Stimulus To Solve Unemployment???

[Toronado3800]

Let me do some math. Now Reagan's and Obama's debts are all going to cost more in interest but lets say we spend a trillion dollars on something simple and with no positive economic impact on the future like dancers and whores. How many $60,000 a year jobs does that "create" by the time it is spent?

16 million and some change.

Things are slowed if some of the spending is tied up with resources and goods but I believe the effect to be the same. If I buy a trillion dollars of gold that money is first spent on equipment and miners then it trickles out into the sixteen million jobs.

The stimulus could have been a terrible idea. We can judge after we have fun paying it off. For now I beljeve what money was spent in the country just created jobs.

 

[Moonglow]

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

The biggest problem was the stimulus was not big enough...This [stimulus] was only 25 percent or so of the annual budget - See more at: Obama s Stimulus Plan What Worked What Didn t The Fiscal Times

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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?

so liberal then why are you so afraid to present your most substantive example? What does your fear tell you?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The biggest problem was the stimulus was not big enough..

the bigger the stimulus the bigger the tax to pay for it and the more the economy slows. The monkey child cant understand it but still is 100% sure and liberal!

 

[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...

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

I will give you 5 minutes to change your post that you felt the need to put my dead Mother in...before it is reported if not changed, and I suggest you cool your jets..

 

[Moonglow]

The biggest problem was the stimulus was not big enough..

the bigger the stimulus the bigger the tax to pay for it and the more the economy slows. The monkey child cant understand it but still is 100% sure and liberal!

Then why did Reagan raise taxes later on after his so called tax cut plan?

 

[rdean]

Let me do some math. Now Reagan's and Obama's debts are all going to cost more in interest but lets say we spend a trillion dollars on something simple and with no positive economic impact on the future like dancers and whores. How many $60,000 a year jobs does that "create" by the time it is spent?

16 million and some change.

Things are slowed if some of the spending is tied up with resources and goods but I believe the effect to be the same. If I buy a trillion dollars of gold that money is first spent on equipment and miners then it trickles out into the sixteen million jobs.

The stimulus could have been a terrible idea. We can judge after we have fun paying it off. For now I beljeve what money was spent in the country just created jobs.

Oh, Reagan and Obama. Just them.

Course, war paid with credit cards, tax cuts to billionaires without a cost offset, 50,000 factories closed and millions of jobs lost from 2001 to 2008, tens of thousands of young Americans maimed for life and rebuilding other countries had nothing to do with it.

It was all Reagan and Obama.

Yea,

sure it was.

 

[Moonglow]

Let me do some math. Now Reagan's and Obama's debts are all going to cost more in interest but lets say we spend a trillion dollars on something simple and with no positive economic impact on the future like dancers and whores. How many $60,000 a year jobs does that "create" by the time it is spent?

16 million and some change.

Things are slowed if some of the spending is tied up with resources and goods but I believe the effect to be the same. If I buy a trillion dollars of gold that money is first spent on equipment and miners then it trickles out into the sixteen million jobs.

The stimulus could have been a terrible idea. We can judge after we have fun paying it off. For now I beljeve what money was spent in the country just created jobs.

Oh, Reagan and Obama. Just them.

Course, war paid with credit cards, tax cuts to billionaires without a cost offset, 50,000 factories closed and millions of jobs lost from 2001 to 2008, tens of thousands of young Americans maimed for life and rebuilding other countries had nothing to do with it.

It was all Reagan and Obama.

Yea,

sure it was.

We can pay to rebuild Iraq, but not Detroit...

 

[gipper]

name me one government that does not spend other peoples money?

Well then that just says it all...let's just keep it going....right?

 

[Moonglow]

name me one government that does not spend other peoples money?

Well then that just says it all...let's just keep it going....right?

If we want to keep our current status as a super power it is a necessity..if we ever do stop, it will be worse...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

We can pay to rebuild Iraq, but not Detroit...

dear, Detroit is 97% liberal so cant be rebuilt any more than the USSR can be rebuilt. BWM just build their largest plant in the world in South Carolina, not Detroit, because there are no liberal unions there.

Is that really over your head?

 

[gipper]

name me one government that does not spend other peoples money?

Well then that just says it all...let's just keep it going....right?

If we want to keep our current status as a super power it is a necessity..if we ever do stop, it will be worse...

\Why?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Then why did Reagan raise taxes later on after his so called tax cut plan?

dear Reagan was for lowering taxes. It was liberals who wanted to raise taxes. What planet have you been on?

 

[Moonglow]

We can pay to rebuild Iraq, but not Detroit...

dear, Detroit is 97% liberal so cant be rebuilt any more than the USSR can be rebuilt. BWM just build their largest plant in the world in South Carolina, not Detroit, because there are no liberal unions there.

Is that really over your head?

China has made all US companies in China (even Wal Mart) unionize, it hasn't ruined their profit margin...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

We can pay to rebuild Iraq, but not Detroit...

dear, Detroit is 97% liberal so cant be rebuilt any more than the USSR can be rebuilt. BWM just build their largest plant in the world in South Carolina, not Detroit, because there are no liberal unions there.

Is that really over your head?

China has made all US companies in China (even Wal Mart) unionize, it hasn't ruined their profit margin...

Over the past decade, China has been an attractive destination for global corporations due to its low wage rates and labor laws that disallow independent trade unions and limit the right to strike.

 

[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.

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...

I buried you earlier...now you're back! What are you, some sort of Liberal zombie???
Gonna have to bury you again!

"The Stimulus also had the less than desired affect because of GOP obstructionism...."

So....is there an obstructurist GOP in every country?

No?
Then how do you explain this:

12. Japan tried eight fiscal-stimulus plans in the 1990s and early 2000s to end a nearly two-decade long depression that began in 1991. “Keynesian ‘pump-priming’ in a recession has often been tried, and as an economic stimulus it is overrated.”
(“Barak Obama-san”, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122938932478509075.html)

And the result of these enormous public-works programs? In 1991, the Nikkei was at 30,000; by 2000, after spending $1.4 trillion in today’s dollars on stimulus programs, the Nikkei was at 12,000.


a. And how successful was the FDR stimulus?In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.”


b. In 1931, in some of the darkest days of the Great Depression and the middle of the Hoover administration, unemployment rate stood at 17.4 %. Seven years later, after five years of FDR, and literally hundred s of wildly ambitious new government programs, more than doubling of federal spending, the national unemployment rate stood at – 17.4 %. At no point during the 1930’s did unemployment go below 14 %. Even in 1941, in the midst of the military buildup, 9.9 % of American workers were unemployed.
Andrew Wilson is right: the New Deal did not end the Great Depression ("Five Myths About the Great Depression," November 4).


c. No less an authority than FDR's Treasury secretary and close friend, Henry Morganthau, conceded this fact to Congressional Democrats in May 1939: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong ... somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And an enormous debt to boot!"
http://www.burtfolsom.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/Morgenthau.pdf





13. But, hey...but how could Obama have known all of this???

Here's how: he hired Christina Romer as the Obama chief economic advisor...what was her perspective?


“…multiple studies have shown, government spending has little stimulative value. One of those studies was done by Obama’s new chief economic adviser, Christina Romer of UC Berkeley, who found $3 in increased Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for every $1 in tax cuts. Increased spending generates at best a mere 40 cents of GDP growth on the dollar. Third, that 40 cents actually goes to special interests like labor unions, politically influential contractors in favored industries and state and local political allies of the party in power.”
The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks [PDF], April 2009. American Economic Review, forthcoming.



Bottom line....Obama knew....Liberal elites know.
They have other reasons to support government spending.....and those reasons don't include solving recessions, unemployment, or poverty.


But dopes who buy their lies.....they keep defending wasteful spending by big government no matter what logic, experience and research show.
True?
Raise your paw.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I buried you earlier...now you're back! What are you, some sort of Liberal zombie???
Gonna have to bury you again!

I like that term! Yes liberals are very much like Zombies. They know they are stupid. They don't care that you are more intelligent. When they are proved wrong it does not matter to them because reason does not matter to them. Were it Germany USSR or Red China they would be following Hitler Stalin and Mao. Its human nature. World history proves that most people don't think most of the time.

 

[sameech]

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...

Or you could just support policies that encourage domestic production of good consumed domestically and say to hell with exports and imports.

 

[Toronado3800]

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...

I buried you earlier...now you're back! What are you, some sort of Liberal zombie???
Gonna have to bury you again!

"The Stimulus also had the less than desired affect because of GOP obstructionism...."

So....is there an obstructurist GOP in every country?

No?
Then how do you explain this:

12. Japan tried eight fiscal-stimulus plans in the 1990s and early 2000s to end a nearly two-decade long depression that began in 1991. “Keynesian ‘pump-priming’ in a recession has often been tried, and as an economic stimulus it is overrated.”
(“Barak Obama-san”, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122938932478509075.html)

And the result of these enormous public-works programs? In 1991, the Nikkei was at 30,000; by 2000, after spending $1.4 trillion in today’s dollars on stimulus programs, the Nikkei was at 12,000.


a. And how successful was the FDR stimulus?In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.”


b. In 1931, in some of the darkest days of the Great Depression and the middle of the Hoover administration, unemployment rate stood at 17.4 %. Seven years later, after five years of FDR, and literally hundred s of wildly ambitious new government programs, more than doubling of federal spending, the national unemployment rate stood at – 17.4 %. At no point during the 1930’s did unemployment go below 14 %. Even in 1941, in the midst of the military buildup, 9.9 % of American workers were unemployed.
Andrew Wilson is right: the New Deal did not end the Great Depression ("Five Myths About the Great Depression," November 4).


c. No less an authority than FDR's Treasury secretary and close friend, Henry Morganthau, conceded this fact to Congressional Democrats in May 1939: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong ... somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And an enormous debt to boot!"
http://www.burtfolsom.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/Morgenthau.pdf





13. But, hey...but how could Obama have known all of this???

Here's how: he hired Christina Romer as the Obama chief economic advisor...what was her perspective?


“…multiple studies have shown, government spending has little stimulative value. One of those studies was done by Obama’s new chief economic adviser, Christina Romer of UC Berkeley, who found $3 in increased Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for every $1 in tax cuts. Increased spending generates at best a mere 40 cents of GDP growth on the dollar. Third, that 40 cents actually goes to special interests like labor unions, politically influential contractors in favored industries and state and local political allies of the party in power.”
The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks [PDF], April 2009. American Economic Review, forthcoming.



Bottom line....Obama knew....Liberal elites know.
They have other reasons to support government spending.....and those reasons don't include solving recessions, unemployment, or poverty.


But dopes who buy their lies.....they keep defending wasteful spending by big government no matter what logic, experience and research show.
True?
Raise your paw.

Hey, how does a stimulus retard an economy in the short term 3-5 year terms we are talking about?

 

[Toronado3800]

The biggest problem was the stimulus was not big enough..

the bigger the stimulus the bigger the tax to pay for it and the more the economy slows. The monkey child cant understand it but still is 100% sure and liberal!

Ey, quit talking bad about Ronald's recovery. Lol. Welcome back Ed. I do agree about the eventual tax to pay for it problem.

In the short 3-5 year term how did the Reagan plan or the Bush/Obama plan of deficit spending hurt the economy?