happening right now.

Chin up, though. Several of my clients are reporting that they are finding an uptick in their business right now and hiring. We may be coming near the end of the worst of it.

Fortunately the economy isn't dependent on the pennies in your piggy bank.
You fail.

Not me individually, but the millions of me's that there are are not spending too freely right now. House is paid for. Cars are paid for. Everything is paid that's due.

I didn't buy a new hot tub this year. Felt like maybe I should wait a year.

 

[The Rabbi]

fortunately the U.S. economy does not depend on the pennies saved in people's piggy banks. Because that's the only way you have "money sitting around."
Hot tub? Really?

 

[MaggieMae]

That might be the most clueless post of the day.
First off, there is no "multiplier" to gov't spending. None that is more than 1 anyway.
Second, taking money from productive people to give to less productive people to invest in diminishing assets like home improvement will not stimulate anything except waste and fraud.
The only tax cuts that do any good are ones aimed at changing behavior to make people more productive. Thus, cutting marginal tax rates encourages people to work more because they get to keep more of it. Cutting amortization time for purchases of new equipment encourages businesses to buy newer, more efficient equipment. And so on. These are the only tax cuts that will stimulate anything.

So, to be clear, you don't think that pumping 5 Trillion dollars into the economy would boost the economy?

That;'s correct. That's because they cannot "pump" even one dollar into the economy. All they can do is cycle the money from somewhere else. That somewhere else could be using hte money for more productive purposes.

You do know that "money" isn't backed by gold anymore and that the dollar, however it is spent, is simply recycled to someone else's P&L statement. It's how the entire system works these days.

 

[The Rabbi]

So, to be clear, you don't think that pumping 5 Trillion dollars into the economy would boost the economy?

That;'s correct. That's because they cannot "pump" even one dollar into the economy. All they can do is cycle the money from somewhere else. That somewhere else could be using hte money for more productive purposes.

You do know that "money" isn't backed by gold anymore and that the dollar, however it is spent, is simply recycled to someone else's P&L statement. It's how the entire system works these days.

the dollar hasn't been backed by gold since the end of WW1, although traces of it continued up to Nixon's time.
Why you bring up this irrelevant fact is beyond me.

 

[MaggieMae]

If you believe the end of the world as was sold to you 2 years ago it's a small miracle we are back this far.

The dirty little secret is that it was not the end of the world. There was a banking crisis. Nobady had ever seen anything like it. Henry Paulson in explaining why he demanded 787 billion dollars said that he needed a big number to SHOW that the full strength and confidence of the USA Government wqs behind the banking system.

There was no other reason than that for that amount. He had no plan and no budget as is obvious by the way the way the money was spent in the TARP. Even the initial outlays were in varience to the ideas he presented to the Congress.

The Failed Stimulus, which is what the Stimulus needs to be called, was an entirely different thing altogether. A mish mash of politically motivated pay backs and bribes ranging from paying back some of Hillary's campaign expenses to rewarding poitical cronies and supporting government unions and and the UAW.

That money is sacrosanct and cannot be diverted from the planned recipients due to the quid pro quo nature of the deals which caused it.

If the TARP had been conducted and the Government had spent nothing else, we'd be better off now than we are.

As it is, the Failed Stimulus failed and we're broke.

Hey, China, can you spare a dime?

There's more than ample credible evidence that if it were not for the stimulus, many states would have gone bankrupt. While some of the funding to the states was improperly used, in my opinion, that's the fault of the STATE that misappropriated the funds. Additionally, with that amount of money, there were bound to be dumb projects that were not necessary that would slip through the cracks of any oversight. However, the overall concensus is that without the stimulus package (like TARP), we would be in an even more horrific mess. Why? With states going broke, people who relied on their social welfare network would have looked to--you guessed it--the federal government for even more. States about to go under would have had to raise taxes significantly. Prices would rise, rents would go up. Also, I don't care what you people say, some of the jobs that have been created by the stimulus bill, although temporary and paid for in effect by the taxpayer, generated spending power which transends to increased retail sales.

I get tired of linking MY proof that the stimulus has worked to benefit the economy. I'd like to see YOUR proof that the stimulus has failed entirely.

 

[MaggieMae]

That;'s correct. That's because they cannot "pump" even one dollar into the economy. All they can do is cycle the money from somewhere else. That somewhere else could be using hte money for more productive purposes.

You do know that "money" isn't backed by gold anymore and that the dollar, however it is spent, is simply recycled to someone else's P&L statement. It's how the entire system works these days.

the dollar hasn't been backed by gold since the end of WW1, although traces of it continued up to Nixon's time.
Why you bring up this irrelevant fact is beyond me.

Um because YOU were the one that said money is cycled from one place to another and implied that's a bad thing. Or maybe a bad thing only if it isn't cycled into your own favorite programs? It's totally relevant to what you said. I think you're losing it completely. I don't even pretend to be an expert in this field, but you don't seem to even comprehend Code's logical explanations, let alone the technical ones.

 

[The Rabbi]

You do know that "money" isn't backed by gold anymore and that the dollar, however it is spent, is simply recycled to someone else's P&L statement. It's how the entire system works these days.

the dollar hasn't been backed by gold since the end of WW1, although traces of it continued up to Nixon's time.
Why you bring up this irrelevant fact is beyond me.

Um because YOU were the one that said money is cycled from one place to another and implied that's a bad thing. Or maybe a bad thing only if it isn't cycled into your own favorite programs? It's totally relevant to what you said. I think you're losing it completely. I don't even pretend to be an expert in this field, but you don't seem to even comprehend Code's logical explanations, let alone the technical ones.

It's a good thing you don't pretend because you'd fail miserably. Just like you are failing with this supposed point about gold.
I did nto say money is cycled from one place to another. I said government can only cycle money from one place (the more productive) to another (the less productive). Businesses actually build wealth through their economic activity. If you can't understand this then you really dont need to be posting.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[imghttp://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2010/db100704.gif[/img]

you're pathetically funny.

 

[code1211]

If you believe the end of the world as was sold to you 2 years ago it's a small miracle we are back this far.

The dirty little secret is that it was not the end of the world. There was a banking crisis. Nobady had ever seen anything like it. Henry Paulson in explaining why he demanded 787 billion dollars said that he needed a big number to SHOW that the full strength and confidence of the USA Government wqs behind the banking system.

There was no other reason than that for that amount. He had no plan and no budget as is obvious by the way the way the money was spent in the TARP. Even the initial outlays were in varience to the ideas he presented to the Congress.

The Failed Stimulus, which is what the Stimulus needs to be called, was an entirely different thing altogether. A mish mash of politically motivated pay backs and bribes ranging from paying back some of Hillary's campaign expenses to rewarding poitical cronies and supporting government unions and and the UAW.

That money is sacrosanct and cannot be diverted from the planned recipients due to the quid pro quo nature of the deals which caused it.

If the TARP had been conducted and the Government had spent nothing else, we'd be better off now than we are.

As it is, the Failed Stimulus failed and we're broke.

Hey, China, can you spare a dime?

There's more than ample credible evidence that if it were not for the stimulus, many states would have gone bankrupt. While some of the funding to the states was improperly used, in my opinion, that's the fault of the STATE that misappropriated the funds. Additionally, with that amount of money, there were bound to be dumb projects that were not necessary that would slip through the cracks of any oversight. However, the overall concensus is that without the stimulus package (like TARP), we would be in an even more horrific mess. Why? With states going broke, people who relied on their social welfare network would have looked to--you guessed it--the federal government for even more. States about to go under would have had to raise taxes significantly. Prices would rise, rents would go up. Also, I don't care what you people say, some of the jobs that have been created by the stimulus bill, although temporary and paid for in effect by the taxpayer, generated spending power which transends to increased retail sales.

I get tired of linking MY proof that the stimulus has worked to benefit the economy. I'd like to see YOUR proof that the stimulus has failed entirely.

TARP was not a Stimulus. It was intended to bail out the banking industry. It did this. The TARP money has and will come back for the most part, although about 10 to 20% is just plain gone. The first half spent under Bush stabalized the banking industry and the second half spent under the Big 0 stabalized the Union support for the Democrat Party.

All of the Stimulus is gone and DID NOT STIMULATE. If it had stimulated the economy, the tax revenues would have increased due to the accelerated economic activity, the reduced unemployment and the increased profits of companies.

If the Stimulus had stimulated, then the money spent to maintain the Union jobs in the State Governments would not have been neeed.

The Stimulus was a political pay off scheme that did exactly what it was intended to do.

 

[The Rabbi]

Bush extended TARP to the auto makers and then anyone who needed money basically. If they had stayed with the congressional mandate I wouldn't have a problem. But eventually everyone looking for a handout came and got, either under Bush or Obama. It set a terrible precedent.