Suddenly there are talks of another stimulus. Wonder why? Look inside...

[Remodeling Maidiac]

If there is another stimulus package..I hope republicans don't touch it.

It should go to infrastructure repair, upgrading the energy sector and building high speed rail. Not tax cuts.

^^^ All UNION JOBS^^^

You made my point for me.

 

[Jarhead]

Hey...Dontbestupid..

Going back to the topic at hand....

Let me ask you a question....

If you were in debt.....and your income did not meet your expenses to run your household....would you borrow money to re-do your kitchens and bathrooms?

 

[Jarhead]

You are all aware that the money we wopuld use for a stimulus is ours....the taxpayers....well...borrowed...but a debt of the tax payers...

So in essence...

It is like all of us having a debt issue and a deficit issue...yet all of us opting to borrow money to re-do our kitchens and bathrooms..

Afterall...if we ALL did that....millions of people would be put to work.

Isnt that the same as the stimulus you are suggesting?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The hell its not.... Our currency has inflated 5% since 2008..

Inflation Calculator | Find US Dollar's Value from 1913-2011



Its econ 101, microeconomics.



Really, so if you want a hole dug and some joe said he would do it for 10 bucks, you would go with the union guy who said he'd do it for 40 just because you support unions??

That be a waste of money no??? you would be going against microeconomics.

I suppose one person doing it would have no effect, however doing it on a grand scale while borrowing the money to do it will.....

Its more complicated than that, however I'm in no mood, nor do I feel like writing a thesis at this time.



Which the taxpayers have to pay back - yes you did TAKE MONEY FROM MY UNBORN CHILDREN AND MYSELF DUMMY!!!!!!

OF COURSE YOU THINK LOANS ARE FREE MONEY LIKE EVERY PROGRESSIVE...




Once again you prove you dont know a fucking thing about economics.

I'm not talking about macroeconomics - I'm talking about microeconomics. I'm talking about the basic principals of supply and demand from the bottom up.. From the consumer to the top...

Microeconomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just for arguments sake, your ignorance is limitless.

Macroeconomics
The subdivision of the discipline of economics that studies and strives to explain the functioning of the economy as a whole -- the total output of the economy, the overall level of employment or unemployment, movements in the average level of prices (inflation or deflation), total savings and investment, total consumption and so on. The focus of much of macroeconomic theory is analysis of the ways in which conscious government policies (and the unintended secondary consequences of these policies) can influence the overall "economic health" of the country for good and for ill.

Microeconomics
The subdivision of the discipline of economics that studies the behavior of individual households and firms interacting through markets, how prices and levels of output of individual products are determined in these markets, the interconnections by which different markets affect each other, and how the price mechanism allocates resources and distributes income.

Defintions supplied by: A Glossary of Political Economy Terms - Dr. Paul M. Johnson

And who determines the price and demand for product and services???

The fucking consumer... The consumer is generally frugal..

Now, the government is borrowing money from China, giving it to states which in turn hire UNIONS to do projects, and public sector unions which makeup the state public sector...

These unions make inflated wages based on demands - not on supply and demand.

Our government is taking taxpayer dollars and spending that money lavishly on their voting base, which ignores supply and demand principals, hence inflating currency..

The dollar inflates because the private sector taxpayer is paying for services that don't base their market value on supply and demand principals - only demands.

You obviously don't understand capitalism..

So prove what you say. All I'm reading are profane anti-union obsessions. Do you think paying for the Iraq fiasco and the Afghanistan adventure off budget and printing money had an impact on inflation?

Are our troops union members demanding and receiving high wages? One might easily blame the spouses of the troops accepting government largess in terms of food stamps and housing.

There is no demand because demand implies the consumer has money to spend.

Cuting government will increase the number of unemployed, for much of the cost of government is wages and benefits.

Cuting taxes reduces revenue and since debt service is manditory other expenditures will be reduced. Since the Fedral Government is major consumer reduction will harm small and medium business across the nation.

In response to Jarhead I might not borrow money for a kitchen or bathroom remodel; but if I needed a roof I most certainly borrow for that purpose.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Uhm, what? We got out of the Great Depression by implementing massive borrowing and spending on production jobs. Perhaps you heard of this? It was called WW2.

So, you didn't quite make it through that econ 101 class, huh?

Stimulus was attempted from the end of the Hoover administration through the first two Roosevelt terms, not only in the USA, but also in Europe. The only valid description of these efforts is "abysmal failure." The Keynesian stimulus exasperated and prolonged the depression. A business cycle was engorged into a decade long cataclysm.

A war economy is not based on stimulus, but on massive reduction in the workforce. Shipping most of the able bodied workers off to foreign lands has the odd effect of opening positions on the home front. Traditionally, war economies are unsustainable, given that the manufacture of munitions is no longer required, once the war is over. Obviously, an industrial-military complex leveraged the war economy well past it's useful life, but this has nothing to do with Keynesian multipliers.

To point to a war economy as support for Kernesian stimulus is sheer ignorance. I don't think even Paul Krugman would spew that type of stupidity.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I think we need a boxing ring for these 2. I can sell tix and we can use the proceeds to pay down the debt.

I mean seriously from a stimulus debate to banter mostly full of insults. I did not graduate college but I don't think that that or some crazy degree is needed to know that another stimulus is a huge mistake. I'm sorry that I can't compete with some of you in the I'm smarter than you dept but I don't think that really matters. I've run a small business for 22 years and I can tell you first hand what has been done in the last 3 years has had a devastating effect to my client base. It's time to change gears.

 

[DontBeStupid]

To point to a war economy as support for Kernesian stimulus is sheer ignorance. I don't think even Paul Krugman would spew that type of stupidity.

Actually, Krugman believes this too.

I notice you aren't saying that I was wrong about there being massive borrowing and spending. Instead, you are simply saying that this case doesn't count since it's war. Interesting. It makes me wonder if every example I provide you will just dismiss for whatever reasons. Out of curiosity, since we've been at war for almost a decade now, does that mean anything we've learned over these years doesn't count since it's a "war economy" ?

And your idea about shipping the workforce off to war would explain a drop in unemployment, but not an increase in GDP, which there was. In fact, if we shipped off the skilled workers and replaced them with unskilled, there should have been a drop in productivity, which there wasn't. There was an increase.

 

[boedicca]

To point to a war economy as support for Kernesian stimulus is sheer ignorance. I don't think even Paul Krugman would spew that type of stupidity.

Actually, Krugman believes this too.

I notice you aren't saying that I was wrong about there being massive borrowing and spending. Instead, you are simply saying that this case doesn't count since it's war. Interesting. It makes me wonder if every example I provide you will just dismiss for whatever reasons. Out of curiosity, since we've been at war for almost a decade now, does that mean anything we've learned over these years doesn't count since it's a "war economy" ?

And your idea about shipping the workforce off to war would explain a drop in unemployment, but not an increase in GDP, which there was. In fact, if we shipped off the skilled workers and replaced them with unskilled, there should have been a drop in productivity, which there wasn't. There was an increase.

There's not a real increase in GDP that is sustainable. Increasing government spending to manufacture arms and pay solidiers is not a long term full employment strategy.

Even FDR knew it and was planning to propose New Deal Part Deux. Truman did propose it, but fortunately, the Democrat controlled Congress rejected it and Cut Taxes instead. Back then, we still had some rational Democrats.

What about World War II? We need to understand that the near-full employment during the conflict was temporary. Ten million to 12 million soldiers overseas and another 10 million to 15 million people making tanks, bullets and war materiel do not a lasting recovery make. The country essentially traded temporary jobs for a skyrocketing national debt. Many of those jobs had little or no value after the war.

No one knew this more than FDR himself. His key advisers were frantic at the possibility of the Great Depression's return when the war ended and the soldiers came home. The president believed a New Deal revival was the answer—and on Oct. 28, 1944, about six months before his death, he spelled out his vision for a postwar America. It included government-subsidized housing, federal involvement in health care, more TVA projects, and the "right to a useful and remunerative job" provided by the federal government if necessary.

Roosevelt died before the war ended and before he could implement his New Deal revival. His successor, Harry Truman, in a 16,000 word message on Sept. 6, 1945, urged Congress to enact FDR's ideas as the best way to achieve full employment after the war.

Congress—both chambers with Democratic majorities—responded by just saying "no." No to the whole New Deal revival: no federal program for health care, no full-employment act, only limited federal housing, and no increase in minimum wage or Social Security benefits.

Instead, Congress reduced taxes. Income tax rates were cut across the board. FDR's top marginal rate, 94% on all income over $200,000, was cut to 86.45%. The lowest rate was cut to 19% from 23%, and with a change in the amount of income exempt from taxation an estimated 12 million Americans were eliminated from the tax rolls entirely.

Corporate tax rates were trimmed and FDR's "excess profits" tax was repealed, which meant that top marginal corporate tax rates effectively went to 38% from 90% after 1945.

Georgia Sen. Walter George, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, defended the Revenue Act of 1945 with arguments that today we would call "supply-side economics." If the tax bill "has the effect which it is hoped it will have," George said, "it will so stimulate the expansion of business as to bring in a greater total revenue." ...

Burt Folsom: Did FDR End the Depression? - WSJ.com

 

[DontBeStupid]

There's not a real increase in GDP that is sustainable. Increasing government spending to manufacture arms and pay solidiers is not a long term full employment strategy.

And I never said it was! But, it did get us out of the Great Depression. A 2nd stimulus now could do the same thing and kick start job hiring. Obviously we couldn't do that every year forever, but doing it for one or two years to get the economy moving again would be nice.

 

[RonPaulRules]

Because they can't figure out that real solutions will only occur when we cut taxes and cut spending.

How in the fuck will cutting spending and taxes fix anything? What are you retarded?

 

[RonPaulRules]

Hey...Dontbestupid..

Going back to the topic at hand....

Let me ask you a question....

If you were in debt.....and your income did not meet your expenses to run your household....would you borrow money to re-do your kitchens and bathrooms?

Do people take out home equity loans for renovations and repairs?
That would be a yes so whats your point jughead

 

[Wry Catcher]

Uhm, what? We got out of the Great Depression by implementing massive borrowing and spending on production jobs. Perhaps you heard of this? It was called WW2.

So, you didn't quite make it through that econ 101 class, huh?

Stimulus was attempted from the end of the Hoover administration through the first two Roosevelt terms, not only in the USA, but also in Europe. The only valid description of these efforts is "abysmal failure." The Keynesian stimulus exasperated and prolonged the depression. A business cycle was engorged into a decade long cataclysm.

A war economy is not based on stimulus, but on massive reduction in the workforce. Shipping most of the able bodied workers off to foreign lands has the odd effect of opening positions on the home front. Traditionally, war economies are unsustainable, given that the manufacture of munitions is no longer required, once the war is over. Obviously, an industrial-military complex leveraged the war economy well past it's useful life, but this has nothing to do with Keynesian multipliers.

To point to a war economy as support for Kernesian stimulus is sheer ignorance. I don't think even Paul Krugman would spew that type of stupidity.

"abysmal failure" is a fully partisan description of the New Deal. Speaking in terms of absolutes is always a sign the author has little idea of the historical events of the time.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Hey...Dontbestupid..

Going back to the topic at hand....

Let me ask you a question....

If you were in debt.....and your income did not meet your expenses to run your household....would you borrow money to re-do your kitchens and bathrooms?

Do people take out home equity loans for renovations and repairs?
That would be a yes so whats your point jughead

People take out home equity loans when they have or had equity. More and more homes are underwater today, so that source of loan has dried up for many.

 

[Wry Catcher]

BTW, I'm hearing everyone from real estate investors and agents, mortagage brokers and homeowner are fed up with banks and bankers. Interest paid is very low and the cost to borrow is very high. A home improvement loan without equity is likely not to be approved, unless the borrower has credit ratings in the 800's and secure long term employment.

Maybe it's time to charter banks in single states only? Too big to fail and banks playing roulette on the world stage hasn't worked out very well for the American consumer. It wasn't too long ago BofA, Wells Fargo and others operated only in a single state, and small local banks existed.

All of our banking has been moved to a credit union, though we keep a couple of thousand in a national bank for ATM travel.

 

[The Rabbi]

There's not a real increase in GDP that is sustainable. Increasing government spending to manufacture arms and pay solidiers is not a long term full employment strategy.

And I never said it was! But, it did get us out of the Great Depression. A 2nd stimulus now could do the same thing and kick start job hiring. Obviously we couldn't do that every year forever, but doing it for one or two years to get the economy moving again would be nice.

No, dumbshit. It didnt get us out of the Great Depression. That was the entire point of that article.
A second stimulus will be no more successful than the first was. Look at Japan. They ran near zero rates and stimulus after stimulus and had no growth to show for it after nearly 20 years.

 

[The Rabbi]

BTW, I'm hearing everyone from real estate investors and agents, mortagage brokers and homeowner are fed up with banks and bankers. Interest paid is very low and the cost to borrow is very high. A home improvement loan without equity is likely not to be approved, unless the borrower has credit ratings in the 800's and secure long term employment.

Maybe it's time to charter banks in single states only? Too big to fail and banks playing roulette on the world stage hasn't worked out very well for the American consumer. It wasn't too long ago BofA, Wells Fargo and others operated only in a single state, and small local banks existed.

All of our banking has been moved to a credit union, though we keep a couple of thousand in a national bank for ATM travel.

Actually rates are very low. Criteria are very tight so no one is getting a loan these day.
But recall that no-equity loans were part of the reason we've had this enormous meltdown.
We had bank failures and panics long before we had national banks. That isn' tthe issue.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Get a room you two

 

[DontBeStupid]

There's not a real increase in GDP that is sustainable. Increasing government spending to manufacture arms and pay solidiers is not a long term full employment strategy.

And I never said it was! But, it did get us out of the Great Depression. A 2nd stimulus now could do the same thing and kick start job hiring. Obviously we couldn't do that every year forever, but doing it for one or two years to get the economy moving again would be nice.

No, dumbshit. It didnt get us out of the Great Depression. That was the entire point of that article.
A second stimulus will be no more successful than the first was. Look at Japan. They ran near zero rates and stimulus after stimulus and had no growth to show for it after nearly 20 years.

Japan had no growth but also no Depression. The borrowing and spending by the government allowed the economy to stay as it was while people and corporations paid down debts. Once those debts were paid down, the government scaled back and consumers/businesses scaled up.

We could do the same thing. Borrow and spend to keep the economy up where it needs to be, and then scale back once people have paid down debts.

 

[The Rabbi]

And I never said it was! But, it did get us out of the Great Depression. A 2nd stimulus now could do the same thing and kick start job hiring. Obviously we couldn't do that every year forever, but doing it for one or two years to get the economy moving again would be nice.

No, dumbshit. It didnt get us out of the Great Depression. That was the entire point of that article.
A second stimulus will be no more successful than the first was. Look at Japan. They ran near zero rates and stimulus after stimulus and had no growth to show for it after nearly 20 years.

Japan had no growth but also no Depression. The borrowing and spending by the government allowed the economy to stay as it was while people and corporations paid down debts. Once those debts were paid down, the government scaled back and consumers/businesses scaled up.

We could do the same thing. Borrow and spend to keep the economy up where it needs to be, and then scale back once people have paid down debts.

Geez are you dumb. They had zero growth and declining asset values for 20 years. No one wants that. That isn't desirable.
Look, you are skating towards iggy if you can't keep up here.
Economics, my ass.

 

[Charles_Main]

Because with declining poll numbers, skyrocketing commoditie prices, gas above 3.00, unemployment likely above 8% and the host of other problems that Obama has at his feet he can count on idiots like this to not only buy it but alas the morons will quite possibly vote as well. This is what elects those who otherwise wouldn't stand a chance in hell.....

YouTube - ‪The Obama Stash of Stimulus Cash -- Dolla Dolla Bills, Y'all!!‬‏

Bottom line if you don't deserve the votes or can't "earn" them through good leadership, just buy them.

Nothing more than an attempt to Buy the Election when clearly he is in trouble.