Stimulus To Solve Unemployment???

[MisterBeale]

While I agree that Stimulus doesn't work it's not fair to say it's an Obama Policy.

It's a Banker Policy. The Privately Owned Federal Reserve's Policy.

Which at last count is roughly 7.7 Trillion of which only 75 Billion has been paid back.

No....it is a big government, Leftwing enterprise...

But you're correct....it doesn't work

The best approach for supporting the Stimulus, it seems...is to lie:
And when the projections fall short: “The number of jobs in the U.S. is currently 129.7 million. So to justify the Administration’s current claim of 2.8 million jobs “created or saved” by stimulus, they need to also claim that without that stimulus there would be only 126.9 million jobs.
That’s exactly what they do, displayed as the “baseline projection” level in the graphic below from an April 14, 2010 report.

An inconvenient truth, at least for the Obama Administration, is that once upon a time, in their January 2009 Romer/Bernstein Report they told America that without their stimulus there would be 133.9 million jobs. That’s right, in order to make it look like their stimulus has “created or saved” 2.8 million jobs, the Obama Administration first had to whack 7 million jobs from their previous estimates.” Breitbart News Big Government



5. So...of the two pillars of support for government projects:
a) that they create jobs....
b) and the suggestion that they create wealth that would not otherwise be produced.
Both are false, basically because neither for considers the cost of taxation.

a. The taxes required for large government projects destroy as many jobs in other areas of the economy as it creates for the project. One must use the 'eye of imagination' to see the unbuilt private homes, the unmade kitchen appliances, and the lack of other numerous goods and services.


6. Fighting for the truth is an immense task, for several reasons. First, any objections will be labeled 'obstructionist,' or 'reactionary.' Even more importantly, the bridge or the completed government project can be seen, as can the bridge workers....but the real costs, and damage to the economy, must be seen in the eye of imaging: only those educated to look beyond the surface will see it.

The argument for these government stimulus projects reminds of a line from George Bernard Shaw's "Saint Joan"...."What an utter fool! Couldn't he use his eyes?"


No....not eyes. Brains.

Actually, you're both correct. Any time Debt is created, the problem exists. Currently, the private banking cartel makes a profit off of the public, and the government shirks it's responsibility and creates even MORE debt by borrowing. However, even if we had a currency that was issued by the government, if there was nothing to back it up? If the government could still print as much as it wanted and issue it's own bonds, borrowing at public trust. . ? But then we would have a problem of going into debt much worse for partisan projects.

Politicians can still use Fractional Reserve Banking, with or without a cartel, it just works better when it's privatized. As we've seen over the last century though, it only works well for the top 10%, and it only works if you want to create a global government and destroy the nation.

Nope, the only solution is to do away with it altogether.

One argument posits that since debt and the interest on the debt can only be paid in the same form of money, the total debt (principal plus interest) can never be paid in a debt-based monetary system unless more money is created through the same process.[132][133][134] For example: if 100 credits are created and loaned into the economy at 10% per year, at the end of the year 110 credits will be needed to pay the loan and extinguish the debt. However, since the additional 10 credits do not yet exist, they too must be borrowed into existence to pay off the interest on the previous loan. To some, this implies that the money supply must grow exponentially at the same rate as economic growth and compounding debt in order for the monetary system to remain solvent, as economic activity would be stifled with a static volume of money when interest became due, because in a static-money world no new money could be found to be taken out of circulation to allow debtors to pay outstanding interest to creditors.[41][92][135][136][137]

Others argue that there is in fact no mathematical necessity for the stock of money in a debt-based system to grow, as the "turnover" or "flow" or "velocity" of money can increase to allow for compounding interest payments.[138][139][140][141][142] However this does imply that economic growth would need to be positive to allow the fixed stock of money to turnover sufficiently to pay for the interest compounding on top of the debt.[143][144][145][146] This may mean that Ponzi-like dynamics bubble up in "pockets" of the economy with interest payments being allowed in a fixed money economy, but these debt-fuelled bubbles of higher spending or speculation would pop and die out relatively quickly as there would be no central bank to keep the bubbles alive with further money creation.[147][148][149]

Gold, silver and other precious metals have in the past been used as money.[150] Because of the difficulty in increasing the supply of precious metals quickly, some monetary reformers believe a return to the gold standard, or a similar system of "hard" or "real" asset-backed currency, is the only way to stabilize the growth of the money supply. These monetary reformers often refer to the gold standard and silver standard as "sound money" or "honest money".[151][152]

Main criticisms
In a 2003 statement to the U.S. House of Representatives, Ron Paul stated "if unchecked, the economic and political chaos that comes from currency destruction inevitably leads to tyranny".[153]

Some economic thinkers (primarily members of the Austrian School) and political commentators believe that a debt-based monetary system amounts to a subtle form of monetary "fraud" in that it creates money "costlessly" through the use of fractional-reserve banking techniques.[154][155]

Michael Rowbotham is an active proponent of monetary reform, and argues that this system of money supply is perverse and inherently monopolistic and "anti-democratic", as it creates an inflationary exponential growth imperative in the economy which leads to over-centralization and environmentally damaging and unstable over-consumption. Critics such as Rowbotham argue that the indebted are forced to induce new consumers to spend their way into debt so existing loans can be repaid with new debt-created money. Failure to achieve this goal results in foreclosure for those businesses and insolvency in the banking system that leads to economic collapse due to the sudden contraction of the money supply.[41][156] This failure is inevitable due to the fact that, eventually, debt-saturated businesses and governments will no longer be able to force individuals into further debt due to the fact that they are already debt-saturated themselves. Once this point is reached, economic collapse is inevitable without wholesale debt repudiation.

Criticism of fractional reserve banking - Mises Wiki the global repository of classical-liberal thought

"Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves."
~Norm Franz

 

[Dot Com]

China has been using stimulus funds to help their economy and it's working, but then again they don't have to deal with evangelical repubs...

^ that

 

[Dot Com]

We need another massive spending spree like Reagan did to help unemployment....

yep. Reagan (R) set the benchmark for spending like a drunken sailor lol

 

[Moonglow]

We need another massive spending spree like Reagan did to help unemployment....

yep. Reagan (R) set the benchmark for spending like a drunken sailor lol

The grain embargo hurt Okiehoma, then when Reagan deregulated oil and the price dropped it double whammied the OK economy. I was lucky that Reagan spent so much so I could go on active duty in the Army...

 

[PoliticalChic]

He shoulda gave the US taxpayers the dough instead of the G-D rich people, like when Boosh did it twice during his presidency.
Believe me when I say, I was livid when they said the rich needed to be saved...

You certainly are a compendium of incorrect information.

"President Bush and his Congressional Republican majorities at the time cut taxes for everyone in the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Indeed, they cut more for lower and middle income taxpayers than they did for “the rich,” as Obama calls the nation’s job creators, investors, and successful small businesses. The top tax rate was cut by only 13%, while the lowest rate was cut by one-third, 33%."
Why America Is Going To Miss The Bush Tax Cuts - Forbes


But I see your motivations: why waste time on research and knowledge when you could be spending it posting, and have the greatest number of posts again!

Good luck.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well, there is our blessing for the day: the far right wingers are not in charge of the economy.

"....our blessing for the day...."

"Insolvency milepost: Debt accumulated under Obama sails past $7 trillion"
Insolvency milepost Debt accumulated under Obama sails past 7 trillion Hot Air


You know, it really isn't necessary for you to re-establish that you are an imbecile every single day...
...the impression is a lasting one.

Take a day off.

Tell us what our wealth has grown too in the last six years, bright eyes.

Hiding in your little kitchen in your little flat with only this do. Sad to be you.

Good to see you running away from you insane post, that Leftwing economic policies have been "....our blessing for the day...."


I love making you retreat.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The post has to do with the economic packages, which the GOP in 2008 and 2009 supported. Leftwing to you, PC, is anybody left of Ted Cruz or Mike Lee.

In fact the Dems, not even discussing the Pubs, all are to the right of JFK, LBJ, Nixon and Carter. Reagan is to the left of the hard right wing today.

The cultural McCarthyis cards you are playing are worthless.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The post has to do with the economic packages, which the GOP in 2008 and 2009 supported. Leftwing to you, PC, is anybody left of Ted Cruz or Mike Lee.

In fact the Dems, not even discussing the Pubs, all are to the right of JFK, LBJ, Nixon and Carter. Reagan is to the left of the hard right wing today.

The cultural McCarthyis cards you are playing are worthless.

Actually, the thread shows the abject failure of Keynesian stimulus trickery.

I understand why it is difficult for you to keep an idea in mind.....I've seen your posts.

 

[Moonglow]

But madame, you are wrong. The $50 million is not taken from the economy, it is borrowed from the future. All we have to pay right now is the interest on the bonds. For all practical purposes it is "created."

Like it or not, the doomsayers who have claimed that all this debt would drown the federal government have been proven - shall we say - pessimistic.

I hate Paul Krugman and everything he says, but maybe he's right. We are further into debt than anyone could have even imagined ten years ago and the sky has not fallen.

The sky hasn't fallen but other things have:
View attachment 32282

How else do you, get more exports of your product? Lower the value of the dollar, thus more exports and less imports...

 

[PoliticalChic]

China has been using stimulus funds to help their economy and it's working, but then again they don't have to deal with evangelical repubs...

It appears that post #17, revealing that the Stimulus had a far from salutary effect.....really took the wind out of your sails, huh?



You didn't like including Canada there, I guess.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

China has been using stimulus funds to help their economy and it's working, but then again they don't have to deal with evangelical repubs...

yes of course!! when govt taxes and spends it is stimulative and magical but when people earn and spend it is not. See why we are 100% positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance!

A liberal is no better than a monkey or child who belives in magic. To prove it they demonstrate no need to refute the logic.

 

[Moonglow]

China has been using stimulus funds to help their economy and it's working, but then again they don't have to deal with evangelical repubs...

yes of course!! when govt taxes and spends it is stimulative and magical but when people earn and spend it is not. See why we are 100% positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance!

A liberal is no better than a monkey or child who belives in magic. To prove it they demonstrate no need to refute the logic.

I am glad you have come to your senses and outed Reagan as a liberal....Along with da Bush's...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

China has been using stimulus funds to help their economy and it's working, but then again they don't have to deal with evangelical repubs...

yes of course!! when govt taxes and spends it is stimulative and magical but when people earn and spend it is not. See why we are 100% positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance!

A liberal is no better than a monkey or child who belives in magic. To prove it they demonstrate no need to refute the logic.

I am glad you have come to your senses and outed Reagan as a liberal....Along with da Bush's...

the liberal monkey child has to change the subject because as a liberal he lacks the IQ to address the subject.

 

[Moonglow]

China has been using stimulus funds to help their economy and it's working, but then again they don't have to deal with evangelical repubs...

It appears that post #17, revealing that the Stimulus had a far from salutary effect.....really took the wind out of your sails, huh?



You didn't like including Canada there, I guess.

Why, did you miss Canada at anytime?

The Stimulus also had the less than desired affect because of GOP obstructionism and tunnel vision on the ACA...Much of the stimulus was in tax reductions, which is another reason it didn't work as well.It should have been modeled on Reagan or Bush's stimulus programs that allowed the govt. to spend money to spur the economy...

 

[Moonglow]

China has been using stimulus funds to help their economy and it's working, but then again they don't have to deal with evangelical repubs...

It appears that post #17, revealing that the Stimulus had a far from salutary effect.....really took the wind out of your sails, huh?



You didn't like including Canada there, I guess.

Why, did you miss Canada at anytime?

The Stimulus also had the less than desired affect because of GOP obstructionism and tunnel vision on the ACA...Much of the stimulus was in tax reductions, which is another reason it didn't work as well.It should have been modeled on Reagan or Bush's stimulus programs that allowed the govt. to spend money to spur the economy...

China has been using stimulus funds to help their economy and it's working, but then again they don't have to deal with evangelical repubs...

yes of course!! when govt taxes and spends it is stimulative and magical but when people earn and spend it is not. See why we are 100% positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance!

A liberal is no better than a monkey or child who belives in magic. To prove it they demonstrate no need to refute the logic.

I am glad you have come to your senses and outed Reagan as a liberal....Along with da Bush's...

the liberal monkey child has to change the subject because as a liberal he lacks the IQ to address the subject.

Reagan raised taxes and spent massive amounts on the military, cause unemployment was increasing...his tax cuts just weren't cutting it in helping the economy. His tax reduction was only good for upper incomes, for the poor it was a tax increase...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Reagan raised taxes and spent massive amounts on the military, cause unemployment was increasing.....

100% stupid of course, Reagan spend on the military to save the world from nuclear anniliation and free 2 billion people. For the 100th time monkey child: when the govt taxes it is destimulative, when the govt spends it is stimulative so no net benefit is possible. Why not ask your mother or teacher to explain? Ask if she thinks you have the IQ to grasp the concept?

 

[rdean]

Stimulus is used to kick-start the economy, not to solve unemployment dum dum.

Stimulus is used by every country in the world and it's universally understood. Except, apparently, but ignorant right wingers.

Damn them.

China growth picks up as stimulus kicks in more support may be needed Reuters

Russia Economic Stimulus Package Economy Watch

Brazil
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b498bc4c-e6e4-11e1-965b-00144feab49a.html#axzz3EMV1XT2N

Indian economic stimulus package Economy Watch

Japan unveils 117 billion stimulus package - Jan. 10 2013

 

[PoliticalChic]

Stimulus is used to kick-start the economy, not to solve unemployment dum dum.

Stimulus is used by every country in the world and it's universally understood. Except, apparently, but ignorant right wingers.

Damn them.

China growth picks up as stimulus kicks in more support may be needed Reuters

Russia Economic Stimulus Package Economy Watch

Brazil
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b498bc4c-e6e4-11e1-965b-00144feab49a.html#axzz3EMV1XT2N

Indian economic stimulus package Economy Watch

Japan unveils 117 billion stimulus package - Jan. 10 2013

"Stimulus is used to kick-start the economy, not to solve unemployment dum dum."

Not a day goes by that you don't claim the title of 'least educated poster.'

What, exactly, do you believe (I almost wrote 'think') a 'kick started' economy would mean for employment?



Here, fool:

"Indeed, President Obama's stimulus bill failed by its own standards. In a January 2009 report, White House economists predicted that the stimulus bill would create (not merely save) 3.3 million net jobs by 2010. Since then, 3.5 million more net jobs have been lost, pushing the unemployment rate above 10 percent.[1] The fact that government failed to spend its way to prosperity is not an isolated incident:"
Failure of Obama Stimulus Package Stimulating Economic Growth

 

[Moonglow]

He shoulda gave the US taxpayers the dough instead of the G-D rich people, like when Boosh did it twice during his presidency.
Believe me when I say, I was livid when they said the rich needed to be saved...

You certainly are a compendium of incorrect information.

"President Bush and his Congressional Republican majorities at the time cut taxes for everyone in the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Indeed, they cut more for lower and middle income taxpayers than they did for “the rich,” as Obama calls the nation’s job creators, investors, and successful small businesses. The top tax rate was cut by only 13%, while the lowest rate was cut by one-third, 33%."
Why America Is Going To Miss The Bush Tax Cuts - Forbes


But I see your motivations: why waste time on research and knowledge when you could be spending it posting, and have the greatest number of posts again!

Good luck.

I was talking about Bush's cash stimulus plans. Did you never get any of the two checks sent out? Or are you to young to remember?

 

[rdean]

Stimulus is used to kick-start the economy, not to solve unemployment dum dum.

Stimulus is used by every country in the world and it's universally understood. Except, apparently, but ignorant right wingers.

Damn them.

China growth picks up as stimulus kicks in more support may be needed Reuters

Russia Economic Stimulus Package Economy Watch

Brazil
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b498bc4c-e6e4-11e1-965b-00144feab49a.html#axzz3EMV1XT2N

Indian economic stimulus package Economy Watch

Japan unveils 117 billion stimulus package - Jan. 10 2013

"Stimulus is used to kick-start the economy, not to solve unemployment dum dum."

Not a day goes by that you don't claim the title of 'least educated poster.'

What, exactly, do you believe (I almost wrote 'think') a 'kick started' economy would mean for employment?



Here, fool:

"Indeed, President Obama's stimulus bill failed by its own standards. In a January 2009 report, White House economists predicted that the stimulus bill would create (not merely save) 3.3 million net jobs by 2010. Since then, 3.5 million more net jobs have been lost, pushing the unemployment rate above 10 percent.[1] The fact that government failed to spend its way to prosperity is not an isolated incident:"
Failure of Obama Stimulus Package Stimulating Economic Growth

To me, "solve" is a little more permanent than a "boost".

Oh shit. You made me go look at the dumb fucking article from the most ignorant group alive, that scum sucking Heritage Foundation. Do you know how many times they had to scrub their own site of their nonsense after being mocked, laughed at and or proven wrong?

Google