How's that stimulus package working out?

[alan1]

The entire point is that line of attack isn't built on fact, unless you're assuming clairvoyance on the part of economists.

But wasn't the whole concept of the stimulus package built around that very clairvoyance?
Why yes, Mountainman, yes it was.

The reality is, you were sold a pig in a gunny sack and when you opened it up you found a cat. You can still insist it is a pig, and that someday you will be eating ham, but it's still a cat.

No, it wasn't. It was build on the idea that when you have a massive decline in private spending, an increase in public spending can jumpstart production. Notice that the effects on that front are pretty clearly positive. The economy grew in the third quarter lead by tax credits which encouraged the purchase of automobiles and housing. Will those sales keep up once the tax preferences are removed? That is something that can't be answered with certainty. The fact of that matter is, however, that you'd have a hard time arguing that the stimulus is harming the economy (you guys were claiming six months ago that the stimulus would cause the economy to contract at an even faster rate), so instead you've moved to picking statistical nits.

Please find somewhere that I said the stimulus would cause the economy to contract. You are trying to inject a strawman into this discussion.

Oh, and by the way, that supposed "housing credit", wasn't a tax credit at all, it was a loan that will have to be paid back. That's pretty predatory of the government to call a loan a tax credit, don't you think?

I'm not picking statistical nits, I'm pointing out that the government cannot control the economy, it has too many moving parts. They can have some temporary influence over it, but it's going to be hell when the bills come due.

 

[Polk]

Wasn't it Buffet who said the role of economists is to make fortune tellers look good?

Anyway, if the White House with accesss to the best economists in the world cannot make accurate predictions even 6 months down the road, why should we trust them on any prediction they make, including figures for the health care and climate change bills??

The problem here was one of baseline. At the time the projections were made, all of the forecast said that the economy contracted at a 3.8 percent rate in the fourth quarter of 2008. What was the real rate of decline? 6.2 percent. It's pretty hard to make effective predictions when the background data you have is off. It's even more challenging when your background data is off by such a huge margin.

But they revealed none of that, of course.
Again, if they can be off that many measures, why should they be trusted in the future to make accurate predicitions??

Small problem with that argument: they weren't the ones making those measures.

 

[Polk]

But wasn't the whole concept of the stimulus package built around that very clairvoyance?
Why yes, Mountainman, yes it was.

The reality is, you were sold a pig in a gunny sack and when you opened it up you found a cat. You can still insist it is a pig, and that someday you will be eating ham, but it's still a cat.

No, it wasn't. It was build on the idea that when you have a massive decline in private spending, an increase in public spending can jumpstart production. Notice that the effects on that front are pretty clearly positive. The economy grew in the third quarter lead by tax credits which encouraged the purchase of automobiles and housing. Will those sales keep up once the tax preferences are removed? That is something that can't be answered with certainty. The fact of that matter is, however, that you'd have a hard time arguing that the stimulus is harming the economy (you guys were claiming six months ago that the stimulus would cause the economy to contract at an even faster rate), so instead you've moved to picking statistical nits.

Please find somewhere that I said the stimulus would cause the economy to contract. You are trying to inject a strawman into this discussion.

Oh, and by the way, that supposed "housing credit", wasn't a tax credit at all, it was a loan that will have to be paid back. That's pretty predatory of the government to call a loan a tax credit, don't you think?

I'm not picking statistical nits, I'm pointing out that the government cannot control the economy, it has too many moving parts. They can have some temporary influence over it, but it's going to be hell when the bills come due.

First, the government isn't trying to control the economy. The stimulus isn't expanding the powers of government, it's putting some grease on a squeaky wheel.
Second, the first-time home buyer tax credit is not a loan. I don't know where you got that idea for.

 

[alan1]

No, it wasn't. It was build on the idea that when you have a massive decline in private spending, an increase in public spending can jumpstart production. Notice that the effects on that front are pretty clearly positive. The economy grew in the third quarter lead by tax credits which encouraged the purchase of automobiles and housing. Will those sales keep up once the tax preferences are removed? That is something that can't be answered with certainty. The fact of that matter is, however, that you'd have a hard time arguing that the stimulus is harming the economy (you guys were claiming six months ago that the stimulus would cause the economy to contract at an even faster rate), so instead you've moved to picking statistical nits.

Please find somewhere that I said the stimulus would cause the economy to contract. You are trying to inject a strawman into this discussion.

Oh, and by the way, that supposed "housing credit", wasn't a tax credit at all, it was a loan that will have to be paid back. That's pretty predatory of the government to call a loan a tax credit, don't you think?

I'm not picking statistical nits, I'm pointing out that the government cannot control the economy, it has too many moving parts. They can have some temporary influence over it, but it's going to be hell when the bills come due.

First, the government isn't trying to control the economy. The stimulus isn't expanding the powers of government, it's putting some grease on a squeaky wheel.
Second, the first-time home buyer tax credit is not a loan. I don't know where you got that idea for.

I got it from the IRS website,
First-Time Homebuyer Credit Questions and Answers: Homes Purchased in 2008
snip,

Q. When must I pay back the credit for the home I purchased in 2008?

A. For homes purchased in 2008, the first-time homebuyer credit is similar to a 15-year interest-free loan. You must begin repaying the loan the second year after claiming the credit. It is repaid in 15 equal annual installments beginning with the second tax year after the year the credit is claimed.

 

[Polk]

Please find somewhere that I said the stimulus would cause the economy to contract. You are trying to inject a strawman into this discussion.

Oh, and by the way, that supposed "housing credit", wasn't a tax credit at all, it was a loan that will have to be paid back. That's pretty predatory of the government to call a loan a tax credit, don't you think?

I'm not picking statistical nits, I'm pointing out that the government cannot control the economy, it has too many moving parts. They can have some temporary influence over it, but it's going to be hell when the bills come due.

First, the government isn't trying to control the economy. The stimulus isn't expanding the powers of government, it's putting some grease on a squeaky wheel.
Second, the first-time home buyer tax credit is not a loan. I don't know where you got that idea for.

I got it from the IRS website,
First-Time Homebuyer Credit Questions and Answers: Homes Purchased in 2008
snip,

Q. When must I pay back the credit for the home I purchased in 2008?

A. For homes purchased in 2008, the first-time homebuyer credit is similar to a 15-year interest-free loan. You must begin repaying the loan the second year after claiming the credit. It is repaid in 15 equal annual installments beginning with the second tax year after the year the credit is claimed.

Notice the words "purchased in 2008"? The program gave some benefits to people who had purchased a home in the previous year in the form of a loan. The program's actual effect was this year though, and those credit are not subject to repayment.

 

[alan1]

First, the government isn't trying to control the economy. The stimulus isn't expanding the powers of government, it's putting some grease on a squeaky wheel.
Second, the first-time home buyer tax credit is not a loan. I don't know where you got that idea for.

I got it from the IRS website,
First-Time Homebuyer Credit Questions and Answers: Homes Purchased in 2008
snip,

Q. When must I pay back the credit for the home I purchased in 2008?

A. For homes purchased in 2008, the first-time homebuyer credit is similar to a 15-year interest-free loan. You must begin repaying the loan the second year after claiming the credit. It is repaid in 15 equal annual installments beginning with the second tax year after the year the credit is claimed.

Notice the words "purchased in 2008"? The program gave some benefits to people who had purchased a home in the previous year in the form of a loan. The program's actual effect was this year though, and those credit are not subject to repayment.

Yes, that's right, I'm picking nits.
Still looks like a loan to me.

 

[Polk]

I got it from the IRS website,
First-Time Homebuyer Credit Questions and Answers: Homes Purchased in 2008
snip,

Notice the words "purchased in 2008"? The program gave some benefits to people who had purchased a home in the previous year in the form of a loan. The program's actual effect was this year though, and those credit are not subject to repayment.

Yes, that's right, I'm picking nits.
Still looks like a loan to me.

It is for those who received credits for purchases made in 2008. For those making purchases this year (the vast majority of people receiving credits), it's not a loan.

 

[Intense]

November 1st, 2012, President Obama has created or saved 300,000,000 Jobs in the USA. That is the Good News. The not so good news is that Income and assets will be taxed at 100%. We will no longer hold Elections seeing as to in no way be able to improve on the expertness of Obama Leadership. My only regret feeling the tingle running up my leg and the lump in my throat, is that I have only one Life to give. 30 minute Worship services will start at 4:30AM Every Day, and will be every 3 hours until 7:30 PM.

 

[alan1]

Notice the words "purchased in 2008"? The program gave some benefits to people who had purchased a home in the previous year in the form of a loan. The program's actual effect was this year though, and those credit are not subject to repayment.

Yes, that's right, I'm picking nits.
Still looks like a loan to me.

It is for those who received credits for purchases made in 2008. For those making purchases this year (the vast majority of people receiving credits), it's not a loan.

Let's hope that nobody that purchased a home in 2009 leaves it before 3 years passes.

 

[Polk]

Yes, that's right, I'm picking nits.
Still looks like a loan to me.

It is for those who received credits for purchases made in 2008. For those making purchases this year (the vast majority of people receiving credits), it's not a loan.

Let's hope that nobody that purchased a home in 2009 leaves it before 3 years passes.

Without that restriction, the credit would have been abused by people gambling in the market.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I got it from the IRS website,
First-Time Homebuyer Credit Questions and Answers: Homes Purchased in 2008
snip,

Notice the words "purchased in 2008"? The program gave some benefits to people who had purchased a home in the previous year in the form of a loan. The program's actual effect was this year though, and those credit are not subject to repayment.

Yes, that's right, I'm picking nits.
Still looks like a loan to me.

Yes, indeed, you are a wingnut.

 

[alan1]

Notice the words "purchased in 2008"? The program gave some benefits to people who had purchased a home in the previous year in the form of a loan. The program's actual effect was this year though, and those credit are not subject to repayment.

Yes, that's right, I'm picking nits.
Still looks like a loan to me.

Yes, indeed, you are a wingnut.

You might want to talk to your mental health professional about your obsession with me, maybe he can help you.

 

[katelyns_dad]

you guys can argue the details and results of specific programs until the cows come home. why not get back to the REAL baseline polk?

the government has no money to spend unless it takes through taxation (wealth redistribution in this case in the name of 'jump starting the economy') or by creating more by going deeper into debt, which devalues the dollar and leads ultimately to inflation, which is where they REALLY get the money they spend unbridled.

so instead of arguing about the short term effects of programs and policy, why not look back into history at what happens to nations who's governments mess with the money supply? since the federal reserve is not the first central bank in the united states to do so, we could look back relatively recently at what happened with the first few. or if you'd like, we can look farther back at the roman government who thought it wise to shave gold coins and use the shavings to produce more "money".

either way, short sighted theories can't compete with real history. governments that artificially inflate their nations money supply using fiat currency will collapse the economy eventually.