IF higher taxes will create jobs, why did the stimulus fail?

[The Rabbi]

government plays a role in creating wealth? Kthx.

no it does not
govt takes wealth from the tax payer an re distribute's it
patent office is funded by tax payers wealth

Lol. Just stop, JRK. You're embarrassing yourself. The protection of private property rights doesn't play a role in creating wealth?

That would explain why countries with no such protections are such thriving wealth creators!

Oh wait...

You're confusing playing a role in creating wealth and creating wealth.
But I thought you had this all sorted out and finally saw that we were right and you were wrong: gov't does not create wealth.

 

[snjmom]

Govt allows wealth to be created.

Without government, there is no wealth.

 

[JRK]

the fiscal years of 2002 through 2009 are president bush's 8 years, the fiscal years of 1994-2001 are president clintons, the fiscal years for Obama are 2010-2013 if 4 years, 2010-2017 if 8 years.....that's a FACT, jack....this is how history is or will be writen in Obama's case.

When President Bush came in to office in January of 2001, he passed legislation to give us all stimulus tax rebates and we all got a $300 or $600 dollar check if married, that august as part of his tax cuts.....the year end for President Clinton's last year, had another month left before it was over...

And GUESS WHAT? Fiscal year 2001, even with all of president Bush's action that changed the budget for that year, got attributed to President Clinton....the budget surplus for fiscal 2001 would have been much greater than what it was with bush's stimulus tax rebates that President Bush spent....still it is clinton's budget.

this is the same with Barak Obama....his first fiscal Budget, due to congress in march of 2009 by rules, was for 2010, beginning October 1, 2009.

President Bush did present a budget for 2009 which began on October 1, 2008....and ended sept 30th 2009. His Budget was for $3.1 trillion WITHOUT the cost of the Iraq war and Afghan war.....and without TARP and all other bailouts in it.

He had projected to bring in revenues, 2.7 trillion and expected to show a $400 billion deficit, WITHOUT THE WARS....but when revenues came in, they fell well short of his $2.7 trillion estimate....$600 billion LESS in revenues than he projected....$2.1 trillion in total revenues.....he was 1 TRILLION in deficit off of his budget plans WITHOUT putting the Iraq and afghan spending in to it....and without what he spent in bailouts in to it....

Obama's stimulus amount was for a two year stimulus....not even half of it was spent before the end of Fiscal year 2009....it might have added $200 billion with GM to the $1.4/5 trillion dollar deficit for Bush's 2009 fiscal year....

the entire 1.4 trillion dollar deficit is attributed to president Bush, as 2001 was attributed to Clinton.



When President Clinton's last fiscal year ended for his term, and with all of president bush's actions taken included like his stimulus tax rebate checks he sent to us in August/september of 2001, the total National Public Debt had risen to $5.67 trillion....this is president bush's beginning point....and when President Bush's last fiscal year came to an end september 30th of 2009, the total National Public debt had reached $11.9 trillion dollars....

$11.9 trillion in national debt, minus the $5.6 trillion of the national debt left after Clinton's 8fiscal years, leaves $6.3 TRILLION ADDED to the national debt....

And IF you do not want to count the gm bailout, EVEN THOUGH it was President bush's initial action that gave them this bailout...and you don't want to count whatever stimulus was spent before September 30th's year end for 2009, then by all means, take the 200-300 billion out of it...

And this leaves the $6 TRILLION DOLLARS President Bush, under his 8 year term, addition to the National Public Debt.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010



Unlike President Bush, President Obama has included the Iraq and Afghan wars in his budgets and did not take steps to hide their effects from the budget as President bush had tried to do.
Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. [/B][/U]Also, sSome Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has

and obviously the heritage foundation WAS NOT SPEAKING about our Total national public debt.....they hoped to confuse you and others with debt we owe to foreign countries vs owe to ourselves verses our TOTAL NATIONAL PUBLIC DEBT, and clearly they did.

Your deficit has interest from deficits GWB inherited in it

The wars are included, see herein

2009 GWB would sign, the best guess is about 500 billion is his
Obama 2009 Budget
Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures | The Foundry
That debt has interest in it


President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 is hardly ambitious. The Washington Post has a great graphic which helps put President Obama’s budget deficits in context of President Bush’s.

What’s driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits? Spending. Riedl details:

President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
President Bush began a string of expensive finan*cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle*ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern*ment health care fund.
President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi*dent Obama would double it.
President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in*creased this spending by 20 percent.
President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.
UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, sSome Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has now been added.

CLARIFICATION: Of course, this Washington Post graphic does not perfectly delineate budget surpluses and deficits by administration. President Bush took office in January 2001, and therefore played a lead role in crafting the FY 2002-2008 budgets. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.

you are simply wrong.....first, your articles keep using 2008 fiscal budget as bush's last budget but it was NOT.

and as I showed you, even if congress had passed president bush's BUDGET before he left office, following president bush's budget would have given us well over a TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT WITHOUT Obama's stimulus and gm bailout which president bush started....take 200-300 billion of the deficit and attribute that to Obama....if that's how you want to play with the numbers.

President Bush still added $6 TRILLION DOLLARS to our total national public debt....and YES, this is where his Iraq war and Afghan war spending makes its appearance.....this is where it gets recorded....in the national debt numbers.

NO new hire CEO is held accountable for figures for at least 1-2 years after hire....this is how it works in business and it is how it should be looked at with Presidents....Obama was handed poop in a breadbasket and there is not much one can do for at least a year, to change things.....as with the new CEO, there is a grace period given, so what they enact has time to work through.

and the stimulus was not all spent at once so you can NOT count the full amount as spent before the fiscal end of 2009.

History and records of history will show fiscal year 2009 attributed to president Bush, as it should. and history shows fiscal year 2001 attributed to Clinton, as it should.

and I am not saying once Obama was responsible for the Budget, he did a fine and dandy job.....he did not and has not gotten the lower revenues and spending in check with his 2010 budget or 2011 budget.

Who owns the 09 budget is another debate that you are in denial over.
The stimulus is 100% Obama s and thats 180 billion there (for 09)
Tarp, he took 1/2 of it, the auto bailout alone was close to 100 billion
TARP Vote: Obama Wins, Senate Effectively Approves $350 Billion

By no means is GWB free from some of that deficit
Both him and Obama have a smaller revenue to be held in account for

The bottom line is the 2009 budget GWB would not sign
The super majority in congress and Obama owned 100% the details and the approval of the 2009 budget
stimulus
his 1/2 of tarp 350 billion (Auto bailout was close to 100 billion). is Obama's
its that simple, the truth
Budget 2011: Past Deficits vs. Obama’s Deficits in Pictures | The Foundry
this graph is reality
Obama signs earmark-laden spending bill - The Boston Globe
March 2009, Obama signs 09 budget
The 6 trillion dollar number is 100% a lie, no one but you believe it. There is no reason to keep this debate going on this matter, there is nothing left to debate here

 

[JRK]

government plays a role in creating wealth? Kthx.

no it does not
govt takes wealth from the tax payer an re distribute's it
patent office is funded by tax payers wealth

Lol. Just stop, JRK. You're embarrassing yourself. The protection of private property rights doesn't play a role in creating wealth?

That would explain why countries with no such protections are such thriving wealth creators!

Oh wait...

How am I making a fool of myself
The liberal has bypassed the person who pays for this game long enough
The American tax payer
The protection of those properties exists due to the funding the tax payer provides
I have never stated the US Govt does not serve a purpose. That purpose is funded from the cradle to its death by the Tax payer
That entire event is the creation of the wealth you speak of in a sequential chain of events begins how?
It has to be funded

A fool would try to convince others any thing different

 

[JRK]

Govt allows wealth to be created.

Without government, there is no wealth.

Govt does what to allow wealth to be created?
Govt regulates how wealth is created
It taxes wealth that is created
But the person that puts his wealth at risk is the reason any welth is created
Not the US govt

 

[editec]

I think the stimulus didn't do a better job because it wasn't designed to do a better job.

It was a compromise that couldn't possibly solve the employment problem.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think the stimulus didn't do a better job because it wasn't designed to do a better job.

It was a compromise that couldn't possibly solve the employment problem.

Then why did Obama tout that it was going to keep unemployment below 8%? What about it mitigated against its working?
I mean other than the mistaken idea that gov't can spend its way to prosperity.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So, will this thread get to 500 posts before the OP explains to us what higher taxes he's referring to in the thread title?

 

[NYcarbineer]

NASA bleeds money. That's why the space program is being defunded.

They also create technology.



So the government creates technologies and the private sector profits from them.

Let me ask you: Do you think that supports your claim? If so, please think again.



Without government, those contracts would never have been signed. The government created those contracts and fostered the growth it created.

Now one can say but for the government contract, there would not have been the income from the construction of needed war material. However, it was not as though these companies were sitting with empty factories waiting for government to hand them work to do.

What the **** are you talking about? Cap utilization was about 50% when the war started! Of course there were empty factories.

We call that "The Great Depression". Perhaps you've heard of it. And when the war started, hundreds of new factories were built, which created wealth.

I'm amazed how far rightwingnuts will go to deny the clear and obvious facts in front of them - to the extent they will claim that there weren't empty factories in 1940

Precious.

Govt doesnt create technology.

Anyway, how did those factories get built? Who paid to build them? Where did the money come from? It had to be taxed from existing income earners or borrowed, crowding out private entities.
That is the part the Left always forgets. The money has to come from somewhere because Gov't cannot create it.

You think it's a problem because tax money has to come from somewhere and that means it can't go somewhere else?

The same thing happens to private money. Investor money that goes into a computer company can't also go into an automobile manufacturer.

This idea of tax money crowding out private money is daft.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What percent of jobs in this country require you to at least have a high school diploma?

What percent of high school diplomas come from the public school system?

You still want to claim that public education, run by the GOVERNMENT, doesn't add any value to our economy?

lol, maybe we should require every employer that hires a high school graduate to pay the taxpayers back for the cost of that person's education.

 

[Sallow]

I think the stimulus didn't do a better job because it wasn't designed to do a better job.

It was a compromise that couldn't possibly solve the employment problem.

Then why did Obama tout that it was going to keep unemployment below 8%? What about it mitigated against its working?I mean other than the mistaken idea that gov't can spend its way to prosperity.

Oh gosh.

What about it mitigated the stimulus?

Lots of things. Mostly done by Republicans.

First off they set a limit that was half as much as what was needed. Then the larded the thing with all sorts of tax cuts and tax goodies for big business. Then they didn't vote for it.

Republican governors..refused in some states to use the money from the stimulus for infrastructure repair...or building. As in the case of New Jersey.

So half as much as needed is going to take twice as long to work..

 

[The Rabbi]

I think the stimulus didn't do a better job because it wasn't designed to do a better job.

It was a compromise that couldn't possibly solve the employment problem.

Then why did Obama tout that it was going to keep unemployment below 8%? What about it mitigated against its working?I mean other than the mistaken idea that gov't can spend its way to prosperity.

Oh gosh.

What about it mitigated the stimulus?

Lots of things. Mostly done by Republicans.

First off they set a limit that was half as much as what was needed. Then the larded the thing with all sorts of tax cuts and tax goodies for big business. Then they didn't vote for it.

Republican governors..refused in some states to use the money from the stimulus for infrastructure repair...or building. As in the case of New Jersey.

So half as much as needed is going to take twice as long to work..

All of that is a total lie.
The stimulus was far bigger than what was originally proposed. The Dums had complete filibuster-proof majorities in both houses so the GOP had very little influence here. GOP governors rightly refused to accept the many strings the money came with, although Congress forced them to accept it, in e.g. South Carolina.
In NJyou are probably babbling about the tunnel. If you think one project could make or break the stimulus then you are an idiot of even greater proportions.

 

[JRK]

What percent of jobs in this country require you to at least have a high school diploma?

What percent of high school diplomas come from the public school system?

You still want to claim that public education, run by the GOVERNMENT, doesn't add any value to our economy?

lol, maybe we should require every employer that hires a high school graduate to pay the taxpayers back for the cost of that person's education.

My friend no-one here is claiming that the US govt serves many good and some not so good purposes
If a job mandated a diploma
could it be said that diploma could be attained without the federal govt?
Absolutely
Could it also be said that the school system is a product of tax payers wealth? When a liberal votes, thinks, and makes comment, he forgets that
In his way of thinking that wealth that I earn, that is taken from me every day, Is wealth that that he deserves thru the US Govt

Look I support our government 100%, what I do not support is the thought that the government produces anything
the government collects wealth, without that wealth it does not exist
School Vouchers are a prime example, they work
Protection of invention/idea is no more than that and without the tax-payer funding i, it would not exist

The Govt is there for the people and is by the people, its that simple

 

[Sallow]

Then why did Obama tout that it was going to keep unemployment below 8%? What about it mitigated against its working?I mean other than the mistaken idea that gov't can spend its way to prosperity.

Oh gosh.

What about it mitigated the stimulus?

Lots of things. Mostly done by Republicans.

First off they set a limit that was half as much as what was needed. Then the larded the thing with all sorts of tax cuts and tax goodies for big business. Then they didn't vote for it.

Republican governors..refused in some states to use the money from the stimulus for infrastructure repair...or building. As in the case of New Jersey.

So half as much as needed is going to take twice as long to work..

All of that is a total lie.
The stimulus was far bigger than what was originally proposed. The Dums had complete filibuster-proof majorities in both houses so the GOP had very little influence here. GOP governors rightly refused to accept the many strings the money came with, although Congress forced them to accept it, in e.g. South Carolina.
In NJyou are probably babbling about the tunnel. If you think one project could make or break the stimulus then you are an idiot of even greater proportions.

What you just posted is incorrect..and without any merit whatsoever.

Not really even worth addressing. The history of the stimulus is well known. Your fantasy not withstanding.

 

[JRK]

So, will this thread get to 500 posts before the OP explains to us what higher taxes he's referring to in the thread title?

The argument is GWB tax rate caused all of this and if we go back to Clinton's rate everything will be fine
More revenue to the federal govt does not have anything to do with tax rates being higher to start with

The argument is, and its right here is the US government creates wealth. There is the argument that lower tax rates just make the rich richer and the poor poorer
Now the Stimulus and the way Obama used his 1/2 of tarp was no different than a 650 billion tax increase in 24 months
550 billion you tell me where it went
you want to talk about the tax cuts in the stimulus as lost revenue?
lets off set that with 700 billion in tarp,

so lets go back to the 550 billion from the failed stimulus
thats no different than raising the tax rate, according to the thought of the liberal mind
higher tax rate, more revenue
this is why Clinton had a "surplus"
tax cut
this is why GWB had a "deficit"

with that increased revenue the govt has not created 1 private sector job that is or will become permanent and since the start of that event we as a country have lost close to 6 million jobs

Tax policy has so little to do with cause and effect until the effect is a tax rate thats to hi

The left has tried to blame so much of whats wrong right now and Bush
De regulation, oops he never done any
they go down the list and the big one here lately is tax policy and that all cutting taxes does is make the rich, richer

You allow the American tax payer to keep more of his wealth, he is going to spend it
you provide some a sector that is profitable as the housing market was at one time, they will invest in it with that added wealth
right now what GWB allowed me to keep, I have invested in the stock market only because there is no other avenue right now to invest it
I am a perfect example of whats wrong
I have the recourses to start a small trucking firm. the lack of work combined with high fuel prices puts that at to much risk

 

[Truthmatters]

Citizen's Guide to the Federal Budget: Fiscal Year 2001


Citizen's Guide to the Federal Budget: Fiscal Year 2001
4. The Budget Surplus and Fiscal Discipline
In 1998, the Federal budget reported its first surplus ($69 billion) since 1969. In 1999, the surplus nearly doubled to $124 billion. As a result of these surpluses, Federal debt held by the public has been reduced from $3.8 trillion at the end of 1997 to $3.6 trillion at the end of 1999. With continued prudent fiscal policies, the budget can remain in surplus for many years. Under the President's budget proposals, the Federal debt held by the public would be fully paid back by 2013.

Put simply, a surplus occurs when revenues exceed spending in any year--just as a deficit occurs when spending exceeds revenues. Generally, to finance past deficits, the Treasury has borrowed money. With certain exceptions, the debt is the sum total of our deficits, minus our surpluses, over the years.

 

[JRK]

Citizen's Guide to the Federal Budget: Fiscal Year 2001


Citizen's Guide to the Federal Budget: Fiscal Year 2001
4. The Budget Surplus and Fiscal Discipline
In 1998, the Federal budget reported its first surplus ($69 billion) since 1969. In 1999, the surplus nearly doubled to $124 billion. As a result of these surpluses, Federal debt held by the public has been reduced from $3.8 trillion at the end of 1997 to $3.6 trillion at the end of 1999. With continued prudent fiscal policies, the budget can remain in surplus for many years. Under the President's budget proposals, the Federal debt held by the public would be fully paid back by 2013.

Put simply, a surplus occurs when revenues exceed spending in any year--just as a deficit occurs when spending exceeds revenues. Generally, to finance past deficits, the Treasury has borrowed money. With certain exceptions, the debt is the sum total of our deficits, minus our surpluses, over the years.

I have no idea what that is suppose to mean

 

[JRK]

I think the stimulus didn't do a better job because it wasn't designed to do a better job.

It was a compromise that couldn't possibly solve the employment problem.

Then why did Obama tout that it was going to keep unemployment below 8%? What about it mitigated against its working?
I mean other than the mistaken idea that gov't can spend its way to prosperity.

Thats a very good way to make the point I am trying to make
We cannot spend our way into prosperity
Thats the same as saying one of the reasons we are in the mess we are in is GWB tax policy.
One has to assume the Liberal thinks that the Govt with more wealth will spend it where the citizen that is allowed to keep that wealth will not?

 

[The Rabbi]

Oh gosh.

What about it mitigated the stimulus?

Lots of things. Mostly done by Republicans.

First off they set a limit that was half as much as what was needed. Then the larded the thing with all sorts of tax cuts and tax goodies for big business. Then they didn't vote for it.

Republican governors..refused in some states to use the money from the stimulus for infrastructure repair...or building. As in the case of New Jersey.

So half as much as needed is going to take twice as long to work..

All of that is a total lie.
The stimulus was far bigger than what was originally proposed. The Dums had complete filibuster-proof majorities in both houses so the GOP had very little influence here. GOP governors rightly refused to accept the many strings the money came with, although Congress forced them to accept it, in e.g. South Carolina.
In NJyou are probably babbling about the tunnel. If you think one project could make or break the stimulus then you are an idiot of even greater proportions.

What you just posted is incorrect..and without any merit whatsoever.

Not really even worth addressing. The history of the stimulus is well known. Your fantasy not withstanding.

So I guess Paul Krugman is lying in this op-ed when he describes how the number kept growing.
The story of the stimulus - NYTimes.com

I guess Congress did not have a majority of Democrats in the House and a super-majority in the Senate while this was going on.

I guess SC's governor did not refuse stimulus money on the grounds it would cost too much.
Newsvine - S.C. Governor Sanford Refuses Stimulus Money

So I guess your post is filled with inaccuracies, half lies, and bullshit. IOW, par for the course.

 

[8537]

no it does not
govt takes wealth from the tax payer an re distribute's it
patent office is funded by tax payers wealth

Lol. Just stop, JRK. You're embarrassing yourself. The protection of private property rights doesn't play a role in creating wealth?

That would explain why countries with no such protections are such thriving wealth creators!

Oh wait...

How am I making a fool of myself

By making an ignorant claim that government doesn't play a role in creating wealth. Every economist from Marx to Marshall to Mises understands this. You don't.

A fool is trying to convince others of something different.