Why we want stimulus now and worry about deficits later

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

It did not fail, it stopped the economy from sliding deeper into recession.

ROFL! What it really did is turn a recession into a depression. Handing out money to parasites does not increase the productivity of our economy. I can't think of any plausible explanation of how it would.

Can you?

Handing out money to the wealthiest among us as tax cuts and borrowing from foreign banks to cover the shortfall is no doubt what you think is right

If increasing taxes on the wealthy is the solution to debt reduction, I'd like to see you explain away California's financial debt situation. I've mentioned this before and liberals seem to prefer to avoid confronting this issue all together, rather than actually provide me with an answer.

In 2009 California was compared to other states in the union and ranks the worst at 48, for a State Business Tax Climate overall. Ranking 45 in Corporate Tax Index, 49 in Individual Income Tax Index, and 43 in Sales Tax Index. Yet with all these tax increases California (the most liberal state in the union, controlled by Democrats) is in the worst position with regard to state's projected debt. Care to explain why this tax increase strategy hasn't solved anything with the overall increasing debt there?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/15.html
News Headlines

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The last stimulus was $1 trillion and it failed.

It was $1T.....because you said so, right???

*

.....And you Teabaggers can't figure-out why no one takes you seriously?

Stupid fuckin' Teabaggers.....​

 

[bripat9643]

I can show you this:

Initial Unemployment claims:

Check out this chart from the Reagan administration. Note: There was no "stimulus."

It appears the decline in unemployment was much steeper without a stimulus.

According to all you Obama sheep that should be impossible.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I can show you this:

Initial Unemployment claims:

Check out this chart from the Reagan administration. Note: There was no "stimulus."

True.

His preference was tax-increases.​

 

[Cammmpbell]

I can show you this:

Initial Unemployment claims:

Check out this chart from the Reagan administration. Note: There was no "stimulus."

It appears the decline in unemployment was much steeper without a stimulus.

According to all you Obama sheep that should be impossible.

Reagan and Bush41 quadrupled the national debt because they reduced taxes for their rich friends and never cut a dime from spending. Give me three trillion 1980's dollars and by god I can solve problems with the economy.........or anything else I might want to do.

 

[Google]

The chart above shows a deeply depressed economy. The US still produce about 1 trillion less in annual GDP than they are capable of. Not only it results in a lot of human suffering, but it also starves the government of tax revenues, creating huge budget deficits.

Therefore we need more stimulus to help the economy closing the gap (which basically means creating more jobs) -- because it will also reduce the deficits.

This would be laughable if it weren't so serious. This post highlights so clearly the delusion of the left. They haven't any clue the relationship between the private sector and the public sector.

It is not a difficult concept: the public sector can only grow at a rate that the revenue from taxation on the private sector allows. If the private sector grows exponentially, say at the rate of $200 billion a month deficits, somewhere around $14 trillion in national debt--a majority held by your own central bank--it will undoubtedly cause further devastation on the economy.

Also, this childish argument that had the stimulus not been passed the economy would be worse--proving a negative--is naive. Let me use that same logic on you. Had the Bush administration not allowed enhanced interrogation techniques America would be in a much worse situation, possibly even another terrorist attack on American soil.

The fact is all of the promises made and reasons given to pass the stimulus act have been proven to be lies and misrepresentations . Even liberals admit it was a failure, but then absurdly turn around and promise it was because it was too small and wasn't administered correctly.

These people are quite obviously either morons or intentionally pursuing the destruction of this country.

 

[Cammmpbell]

The chart above shows a deeply depressed economy. The US still produce about 1 trillion less in annual GDP than they are capable of. Not only it results in a lot of human suffering, but it also starves the government of tax revenues, creating huge budget deficits.

Therefore we need more stimulus to help the economy closing the gap (which basically means creating more jobs) -- because it will also reduce the deficits.

This would be laughable if it weren't so serious. This post highlights so clearly the delusion of the left. They haven't any clue the relationship between the private sector and the public sector.

It is not a difficult concept: the public sector can only grow at a rate that the revenue from taxation on the private sector allows. If the private sector grows exponentially, say at the rate of $200 billion a month deficits, somewhere around $14 trillion in national debt--a majority held by your own central bank--it will undoubtedly cause further devastation on the economy.

Also, this childish argument that had the stimulus not been passed the economy would be worse--proving a negative--is naive. Let me use that same logic on you. Had the Bush administration not allowed enhanced interrogation techniques America would be in a much worse situation, possibly even another terrorist attack on American soil.

The fact is all of the promises made and reasons given to pass the stimulus act have been proven to be lies and misrepresentations . Even liberals admit it was a failure, but then absurdly turn around and promise it was because it was too small and wasn't administered correctly.

These people are quite obviously either morons or intentionally pursuing the destruction of this country.

'Course Bush, Bernanke and Paulson giving the banks nearly a trillion dollars and not even specifying how they were to use it was A OK. A Rose By Any Other Name Is Yet As Sweet!

 

[ilia25]

That's what Obama said "clearly underestimated the depth of the crisis" . . . that's what I would say if my policies only turned a bad economy worse.

So would I, and I have little doubt that Obama hurts himself politically by not admitting that mistake.

But it does not mean that his underpowered stimulus did not help at all, or that we do not need another stimulus now.

Unemployment went from 7.8% pre-stimulus to 10% the year following the stimulus passage. I don't see the improvement.

The unemployment was growing 1% per month pre-stimulus, and stimulus stopped that growth. That was the improvement.

 

[ilia25]

I can show you this:

Initial Unemployment claims:

Check out this chart from the Reagan administration. Note: There was no "stimulus."

It appears the decline in unemployment was much steeper without a stimulus.

According to all you Obama sheep that should be impossible.

The recession of 81 was deliberately caused by Fed, that is why Fed could stop it w/o stimulus. In 2008 Fed did not want the recession, but could not stop it. That is way we needed the stimulus.

 

[ilia25]

Or maybe all you technocratic know-it-alls can just get the fuck out of the way

... and watch the economy imploding. Great plan, genius!

Your "implosion" is the markets readjusting and finding their natural levels

Natural level is the full employment. Look the the chart at the beginning of the thread, we are way below the natural level.

 

[Oddball]

The recession of 81 was deliberately caused by Fed, that is why Fed could stop it w/o stimulus. In 2008 Fed did not want the recession, but could not stop it. That is way we needed the stimulus.

Completely unfalsifiable and conspiratorial crapola that you cannot possibly prove.

You're pegging the bullshit meter.

 

[ilia25]

The chart above shows a deeply depressed economy. The US still produce about 1 trillion less in annual GDP than they are capable of. Not only it results in a lot of human suffering, but it also starves the government of tax revenues, creating huge budget deficits.

Therefore we need more stimulus to help the economy closing the gap (which basically means creating more jobs) -- because it will also reduce the deficits.

If the private sector grows exponentially, say at the rate of $200 billion a month deficits

You measuring the private sector growth in budget deficits?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I can show you this:

Initial Unemployment claims:

Check out this chart from the Reagan administration. Note: There was no "stimulus."

It appears the decline in unemployment was much steeper without a stimulus.

According to all you Obama sheep that should be impossible.

The recession of 81 was deliberately caused by Fed, that is why Fed could stop it w/o stimulus. In 2008 Fed did not want the recession, but could not stop it. That is way we needed the stimulus.

What on Earth?

 

[Mr.Nick]

The last stimulus was $1 trillion and it failed. Why would another one be any better?
We need another stimulus so Obama can bribe his way to re-election.

It was really 3.5 trillion in authorized spending - democrats however only managed to shell out a tad less than 1 trillion. If the leftists would have won the House they would have shelled out the additional 2.5 trillion by now..

The republican takeover of the House prevented all that from happening.

 

[Mr.Nick]

It did not fail, it stopped the economy from sliding deeper into recession.

Really? The stimulus bill passed in early 2009. What was the unemployment rate in January 2010, did it go up or down? Show me the facts of the unemployment rate and UNDERemployment rate by the numbers.

I can show you this:

Initial Unemployment claims:

Only an idiot would post such nonsense...

Why don't you provide a graph that shows how the workforce is shrinking????

Unemployment is only measured by workforce (which is shrinking at an epidemic rate) and those actively receiving unemployment..

Those who have exhausted their benefits and remain jobless are NOT factored into the equation - and that number is GROWING EVERYDAY.

You remember those 99er's??? now they've all been eaten by the unemployment singularity...

 

[Google]

The chart above shows a deeply depressed economy. The US still produce about 1 trillion less in annual GDP than they are capable of. Not only it results in a lot of human suffering, but it also starves the government of tax revenues, creating huge budget deficits.

Therefore we need more stimulus to help the economy closing the gap (which basically means creating more jobs) -- because it will also reduce the deficits.

This would be laughable if it weren't so serious. This post highlights so clearly the delusion of the left. They haven't any clue the relationship between the private sector and the public sector.

It is not a difficult concept: the public sector can only grow at a rate that the revenue from taxation on the private sector allows. If the private sector grows exponentially, say at the rate of $200 billion a month deficits, somewhere around $14 trillion in national debt--a majority held by your own central bank--it will undoubtedly cause further devastation on the economy.

Also, this childish argument that had the stimulus not been passed the economy would be worse--proving a negative--is naive. Let me use that same logic on you. Had the Bush administration not allowed enhanced interrogation techniques America would be in a much worse situation, possibly even another terrorist attack on American soil.

The fact is all of the promises made and reasons given to pass the stimulus act have been proven to be lies and misrepresentations . Even liberals admit it was a failure, but then absurdly turn around and promise it was because it was too small and wasn't administered correctly.

These people are quite obviously either morons or intentionally pursuing the destruction of this country.

'Course Bush, Bernanke and Paulson giving the banks nearly a trillion dollars and not even specifying how they were to use it was A OK. A Rose By Any Other Name Is Yet As Sweet!

Did I ever say I supported the bailouts? Also, don't sit there and try to portray poor Obama's predecessor. Lawmakers were threatened into passing the bailout. Let us not forget that it was a Republican congress that initially rejected the bailout legislation.

Besides, Obama took the ball and ran with it. Attacking Bush is not a valid or rational argument. You and Obama don't seem to understand that.

 

[ilia25]

The recession of 81 was deliberately caused by Fed, that is why Fed could stop it w/o stimulus. In 2008 Fed did not want the recession, but could not stop it. That is way we needed the stimulus.

Completely unfalsifiable and conspiratorial crapola that you cannot possibly prove.

Fed rising the interest rates to 20% in 81 was bound to cause the recession. What other proof do you need?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

So would I, and I have little doubt that Obama hurts himself politically by not admitting that mistake.

But it does not mean that his underpowered stimulus did not help at all, or that we do not need another stimulus now.

Unemployment went from 7.8% pre-stimulus to 10% the year following the stimulus passage. I don't see the improvement.

The unemployment was growing 1% per month pre-stimulus, and stimulus stopped that growth. That was the improvement.

Sorry the underemployment rate , unemployment rate in 2010 at 10%, and misery index I provided doesn't support your argument. Care to try it again?

 

[Oddball]

The recession of 81 was deliberately caused by Fed, that is why Fed could stop it w/o stimulus. In 2008 Fed did not want the recession, but could not stop it. That is way we needed the stimulus.

Completely unfalsifiable and conspiratorial crapola that you cannot possibly prove.

Fed rising the interest rates to 20% in 81 was bound to cause the recession. What other proof do you need?

Seems you failed to mention the 12+% inflation rate, as the bills for the 'Nam war and LBJ's asinine Great Society programs began coming due.

Do you think those 20% interest rates happened in a vacuum?

 

[Mr.Nick]

The most disgusting part of our unemployment is that Obama damn well knows the workforce is shrinking, yet he points to a declining unemployment rate as some sort of evidence of his policies being successful.

Now the guy is either A) blatantly ignorant, as is those around him or B) a nefarious evil asshole..

I'm going with B...

Obama and his people damn well know they're failures, yet really don't give a shit while the cookie crumbles in their hands...

In short, Obama doesn't give a rats ass about our present economy. He is either destroying it on purpose or is more concerned with his celebrity status which would make him a narcissist.