bacically oreo the same people and the same speed in which the we need to get healthcare passed now. However, because they "guessed" on that one with 787 Billion were only supposed to assume they are not "guessing" with 1.2 Trillion on this one.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Apparently Biden hasn't learned anything about economics if he still says the stimulus is going to "save or create" any amount of jobs, because any job "saved or created" by the stimulus package is going to come at the expense of some other job.
How so? The Stimulus money put in to the economy was money borrowed from foreigners, so what exactly did you mean Kevin by it coming at the expense of some other job? I don't understand?
Care
Well borrowing represents future taxation, and since there is interest on money borrowed it's actually going to cost more for the taxpayers when it is finally taxed. So any money taken out of the private sector through taxation means that the private sector has less money to spend. This means that you're able to see where the stimulus money is going, in public works projects and whatever other nonsense was in the stimulus. But you don't see where the money would have gone had it not been taxed away from the private sector by the government. This means that there is a group that is hurt by the stimulus as large, and probably larger in the end, than the group that benefits from the stimulus package.
How so? The Stimulus money put in to the economy was money borrowed from foreigners, so what exactly did you mean Kevin by it coming at the expense of some other job? I don't understand?
Care
Well borrowing represents future taxation, and since there is interest on money borrowed it's actually going to cost more for the taxpayers when it is finally taxed. So any money taken out of the private sector through taxation means that the private sector has less money to spend. This means that you're able to see where the stimulus money is going, in public works projects and whatever other nonsense was in the stimulus. But you don't see where the money would have gone had it not been taxed away from the private sector by the government. This means that there is a group that is hurt by the stimulus as large, and probably larger in the end, than the group that benefits from the stimulus package.
Considering that the package was supposed to create jobs(this is the hypothetical jobs it was said to create, not the actual goose egg that we have seen so much of) the money would have filtered back into the private sector through government contracts and purchases made by the employees of these contracts.
In other words, the problem would be the debt that would have accued, not the missing "opportunities" that are being surmised. In fact, during recessions, very few opportunities are even realized since the behavior is to wait for better economic conditions, not pissed it away in the economic Tornado.
But since we spent 700 billion dollars and there are no jobs created nor saved, one would have to ask:Where in the hell did the money go?? What did the Democrats spend it on? I smell corruption hidden by the concept of "worst economic conditions". By the way, corruption is worst.
$75,000,000.00 million for a program to end smoking
$400,000,000.00 for researching sexually transmitted diseases
$200,000,000.00 to force the military to buy environmentally-friendly electric cars
$50,000,000.00 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
Where was the concern for paying for healthcare when they were giving money away to study pig farts. The facts are, this bill could have just about funded the entire healthcare debacle for 10 years and not one single Republican voted for this stimulus in the house so who was it that was really working for the American people on this one, and who was it that was diving into the pork barrel?
Well borrowing represents future taxation, and since there is interest on money borrowed it's actually going to cost more for the taxpayers when it is finally taxed. So any money taken out of the private sector through taxation means that the private sector has less money to spend. This means that you're able to see where the stimulus money is going, in public works projects and whatever other nonsense was in the stimulus. But you don't see where the money would have gone had it not been taxed away from the private sector by the government. This means that there is a group that is hurt by the stimulus as large, and probably larger in the end, than the group that benefits from the stimulus package.
Considering that the package was supposed to create jobs(this is the hypothetical jobs it was said to create, not the actual goose egg that we have seen so much of) the money would have filtered back into the private sector through government contracts and purchases made by the employees of these contracts.
In other words, the problem would be the debt that would have accued, not the missing "opportunities" that are being surmised. In fact, during recessions, very few opportunities are even realized since the behavior is to wait for better economic conditions, not pissed it away in the economic Tornado.
But since we spent 700 billion dollars and there are no jobs created nor saved, one would have to ask:Where in the hell did the money go?? What did the Democrats spend it on? I smell corruption hidden by the concept of "worst economic conditions". By the way, corruption is worst.
Yes, the money filters back to the private sector after the government decides where it's supposed to go. This leads to malinvestment because it is the government and not the market dictating demand.
Opportunities, as you call them, are absolutely lost when the government takes money out of the private sector during a recession. Perhaps people don't want to spend as much during the recession so they save their money rather than spending it frivolously. However, the recession is not going to last forever and people will then want to spend the money that they've accumulated. If the government takes away the money that I would otherwise have saved, then I'm unable to spend that money in the future. Which again means that someone has lost business as a result.
Considering that the package was supposed to create jobs(this is the hypothetical jobs it was said to create, not the actual goose egg that we have seen so much of) the money would have filtered back into the private sector through government contracts and purchases made by the employees of these contracts.
In other words, the problem would be the debt that would have accued, not the missing "opportunities" that are being surmised. In fact, during recessions, very few opportunities are even realized since the behavior is to wait for better economic conditions, not pissed it away in the economic Tornado.
But since we spent 700 billion dollars and there are no jobs created nor saved, one would have to ask:Where in the hell did the money go?? What did the Democrats spend it on? I smell corruption hidden by the concept of "worst economic conditions". By the way, corruption is worst.
Yes, the money filters back to the private sector after the government decides where it's supposed to go. This leads to malinvestment because it is the government and not the market dictating demand.
Opportunities, as you call them, are absolutely lost when the government takes money out of the private sector during a recession. Perhaps people don't want to spend as much during the recession so they save their money rather than spending it frivolously. However, the recession is not going to last forever and people will then want to spend the money that they've accumulated. If the government takes away the money that I would otherwise have saved, then I'm unable to spend that money in the future. Which again means that someone has lost business as a result.
First--the money is actually borrowed. In fact, the money comes from selling of treasury notes and what comes from the tax revenue of the current tax rate and nothing of new rates until furhter notice. Now the talk about taking money from the private sector, there are only two ways--increasing taxes or increasing inflation(which may or may not occur) through deficit spending.
But there was a tax cut--implying that we are implementing the deficit spending idea. Which also signifies that money stayed in the private sector, but it has lost value.
Even here there is a problem, since the beginning of the recession, there were DEFLATION fears by many in the private sector. In fact, the drop in home values and the devaluation of credit may have off set inflation.
So there is a chance that inflation may not occur--with the added benefit of tax cuts to keep funds inside the private sectors. The whole theory of removing money through direct or indirect means does not seem to apply in this case.
$75,000,000.00 million for a program to end smoking
$400,000,000.00 for researching sexually transmitted diseases
$200,000,000.00 to force the military to buy environmentally-friendly electric cars
$50,000,000.00 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
Where was the concern for paying for healthcare when they were giving money away to study pig farts. The facts are, this bill could have just about funded the entire healthcare debacle for 10 years and not one single Republican voted for this stimulus in the house so who was it that was really working for the American people on this one, and who was it that was diving into the pork barrel?
Hey pea brain... did the thought ever crack your tiny little pea that environmental abuses at corporate pig farms LED to a swine flu pandemic with the potential of costing America MORE money than the deficit?
Do you understand the word commerce?
Do you understand factors that effect the COST of commerce and goods & services?
Do you only go to the grocery store when you are hungry?
Can you cross the street without an adult?
Yes, the money filters back to the private sector after the government decides where it's supposed to go. This leads to malinvestment because it is the government and not the market dictating demand.
Opportunities, as you call them, are absolutely lost when the government takes money out of the private sector during a recession. Perhaps people don't want to spend as much during the recession so they save their money rather than spending it frivolously. However, the recession is not going to last forever and people will then want to spend the money that they've accumulated. If the government takes away the money that I would otherwise have saved, then I'm unable to spend that money in the future. Which again means that someone has lost business as a result.
First--the money is actually borrowed. In fact, the money comes from selling of treasury notes and what comes from the tax revenue of the current tax rate and nothing of new rates until furhter notice. Now the talk about taking money from the private sector, there are only two ways--increasing taxes or increasing inflation(which may or may not occur) through deficit spending.
But there was a tax cut--implying that we are implementing the deficit spending idea. Which also signifies that money stayed in the private sector, but it has lost value.
Even here there is a problem, since the beginning of the recession, there were DEFLATION fears by many in the private sector. In fact, the drop in home values and the devaluation of credit may have off set inflation.
So there is a chance that inflation may not occur--with the added benefit of tax cuts to keep funds inside the private sectors. The whole theory of removing money through direct or indirect means does not seem to apply in this case.
It absolutely applies. The government only gets its money from the private sector. So eventually the money is going to be taken out of the private sector to pay the debt or deficit.
First--the money is actually borrowed. In fact, the money comes from selling of treasury notes and what comes from the tax revenue of the current tax rate and nothing of new rates until furhter notice. Now the talk about taking money from the private sector, there are only two ways--increasing taxes or increasing inflation(which may or may not occur) through deficit spending.
But there was a tax cut--implying that we are implementing the deficit spending idea. Which also signifies that money stayed in the private sector, but it has lost value.
Even here there is a problem, since the beginning of the recession, there were DEFLATION fears by many in the private sector. In fact, the drop in home values and the devaluation of credit may have off set inflation.
So there is a chance that inflation may not occur--with the added benefit of tax cuts to keep funds inside the private sectors. The whole theory of removing money through direct or indirect means does not seem to apply in this case.
It absolutely applies. The government only gets its money from the private sector. So eventually the money is going to be taken out of the private sector to pay the debt or deficit.
Hold it. How did the government recieve the money from the private sector?
Through taxes or the selling of treasuries? If it was through taxes, was there a tax hike?
If it is through treasuries, did the government force the buyers to take these notes on?
Now, if you are referncing the deficit that will aaccue from the stimulus, then there is one significant problem here: is it better for the government to sit on the side and leave the financial system and private markets alone in the recession. If that is the case, then the government should not cut taxes at all and still sell treasuries to cover any deficits like it has done for the past thirty years. The only difference--higher tax rate yet less treasury sold.
Hey KK--Let me ask you a question
Should the government intercede with the economy, or should it ignore the economy?
It absolutely applies. The government only gets its money from the private sector. So eventually the money is going to be taken out of the private sector to pay the debt or deficit.
Hold it. How did the government recieve the money from the private sector?
Through taxes or the selling of treasuries? If it was through taxes, was there a tax hike?
If it is through treasuries, did the government force the buyers to take these notes on?
Now, if you are referncing the deficit that will aaccue from the stimulus, then there is one significant problem here: is it better for the government to sit on the side and leave the financial system and private markets alone in the recession. If that is the case, then the government should not cut taxes at all and still sell treasuries to cover any deficits like it has done for the past thirty years. The only difference--higher tax rate yet less treasury sold.
It doesn't matter how the government receives the money, whether it's directly or indirectly it's always taken out of the private sector. If it's borrowed from another country then that means the American taxpayer will be taxed to pay that back with interest. If it's directly taxed then that speaks for itself. If it's through inflation then the government simply robs the currency of its value. One way or the other the private sector is on the line for what the government spends.
Yes, it is better for the government to allow the recession to do what it needs to do and allow the market to correct itself. Cutting taxes is always good, but the government needs to significantly cut its spending to go along with the tax cuts.
So basically you just want all Republicans to die. Is that about it?
If they support Democrats, they are Democrats. There's no use in having two democrat parties. We only need one, that's plenty.
You were saying that Rs are fighting with Letterman and not doing their job. When I pointed out they were doing their job, you said they shouldn't do it and if they did it, nobody should listen. Got it! Rabid Dembot.
Typical neocon rhetorical spin here.
America voted a resounding Democratic majority in this time. That means Repubs don't get to demand anything. If they want a voice, they need to start supporting Dem programs even if it is with some intelligent debate of course.
Nobody is going to listen to them whining and obstructing like they are now.
This election was more of a repudiation of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al than an endorsement of any particular Democratic policies per se. We only had two choices.
I'm glad the Republicans are fighting against nationalized health care because I think it would be a huge mistake.
Typical neocon rhetorical spin here.
America voted a resounding Democratic majority in this time. That means Repubs don't get to demand anything. If they want a voice, they need to start supporting Dem programs even if it is with some intelligent debate of course.
Nobody is going to listen to them whining and obstructing like they are now.
This election was more of a repudiation of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al than an endorsement of any particular Democratic policies per se. We only had two choices.
I'm glad the Republicans are fighting against nationalized health care because I think it would be a huge mistake.
A 60 seat senate majority and you think the American people were voting against Bush policies?
They are just now revving up the healthcare debate and you have all the answers already, at least enought to categorically reject it, I see. Your side isn't fighting anything they're just attempting to block any forward movement. In order to fight, they would have to have a plan of their own.
Do you suppose that the Democratic majority is ready to accept Republican plans for healthcare at this point? Rs have proven themselves to be all about obstruction and the antiquated HMO and insurance company mindset.
I don't think they should have a voice either unless they are willing to support Democrats.
So basically you just want all Republicans to die. Is that about it?
If they support Democrats, they are Democrats. There's no use in having two democrat parties. We only need one, that's plenty.
You were saying that Rs are fighting with Letterman and not doing their job. When I pointed out they were doing their job, you said they shouldn't do it and if they did it, nobody should listen. Got it! Rabid Dembot.
Typical neocon rhetorical spin here.
America voted a resounding Democratic majority in this time. That means Repubs don't get to demand anything. If they want a voice, they need to start supporting Dem programs even if it is with some intelligent debate of course.
Nobody is going to listen to them whining and obstructing like they are now.
So basically you just want all Republicans to die. Is that about it?
If they support Democrats, they are Democrats. There's no use in having two democrat parties. We only need one, that's plenty.
You were saying that Rs are fighting with Letterman and not doing their job. When I pointed out they were doing their job, you said they shouldn't do it and if they did it, nobody should listen. Got it! Rabid Dembot.
Typical neocon rhetorical spin here.
America voted a resounding Democratic majority in this time. That means Repubs don't get to demand anything. If they want a voice, they need to start supporting Dem programs even if it is with some intelligent debate of course.
Nobody is going to listen to them whining and obstructing like they are now.
so when repubs were in the majority you of course supported all their programs and you of course kept quiet, didn't whine and obstruct....and of course when the repubs take the majority again, you will sit down and shut up like you expect repubs to do now....
right
Key Quotes from Biden on the StimulusFrom NBC's "Meet the Press":
"No one realized how bad the economy was. The projections, in fact, turned out to be worse. But we took the mainstream model as to what we thought -- and everyone else thought -- the unemployment rate would be."
"Everyone guessed wrong at the time the estimate was made about what the state of the economy was at the moment this was passed."
"The bottom line is that jobs are being created that would not have been there before."
"Can I claim credit that all of that's due to the recovery package? No. But it clearly has had an impact."
i think he was being brutally honest.
Any other politician(like Obama as example or his press secretary) would have glossed it over with sugar much more so imo....
care
everyone guessed wrong ?
kinda like they guessed wrong about Saddam being Osama's alter-ego and him having a stash of Nukes in his closet.
it seems Obama's administration is as adept at making multi-billion dollar wrong guesses as Bush's was.