A no BS, non partisan examination of the success of Obama's stimulus package

[Listening]

Again, the Bush tax cuts expired only 1 year ago. And since then, real revenue increased 10%.

Please don't tell me you are suggesting they are connected.

Of course they're connected. I'm not saying raising those taxes accounts for the entire 10%, but it's undeniable the increase in taxes contributed to it.

Taxes were increased 13% on the top 1% income earners. They contribute 1/3rd of the taxes paid. You can't increase 1/3rd of taxes by 13% without increasing revenue.

I had not heard the 1/3...I had a different number.

But, going with that.

0.13 x 0.33 = 0.04 or 4%.

Where did the rest come from ?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Again, the Bush tax cuts expired only 1 year ago. And since then, real revenue increased 10%.

Please don't tell me you are suggesting they are connected.

Of course they're connected. I'm not saying raising those taxes accounts for the entire 10%, but it's undeniable the increase in taxes contributed to it.

Taxes were increased 13% on the top 1% income earners. They contribute 1/3rd of the taxes paid. You can't increase 1/3rd of taxes by 13% without increasing revenue.

I see it as undeniable that the fact that the cuts were made permanent for 99% of people led to 99% of those increases.

 

[Faun]

Please don't tell me you are suggesting they are connected.

Of course they're connected. I'm not saying raising those taxes accounts for the entire 10%, but it's undeniable the increase in taxes contributed to it.

Taxes were increased 13% on the top 1% income earners. They contribute 1/3rd of the taxes paid. You can't increase 1/3rd of taxes by 13% without increasing revenue.

I had not heard the 1/3...I had a different number.

But, going with that.

0.13 x 0.33 = 0.04 or 4%.

Where did the rest come from ?

So we're in agreement then ... Obama raising taxes a year ago increased revenue.

As far as the rest .... There was also a 33% increase in capital gains taxes on top of that 4%. There were also an additional million people employed, many of whom becoming tax payers. The stock market is up between 22% and 34%, depending on the index. House prices were up 14%. These are among the factors contributing to the increase in revenue.

 

[Faun]

Please don't tell me you are suggesting they are connected.

Of course they're connected. I'm not saying raising those taxes accounts for the entire 10%, but it's undeniable the increase in taxes contributed to it.

Taxes were increased 13% on the top 1% income earners. They contribute 1/3rd of the taxes paid. You can't increase 1/3rd of taxes by 13% without increasing revenue.

I see it as undeniable that the fact that the cuts were made permanent for 99% of people led to 99% of those increases.

Who knows how you see it that way when that 99% pays only about 67% of the taxes. How does 67% equal 99%? Plus, you're not considering the increase in capital gains taxes, which applies to everyone paying such taxes.

Perhaps you can explain how keeping tax levels the same, increases tax revenue?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Bush's tax cuts were more expensive than the Recovery Act. When will see that money back?

No they weren't. The economy did not falter until the democrats took the majority of both houses of Congress.
When the GOP had the majority, dems screamed that wanted bipartisanship.
They yowled like feral cats in heat about deficit spending. Even though most of that spending was on social programs.
When the dems took the majority in 2006, Barney Frank was quoted as saying "we had to get over our fear of deficit spending"...
And "there are a lot of rich (wealthy) people we can recover this money from".
You people are in fear of losing the Senate this year. Hence the reason for all these back timed attacks on the GOP...
With you dems, it's never about what your side will do. It's about "the other side sucks. So vote for us"

The causes of the economy collapsing started years before 2008.

Yeah....2003 when the Bush admin warned that Fannie Freddie was in grave danger of collapse.
The federal government made a serious error when it involved itself in the real estate marketplace.
Good intentions paving the way to hell.
Runaway government spending helps no one except greedy asshole politicians who have an undying need to spend other people's money. On absolute garbage.

 

[ilia25]

Never. They were cuts. You don't have to print money to cut taxes.

It astounds me how many of you don't understand our economic system. Taxes pay the government's expenses. Without them, we borrow more. That puts us more in debt. Tax cuts and over spending amount to the same thing.

Less taxes = spend less.

Wrong, less taxes do not make the government spending less. They only make it to borrow more.

The proper way to do it, would be cutting spending first, then cut the taxes. Except Republicans were always too afraid to touch the entitlements. Instead they have been demanding that Obama should dismantle the welfare system for them, so then they could label him as intensive and not caring.

 

[Faun]

No they weren't. The economy did not falter until the democrats took the majority of both houses of Congress.
When the GOP had the majority, dems screamed that wanted bipartisanship.
They yowled like feral cats in heat about deficit spending. Even though most of that spending was on social programs.
When the dems took the majority in 2006, Barney Frank was quoted as saying "we had to get over our fear of deficit spending"...
And "there are a lot of rich (wealthy) people we can recover this money from".
You people are in fear of losing the Senate this year. Hence the reason for all these back timed attacks on the GOP...
With you dems, it's never about what your side will do. It's about "the other side sucks. So vote for us"

The causes of the economy collapsing started years before 2008.

Yeah....2003 when the Bush admin warned that Fannie Freddie was in grave danger of collapse.
The federal government made a serious error when it involved itself in the real estate marketplace.
Good intentions paving the way to hell.
Runaway government spending helps no one except greedy asshole politicians who have an undying need to spend other people's money. On absolute garbage.

Since you know the cause of the collapse started years before the Democrats took over the Congress in 2007, why would you infer they were to blame by saying the economy did not "falter" until they took over?

 

[thereisnospoon]

It astounds me how many of you don't understand our economic system. Taxes pay the government's expenses. Without them, we borrow more. That puts us more in debt. Tax cuts and over spending amount to the same thing.

Less taxes = spend less.

Wrong, less taxes do not make the government spending less. They only make it to borrow more.

The proper way to do it, would be cutting spending first, then cut the taxes. Except Republicans were always too afraid to touch the entitlements. Instead they have been demanding that Obama should dismantle the welfare system for them, so then they could label him as intensive and not caring.

No...The attitude in Dc is "blank check"..That has to end...NOW. Before it destroys the country.
Giving government more to spend is equivalent to giving a fat person more to eat while he promises to lose weight.
Why are you libs married to runaway spending with no fiscal responsibility?

 

[thereisnospoon]

The causes of the economy collapsing started years before 2008.

Yeah....2003 when the Bush admin warned that Fannie Freddie was in grave danger of collapse.
The federal government made a serious error when it involved itself in the real estate marketplace.
Good intentions paving the way to hell.
Runaway government spending helps no one except greedy asshole politicians who have an undying need to spend other people's money. On absolute garbage.

Since you know the cause of the collapse started years before the Democrats took over the Congress in 2007, why would you infer they were to blame by saying the economy did not "falter" until they took over?

Simple...A couple of quotes by Barney Frank..
2008 Financial Crisis
In 2003, Frank said, "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."[1]
In 2004, Frank said at a hill hearing that a Office of the Federal Housing Enterprise Oversite (OFHEO) report of illegal activity by Fannie Mae does not "raise safety and soundness [of Fannie Mae investments] problems at issue".[2]
Barney Frank - SourceWatch

What They Said About Fan and Fred - WSJ.com

What part of democrat's involvement in the housing crisis do you not understand?

 

[thereisnospoon]

The causes of the economy collapsing started years before 2008.

Yeah....2003 when the Bush admin warned that Fannie Freddie was in grave danger of collapse.
The federal government made a serious error when it involved itself in the real estate marketplace.
Good intentions paving the way to hell.
Runaway government spending helps no one except greedy asshole politicians who have an undying need to spend other people's money. On absolute garbage.

Since you know the cause of the collapse started years before the Democrats took over the Congress in 2007, why would you infer they were to blame by saying the economy did not "falter" until they took over?

You people deflect blame away from Obama and put it on Bush.
Touche...
I can do this all day. You can continiue to lose the argument.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It astounds me how many of you don't understand our economic system. Taxes pay the government's expenses. Without them, we borrow more. That puts us more in debt. Tax cuts and over spending amount to the same thing.

Less taxes = spend less.

Wrong, less taxes do not make the government spending less. They only make it to borrow more.

The proper way to do it, would be cutting spending first, then cut the taxes. Except Republicans were always too afraid to touch the entitlements. Instead they have been demanding that Obama should dismantle the welfare system for them, so then they could label him as intensive and not caring.

The GOP is afraid to touch entitlements....The RINO's...Hence the emergence of the Tea Party.
And the reasons why for example Mitch Mc Connell is berating the Tea Party affiliated GOP members of Congress is because the old guard GOP sees their apple cart about to be tipped over. They don't like losing control of the party to a bunch of 'upstarts'...
This hopefully will all shake out in November. Time to move the people who fart dust, out of the way.

 

[Faun]

Yeah....2003 when the Bush admin warned that Fannie Freddie was in grave danger of collapse.
The federal government made a serious error when it involved itself in the real estate marketplace.
Good intentions paving the way to hell.
Runaway government spending helps no one except greedy asshole politicians who have an undying need to spend other people's money. On absolute garbage.

Since you know the cause of the collapse started years before the Democrats took over the Congress in 2007, why would you infer they were to blame by saying the economy did not "falter" until they took over?

Simple...A couple of quotes by Barney Frank..
2008 Financial Crisis
In 2003, Frank said, "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."[1]
In 2004, Frank said at a hill hearing that a Office of the Federal Housing Enterprise Oversite (OFHEO) report of illegal activity by Fannie Mae does not "raise safety and soundness [of Fannie Mae investments] problems at issue".[2]
Barney Frank - SourceWatch

What They Said About Fan and Fred - WSJ.com

What part of democrat's involvement in the housing crisis do you not understand?

Try again, but this time, don't change the context of your statement.

You said, "The economy did not falter until the democrats took the majority of both houses of Congress"

That did not occur until 2007. What Frank said in 2003 or 2004 has nothing to do with that statement of yours.

So again I ask, since you know the cause of the collapse started years before the Democrats took over the Congress in 2007, why would you infer the majority Democrats of 2007-2008 were to blame by saying the economy did not "falter" until they took over?

And please, don't deflect with a non-sequitur this time .....

 

[ilia25]

Less taxes = spend less.

Wrong, less taxes do not make the government spending less. They only make it to borrow more.

The proper way to do it, would be cutting spending first, then cut the taxes. Except Republicans were always too afraid to touch the entitlements. Instead they have been demanding that Obama should dismantle the welfare system for them, so then they could label him as intensive and not caring.

No...The attitude in Dc is "blank check"..

You live in a fantasy land. The federal spending is severely restricted, we don't spend nearly enough on science/medical research, on affordable education, on infrastructure.

Why are you libs married to runaway spending with no fiscal responsibility?

There is no runaway spending. Look at the chart, it practically stopped growing under Obama:

It's the Republican tax cuts that cause deficits.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wrong, less taxes do not make the government spending less. They only make it to borrow more.

The proper way to do it, would be cutting spending first, then cut the taxes. Except Republicans were always too afraid to touch the entitlements. Instead they have been demanding that Obama should dismantle the welfare system for them, so then they could label him as intensive and not caring.

No...The attitude in Dc is "blank check"..

You live in a fantasy land. The federal spending is severely restricted, we don't spend nearly enough on science/medical research, on affordable education, on infrastructure.

Why are you libs married to runaway spending with no fiscal responsibility?

There is no runaway spending. Look at the chart, it practically stopped growing under Obama:

It's the Republican tax cuts that cause deficits.

Is there a reason you are using a chart from 3 years ago to defend your lies?

 

[itfitzme]

Wrong, less taxes do not make the government spending less. They only make it to borrow more.

The proper way to do it, would be cutting spending first, then cut the taxes. Except Republicans were always too afraid to touch the entitlements. Instead they have been demanding that Obama should dismantle the welfare system for them, so then they could label him as intensive and not caring.

No...The attitude in Dc is "blank check"..

You live in a fantasy land. The federal spending is severely restricted, we don't spend nearly enough on science/medical research, on affordable education, on infrastructure.

Why are you libs married to runaway spending with no fiscal responsibility?

There is no runaway spending. Look at the chart, it practically stopped growing under Obama:

It's the Republican tax cuts that cause deficits.

It is even more apparent when put in real dollars per capita Obviously, nominal dollars are not accurate because of the changing value of the dollar. Per capita is important because simply population growth makes things go up.

Total budget in real per cap is

It really should be in terms of discressionary spending because things like OASDI are deficit neurtral, balanced against FICA taxes. Still, it is obviously going down per cap in real dollars.

 

[bendog]

Yeah....2003 when the Bush admin warned that Fannie Freddie was in grave danger of collapse.
The federal government made a serious error when it involved itself in the real estate marketplace.
Good intentions paving the way to hell.
Runaway government spending helps no one except greedy asshole politicians who have an undying need to spend other people's money. On absolute garbage.

Since you know the cause of the collapse started years before the Democrats took over the Congress in 2007, why would you infer they were to blame by saying the economy did not "falter" until they took over?

You people deflect blame away from Obama and put it on Bush.
Touche...
I can do this all day. You can continiue to lose the argument.

Not at all. The effect of Obama is still largely unknown. His major achievement was Obamacare, and there is no way currently to calculate its cost and effect on private hiring. But the credit implosin and increase in spending was on the gop .... and that the only way to explain a black guy named barack hussien obama got elected.

 

[itfitzme]

Since you know the cause of the collapse started years before the Democrats took over the Congress in 2007, why would you infer they were to blame by saying the economy did not "falter" until they took over?

You people deflect blame away from Obama and put it on Bush.
Touche...
I can do this all day. You can continiue to lose the argument.

Not at all. The effect of Obama is still largely unknown. His major achievement was Obamacare, and there is no way currently to calculate its cost and effect on private hiring. But the credit implosin and increase in spending was on the gop .... and that the only way to explain a black guy named barack hussien obama got elected.

It started in 1998 to 2000 time frame when China began becoming a major player in the global markets. It was them that the employment to population ratio started to decline and the real dollar cost of gasoline began to rise. None of the problem is "because of" anything the gov did. It is simply the result of how the free markets function. At best, the gov managed to forestall the inevitable. At least, it failed to manage the economy to adjust to a changing global market place. At worse, it forestalled the inevitable in a manner that resulted in it all coming to head simultaneously.

Clinton and Bush I got the Fed budget under control. Bush II, perhaps inevitably, drove it to record levels of deficit. And, frankly, between the deficit spending and tax cuts, gave the market the oppprtunity to allow manufacturing to decline while driving a housing and stock bubble.

The domestic economy got nicely propped up, but at what expense? A crash that sent employment and productivity back to 1980 levels.

But, how is the advanced, free market countries suppose to compete with the barely measurable living standards of a second world gov supported socialist economy such as China? Global free markets work with comparitive advantage between nations. They do not work with absolute advantage.

I'm not a supporter of gov intervention but a whole bunch of MBA students, in 2005, were of the opinion that the level of outsourcing was unsustainable. I met Chinese exchange students that said, in China, the Chinese public wouldn't tolerate it.

I'm still looking for some measure that may make it definative. Unfortunately, for things to be definative requires a reference point. The fact is that there is no reference point "outside" the global economy.

Never the less, it appears that constant yammering about gov spending, taxes, PPACA and the like misses entitely misses the fact that the recession of '09 is exactly what to expect out of a global free market.

 

[ilia25]

No...The attitude in Dc is "blank check"..

You live in a fantasy land. The federal spending is severely restricted, we don't spend nearly enough on science/medical research, on affordable education, on infrastructure.

Why are you libs married to runaway spending with no fiscal responsibility?

There is no runaway spending. Look at the chart, it practically stopped growing under Obama:

It's the Republican tax cuts that cause deficits.

Is there a reason you are using a chart from 3 years ago to defend your lies?

Newer chart would look the same. You just can't stand the facts.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Since you know the cause of the collapse started years before the Democrats took over the Congress in 2007, why would you infer they were to blame by saying the economy did not "falter" until they took over?

Simple...A couple of quotes by Barney Frank..
2008 Financial Crisis
In 2003, Frank said, "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."[1]
In 2004, Frank said at a hill hearing that a Office of the Federal Housing Enterprise Oversite (OFHEO) report of illegal activity by Fannie Mae does not "raise safety and soundness [of Fannie Mae investments] problems at issue".[2]
Barney Frank - SourceWatch

What They Said About Fan and Fred - WSJ.com

What part of democrat's involvement in the housing crisis do you not understand?

Try again, but this time, don't change the context of your statement.

You said, "The economy did not falter until the democrats took the majority of both houses of Congress"

That did not occur until 2007. What Frank said in 2003 or 2004 has nothing to do with that statement of yours.

So again I ask, since you know the cause of the collapse started years before the Democrats took over the Congress in 2007, why would you infer the majority Democrats of 2007-2008 were to blame by saying the economy did not "falter" until they took over?

And please, don't deflect with a non-sequitur this time .....

I did not deflect.
You are just protecting democrats. Absolving them from responsibility.
It was not only Frank protecting Fannie/Freddie...Other culprits were Chris Dodd, Mel Watt and Maxine Waters.
It does not take being in the majority party to exert control over committees and policy.
It was only a matter of time that the party majority would change and those mentioned above could then do their damage.
So don't go thinking you can play mind checkers here and win the argument.

 

[Faun]

Simple...A couple of quotes by Barney Frank..
2008 Financial Crisis
In 2003, Frank said, "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."[1]
In 2004, Frank said at a hill hearing that a Office of the Federal Housing Enterprise Oversite (OFHEO) report of illegal activity by Fannie Mae does not "raise safety and soundness [of Fannie Mae investments] problems at issue".[2]
Barney Frank - SourceWatch

What They Said About Fan and Fred - WSJ.com

What part of democrat's involvement in the housing crisis do you not understand?

Try again, but this time, don't change the context of your statement.

You said, "The economy did not falter until the democrats took the majority of both houses of Congress"

That did not occur until 2007. What Frank said in 2003 or 2004 has nothing to do with that statement of yours.

So again I ask, since you know the cause of the collapse started years before the Democrats took over the Congress in 2007, why would you infer the majority Democrats of 2007-2008 were to blame by saying the economy did not "falter" until they took over?

And please, don't deflect with a non-sequitur this time .....

I did not deflect.
You are just protecting democrats. Absolving them from responsibility.
It was not only Frank protecting Fannie/Freddie...Other culprits were Chris Dodd, Mel Watt and Maxine Waters.
It does not take being in the majority party to exert control over committees and policy.
It was only a matter of time that the party majority would change and those mentioned above could then do their damage.
So don't go thinking you can play mind checkers here and win the argument.

Of course you're deflecting. That's blatantly obvious since you changed your argument.

Your argument started with pointing out how the economy collapsed in 2008 under Democratic leadership. When challenged on that point, you abandoned blaming the Democrat-led Congress of 2007-2008 to blaming A few Democrats from 2003 & 2004.

Changing you argument like that means you recognize your original point was stupid and wrong so now you're trying to save face by switching to a new argument. But that's ok, 'cause I can prove you wrong about this one too. You failed to lucidly answer the last question; hopefully, you'll have better luck this time...

The Democrats you mentioned were completely wrong about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but how did a handful of Democrats block the majority party Republicans from passing oversight of the GSE's that could have averted the meltdown we suffered?