Stimulus To Solve Unemployment???

[GreenBean]

1. Upon ascending to the presidency, Obama urged his co-conspirators, the Democrat Congress, to spend taxpayer funds to stem unemployment. "The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, with a price tag of $770 billion....In January 2009, the administration projected that passing the bill would bring unemployment to 5 percent by the end of 2013 and ensure that it didn’t surpass 8 percent."
Obama The 2009 Stimulus Package Worked 8216 Despite What Everybody Claims 8217 TheBlaze.com

a. "The real price tag for stimulus: Between $1 trillion and $1.7 trillion"
The real price tag for stimulus Between 1 trillion and 1.7 trillion - The Washington Post




2. The result of that "stimulus" reflects the result of all of Obama's policies: Failure
"In a February 2012 poll from the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, 66 percent of Americans said the federal government is having a negative impact on the way things are going in this country (versus 22 percent who say the impact is positive). A majority disapproves of the president’s 2009 stimulus, and according to a 2010 CNN poll, about three-quarters of Americans believe the money was mostly wasted."
Why the Stimulus Failed National Review Online





3. The reason is that stimulus by the government is a flawed policy when it is designed to cure unemployment. If the government decided a bridge were to be built, the reason behind that decision is monumentally important.

a. If the bridge is based on the public's clamor for better access, or less traffic, or related to transportation, well, this is necessary response, consistent with the functions of government.

b. But...if the bridge is being built "to provide employment," need for a bridge aside, it is merely an invention of a project, and inventing becomes the bureaucrat's function.

4. Consider the argument that building the bridge will provide x number of jobs.....the unspoken belief is that those jobs would not otherwise come into existence. But...where did the money to pay for those jobs come from?
Answer: every dollar given to those bridge workers was taken from other workers in taxes.

So...if the bridge cost $50 million, then $50 million (at least) had to be taken from the economy, from taxpayers.
Bridge illustration taken from "Economics In One Lesson," by Henry Hazlitt



a. And what would have happened to the $50 million had it not been taken?
Right....it would have remained in the economy producing jobs.

a. So...for every 'stimulus' job created by the bridge project, a private job has been destroyed.




The explanation for boondoggles such as Obama's 'Stimulus' is found here:
1. There seem to be only two ironclad rules of government:
Rule no.1: Always try to expand;

Rule no. 2: see Rule no. 1.
Beck, Balfe, “Broke,” p. 115

I must confess - I did not read your entire post initiating this thread . Based on your posting History I would assume it is brilliant and informative as are most of your posts. However - Illegal Immigration I feel is a major issue with unemployment - Illegal Immigrants are taking / stealing Jobs from the American Worker at unprecedented rates. Basically the ruling Class Socio-fascist Liberal elite are replacing the American Worker . **Wry is it that Labor Unions - which are firmly controlled by the Liberal Elite are virtually silent on the issue of Illegal Immigration ?

** No - that's not a typo , although Why would also be appropriate

 

[NYcarbineer]

PC, is this chart representative of the GDP/Domestic product numbers you all believe?

The national debt went up 41% under Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.


1. Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?

1993	4,351,044
1994	4,643,307
1995	4,920,586
1996	5,181,465
1997	5,369,206
1998	5,478,189
1999	5,605,523
2000	5,628,700

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Historical Tables The White House (table 7.1)

The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999

That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!

You graph has nothing to do with the myth that Clinton ran a surplus.

As I have shown, it is one of those Democrat lies.

Maybe you are confusing me with someone else.

The chart I posted was about the deficit and GDP and wondering if it was correct in your opinion.

You graph has nothing to do with the myth that Clinton ran a surplus.

How is it not a surplus if your revenues exceed the spending of the budget for the year?

 

[NYcarbineer]

PC, is this chart representative of the GDP/Domestic product numbers you all believe?

Really? The 1982 to 1990 expansion wasn't possible without Reagan? Reagan's what? Tax cuts? Without the tax cuts it wouldn't have happened?

lol, you're profoundly ignornant.

Bill Clinton RAISED taxes in 1993, and the business expansion that followed for 8 years was bigger and better than the 80's,

starting with the fact that we reduced the deficit instead of increasing it over that time period.

So, again, explain to us why the 80's expansion couldn't have happened without Reagan policies.

The national debt went up 41% under Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.


1. Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?

1993	4,351,044
1994	4,643,307
1995	4,920,586
1996	5,181,465
1997	5,369,206
1998	5,478,189
1999	5,605,523
2000	5,628,700

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Historical Tables The White House (table 7.1)

The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999

That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!

You graph has nothing to do with the myth that Clinton ran a surplus.

As I have shown, it is one of those Democrat lies.

Maybe you are confusing me with someone else.

The chart I posted was about the deficit and GDP and wondering if it was correct in your opinion.

You graph has nothing to do with the myth that Clinton ran a surplus.

Why Did The National Debt Go Up During The Clinton Surplus Years

 

[Toronado3800]

PC, is this chart representative of the GDP/Domestic product numbers you all believe?

The national debt went up 41% under Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.


1. Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?

1993	4,351,044
1994	4,643,307
1995	4,920,586
1996	5,181,465
1997	5,369,206
1998	5,478,189
1999	5,605,523
2000	5,628,700

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Historical Tables The White House (table 7.1)

The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999

That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!

You graph has nothing to do with the myth that Clinton ran a surplus.

As I have shown, it is one of those Democrat lies.

Maybe you are confusing me with someone else.

The chart I posted was about the deficit and GDP and wondering if it was correct in your opinion.

You graph has nothing to do with the myth that Clinton ran a surplus.

Why Did The National Debt Go Up During The Clinton Surplus Years

Ah, accounting is soo exact. Thanks for posting that. Either way its the minimal debt or surplus that counts. To steal from the Clinton era, it feel's like a 16 year old girl's word game to not lie to her boyfriend yet get away with sneaking around.

 

[Toronado3800]

PC, is this chart representative of the GDP/Domestic product numbers you all believe?

Really? The 1982 to 1990 expansion wasn't possible without Reagan? Reagan's what? Tax cuts? Without the tax cuts it wouldn't have happened?

lol, you're profoundly ignornant.

Bill Clinton RAISED taxes in 1993, and the business expansion that followed for 8 years was bigger and better than the 80's,

starting with the fact that we reduced the deficit instead of increasing it over that time period.

So, again, explain to us why the 80's expansion couldn't have happened without Reagan policies.

The national debt went up 41% under Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.


1. Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?

1993	4,351,044
1994	4,643,307
1995	4,920,586
1996	5,181,465
1997	5,369,206
1998	5,478,189
1999	5,605,523
2000	5,628,700

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Historical Tables The White House (table 7.1)

The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999

That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!

You graph has nothing to do with the myth that Clinton ran a surplus.

As I have shown, it is one of those Democrat lies.

Maybe you are confusing me with someone else.

The chart I posted was about the deficit and GDP and wondering if it was correct in your opinion.

You graph has nothing to do with the myth that Clinton ran a surplus.

Lol. Sorry to hurt your feelings by not being the one to talk about that! Not like I was calling folks names though...

I guess that GDP to Deficit chart isn't too controversial or interesting to you then. The GDP chart is kinder to the Reagan deficit stimulus than the raw numbers though, right?

 

[NYcarbineer]

PC, is this chart representative of the GDP/Domestic product numbers you all believe?

Economies expand and contract regardless of presidential policy. It's called the business cycle.

Reagan presided over a very deep recession and a relatively strong recovery. IOW, he presided over a full cycle of the business cycle. It's inevitable propagandizing to claim that the recession wasn't his doing but the recovery was.

The post is utter nonsense, and a fabrication designed to hide both the mistake in electing Obama and Obama's utter incompetency.

Really? The 1982 to 1990 expansion wasn't possible without Reagan? Reagan's what? Tax cuts? Without the tax cuts it wouldn't have happened?

lol, you're profoundly ignornant.

Bill Clinton RAISED taxes in 1993, and the business expansion that followed for 8 years was bigger and better than the 80's,

starting with the fact that we reduced the deficit instead of increasing it over that time period.

So, again, explain to us why the 80's expansion couldn't have happened without Reagan policies.

The national debt went up 41% under Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.


1. Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?

1993	4,351,044
1994	4,643,307
1995	4,920,586
1996	5,181,465
1997	5,369,206
1998	5,478,189
1999	5,605,523
2000	5,628,700

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Historical Tables The White House (table 7.1)

The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999

That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!

You graph has nothing to do with the myth that Clinton ran a surplus.

As I have shown, it is one of those Democrat lies.

Clinton had a budget surplus. The increase in the national debt can be attributed to off budget increases.

 

[NYcarbineer]

. So at least in the most shallow of terms deficit spending in Reagan's era worked.

1) deficit spending can only work to harm an economy, not help it

2) imagine how perfectly stupid and liberal one has to be to think the Reagan administration was a scientific experiment that proved deficit spending works?? Did God hold all the other variables constant? Does a liberal even know what a variable is?

PoliticalChic is the one touting it as a success. Argue with her.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. So at least in the most shallow of terms deficit spending in Reagan's era worked.

1) deficit spending can only work to harm an economy, not help it

2) imagine how perfectly stupid and liberal one has to be to think the Reagan administration was a scientific experiment that proved deficit spending works?? Did God hold all the other variables constant? Does a liberal even know what a variable is?

PoliticalChic is the one touting it as a success. Argue with her.

Reagan Administration was a huge success. The supply sides tax cuts did trigger an economic boom. But supply side tax cuts are very different from demand side tax and spend liberal BS stimulus.

 

[NYcarbineer]

. So at least in the most shallow of terms deficit spending in Reagan's era worked.

1) deficit spending can only work to harm an economy, not help it

2) imagine how perfectly stupid and liberal one has to be to think the Reagan administration was a scientific experiment that proved deficit spending works?? Did God hold all the other variables constant? Does a liberal even know what a variable is?

PoliticalChic is the one touting it as a success. Argue with her.

Reagan Administration was a huge success. The supply sides tax cuts did trigger an economic boom. But supply side tax cuts are very different from demand side tax and spend liberal BS.

They did not trigger an economic boom. Fed easing, lower oil prices, and the natural swing of the business cycle triggered the economic boom.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Fed easing, lower oil prices, and the natural swing of the business cycle triggered the economic boom.

dear, the prime rate was 20% so fed tightened more than ever. Do you know anything?

 

[Toronado3800]

. Fed easing, lower oil prices, and the natural swing of the business cycle triggered the economic boom.

dear, the prime rate was 20% so fed tightened more than ever. Do you know anything?

Is this the right rate chart or is it up for debate? I had a rough idea from memory but any general shape like this could fake me.

 

[NYcarbineer]

. Fed easing, lower oil prices, and the natural swing of the business cycle triggered the economic boom.

dear, the prime rate was 20% so fed tightened more than ever. Do you know anything?

I know that the Fed began easing around August of 1982 which is just about when the economy began to come out of recession.

 

[Samson]

See

Politicalchic Gets Owned

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Fed easing, lower oil prices, and the natural swing of the business cycle triggered the economic boom.

dear, the prime rate was 20% so fed tightened more than ever. Do you know anything?

I know that the Fed began easing around August of 1982 which is just about when the economy began to come out of recession.

too stupid of course!!! they tightened to cut down 20% inflation. When they succeeded they of course eased but it was all about inflation, and had nothing to do with health of economy!

 

[Freemason9]

The modern era of the so-called "economic cycle" has a few striking characteristics. One of them is that every recession--EVERY recession, including Reagan's of th early 80's--is responded to by increasing federal spending. (Reagan used deficit spending to accomplish this.) That, like it or not, CREATES JOBS. As the lubricant of increased cash fow STIMULATES the economy, more jobs are created, more tax revenue is generated, and deficits are reduced.

Except for PoliticalChic, this isn't a magical or ideological concept. IT HAPPENS EVERY TIME.

Hard to imagine how deeply ignorant partisans like PC can be. Just look at the damned stats, for god's sake.

 

[Dad2three]

PC, is this chart representative of the GDP/Domestic product numbers you all believe?

Really? The 1982 to 1990 expansion wasn't possible without Reagan? Reagan's what? Tax cuts? Without the tax cuts it wouldn't have happened?

lol, you're profoundly ignornant.

Bill Clinton RAISED taxes in 1993, and the business expansion that followed for 8 years was bigger and better than the 80's,

starting with the fact that we reduced the deficit instead of increasing it over that time period.

So, again, explain to us why the 80's expansion couldn't have happened without Reagan policies.

The national debt went up 41% under Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.


1. Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?

1993	4,351,044
1994	4,643,307
1995	4,920,586
1996	5,181,465
1997	5,369,206
1998	5,478,189
1999	5,605,523
2000	5,628,700

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Historical Tables The White House (table 7.1)

The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999

That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!

You graph has nothing to do with the myth that Clinton ran a surplus.

As I have shown, it is one of those Democrat lies.

Maybe you are confusing me with someone else.

The chart I posted was about the deficit and GDP and wondering if it was correct in your opinion.

You graph has nothing to do with the myth that Clinton ran a surplus.

Budget Surplus:: More money coming in than going out. Clinton had 4 of those

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

 

[Dad2three]

. So at least in the most shallow of terms deficit spending in Reagan's era worked.

1) deficit spending can only work to harm an economy, not help it

2) imagine how perfectly stupid and liberal one has to be to think the Reagan administration was a scientific experiment that proved deficit spending works?? Did God hold all the other variables constant? Does a liberal even know what a variable is?

PoliticalChic is the one touting it as a success. Argue with her.

Reagan Administration was a huge success. The supply sides tax cuts did trigger an economic boom. But supply side tax cuts are very different from demand side tax and spend liberal BS stimulus.

So cutting taxes at the top from 70% to 50% did it? You know the rate Reagan had for his first 6 years? lol

NOT that his spending helped when he tripled the debt right?

 

[Dad2three]

Ok. When the U.S. government wants to deficit spend they issue bonds, right?

No. When the U S government wants to spend it has the Financial Management Service of the Department of the Treasury make direct deposits to bank accounts and mail out checks. Period. No securities issue is necessary.

Isn't the Deficit measured by treasury securities?

The U.S. Government finances a deficit by borrowing money from a couple different places. 1) U.S. Citizens and corporations in the form of bonds. 2) From themselves by borrowing money from other programs such as Social Security or Medicare 3) From other countries on the open market. Currently 30% of US debt is owned by other countries with China owning the most at about $850 billion.

So when Reagan issued that new debt back in 81 what did it cost us that year?

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444914904577621083163383966.html


Reaganomics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



We should all be so lucky to have this kind of "cost"!

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory


Initially released on September 14, 2012, the study—authored by Thomas Hungerford who is a specialist in public finance at the C.R.S.—correlated the historical fluctuations of the highest income tax rates and tax rates on capital gains dating back to World War II with the economic growth (or lack of the same) that followed.

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

of course thats 100% idiotic and libcommie as if economic growth comes from the poor and low earners. Look at the top 10 venture capital firms in America, for example, and ask yourself if the venture capital that started Google Twitter Facebook Intel etc. came from the poor and low income folks or wealthy and top earners.


See why we have to be 1000% positive that liberalism is based in pure and perfect ignorance.

 

[Dad2three]

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

of course thats 100% idiotic and libcommie as if economic growth comes from the poor and low earners. Look at the top 10 venture capital firms in America, for example, and ask yourself if the venture capital that started Google Twitter Facebook Intel etc. came from the poor and low income folks or wealthy and top earners.


See why we have to be 1000% positive that liberalism is based in pure and perfect ignorance.

ONCE MORE BUBBA

"The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”
Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

Myth #3: Lower taxes are the best way to grow the economy.
No one likes paying higher taxes. But do lower taxes actually spur economic growth? Bruce Bartlett, an economist in the Reagan administration, has compared tax rates in various rich countries in 1979 to each country's growth rate since then. His conclusion? There's virtually no correlation. Recent US history backs this up too.

Myth #6: If you unshackle the rich, they'll rev up the economy.
Think of this as the supermyth—the one underlying so many other fallacies. But here's a pesky fact neither corporate America nor the GOP establishment is trumpeting: After-tax corporate profits are currently at an all-time high. The problem businesses face isn't lack of cash but rather a lack of confidence that consumer demand will pick up in the future. So they're not expanding or hiring at the rate they should be.

Charts 6 Big Economic Myths Debunked Mother Jones


STUDY: These Charts Show There's Almost No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP

These Charts Show There s Probably No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP - Business Insider


Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth (or not)

If you read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal (or surf around the nether regions of Forbes.com), you may come to the conclusion that no aspect of tax policy is more important for economic growth than the way we tax capital gains. You’d be wrong

Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth or not - Forbes