Why we want stimulus now and worry about deficits later

[saveliberty]

A temporary increase in the government spending.

I rest my case.


Where is that correlation?

What correlation?

Government spending has been increasing for a very long time. Something about your temporary is rotten.

 

[saveliberty]

A temporary increase in the government spending.

Oy vey..Facepalm.

Did I miss something, or is it just a symptom of your mental condition?

Yes, many of us have it, its an aversion to stupid. t-e-m-p-o-r-a-r-y.

 

[saveliberty]

OK, but there are plenty of shovel-ready projects, so that is not an argument against the stimulus in principle.

Even Obama admitted that wasn't true. Living the myth I see.

I did not quite get how can you replace money with money (where did the first money go?). But -- if I guessed right -- the stimulus on federal level was offset by the cuts at the state and local levels. That is true, so the net stimulus was much less that the official 700 millions number, much less a trillion, which the rights are complained about.

No the 700 Billion (not million), is a debt now thanks a lot (sarcasm).
And BTW, that makes the aid to the states a shovel-ready project -- it lets them hire back the teachers and fire fighters they had to lay off.

Allowing continuation of failed spending. (sarcasm)

And that is an obvious fallacy. The reason the economy went into recession is the drop in the private sector demand. Which means a lot of money in private sector are neither spent, nor invested -- rather they are sit as idle cash.

No, it was not demand, it was the job losses which was the result of wreckless government economic policy. The job losses meant people spent less.

Thus, borrowing those idle money by the government has zero effect on the economy. And when the government spends those borrowed money, it increases the aggregate demand.

Did the US borrow this "idle money" from US business as you propose? No, it was foreign money. Fail.

And the fact that there are huge sums of idle cash in the US economy is just that -- a fact, not a theory:
U.S. Companies Sitting On Cash Choose Stock Buybacks Over Jobs
Banks Are Swimming in Cash - Graphic - NYTimes.com

Businesses are rational players (Austrian economics). They reduced their obligations which was deemed safer than risking capital.

Also the owners of that idle cash are begging the government to borrow it because even 0.5% interest is better than 0. That is why the interest on the government debt is at record lows. This would be a perfect time to repair our highways, hire teachers, build a particle accelerator or more f-22s fighters that are "too expensive". If only the Republicans were not a mass of stupid morons.

Total disconnect with reality. :cuckoo

Oh, and Obama just cut funding to MSU's subatomic research building project.

My comments in blue.

 

[Full-Auto]

Like we needed another proof that you are a right wing nut in a denial of reality.

The disingenuously dubbed OASI and Medicare "trust funds" were brought on budget and their excess funds siphoned off to the "balance the budget"...Do this in the real world and you go to prison...Do it as a politician and neo-Keynesian socialist party man hacks laud you as a great steward of gubmint finances.

Like we needed any more proof that you are a blind authoritarian socialist central controller lemming.

For your information Red is Republican....Blue is Democrat. Kind of tells the story when Bush took over a surplus, cut taxes in 2001, 2003 and ran us in the hole again. Are You Ignorant or Stupid Everyone else seems to understand:

another worthless chart from the boards biggest liar.


Here are the real figures asswipe.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

 

[saveliberty]

Like we needed another proof that you are a right wing nut in a denial of reality.

The disingenuously dubbed OASI and Medicare "trust funds" were brought on budget and their excess funds siphoned off to the "balance the budget"...Do this in the real world and you go to prison...Do it as a politician and neo-Keynesian socialist party man hacks laud you as a great steward of gubmint finances.

Like we needed any more proof that you are a blind authoritarian socialist central controller lemming.

For your information Red is Republican....Blue is Democrat. Kind of tells the story when Bush took over a surplus, cut taxes in 2001, 2003 and ran us in the hole again. Are You Ignorant or Stupid Everyone else seems to understand:

Note the red are periods of US involvement in wars. It was war spending idiot.

 

[saveliberty]

All government spending does is increase the dependence of Americans on their government. It is economic slavery of the first order. We don't want to play thank you.

Kinda hurts doesn't it. If your party talks about changing social security, Medicare, Food Stamps or unemployment benefits they will automatically effect the possibility of losing tens of millions of votes. I think they had better be careful what they say. All of us aren't members of the T Party

If you people are serious talk about cutting the defense budget. Our military is stronger than that of the next ten country's combined. We don't need hand held flying robots and people in Denver flying drones over Pakistan by remote control....military toys. One of your own presidents, Dwight Eisenhower warned of the pending military-industrial complex over fifty years ago but nobody paid any attention to him.

Enjoy your slavery.

 

[naturegirl]

That's a damn lie. This downturn was absolutely and without question the worst thing that's happened in America since the early 30's. I'm surprised even a hard Right prick would assert such horse shit.

Compare the numbers little sheep.

In 81 the unemployment rate was higher, nearly 11% therefore the recession was worse.

In 82 when we came out of the recession unemployment was in the mid 7% range and GDP was 12% over pre-recession numbers.

Currently even with all the so called stimulus we are still over 8% unemployment and GDP is a pathetic .04% over pre-recession numbers.

So to recap 1981 had higher unemployment but we came out of the recession faster and with more momentum than this current recession despite your claims that government spending improved our recovery.

Where'd you get that load of shit....Fox News


United States Unemployment Rate
Here's a look at the U.S. unemployment rate for selected years from 1920 to 2010.

Year Rate
1920 5.2 %
1928 4.2
1930 8.7
1932 23.6
1934 21.7
1936 16.9
1938 19.0
1940 14.6
1942 4.7%
1944 1.2
1946 3.9
1948 3.8
1950 5.3
1952 3.0
1954 5.5
1956 4.1
1958 6.8%
1960 5.5
1962 5.5
1964 5.2
1966 3.8
1968 3.6
1970 4.9
1972 5.6
1974 5.6%
1976 7.7
1978 6.1
1980 7.1
1982 9.7
1984 7.5
1986 7.0
1987 6.2
1988 5.5
1989 5.3
1990 5.6%
1991 6.8
1992 7.5
1993 6.9
1994 6.1
1995 5.6
1996 5.4
1997 4.9
1998 4.5
1999 4.2
2000 4.0
2001 4.7
2002 5.8
2003 6.0%
2004 5.5
2005 5.1
2006 4.6
2007 4.6
2008 5.8
2009 9.3
2010 9.6



Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Web: stats.bls.gov .

Whoops, looks like someone got to pick and choose what data they wanted to show. There are a few gaps there, here are some of the missing ones: (Dang how did that happen???)

1981-10-01 7.9
1981-11-01 8.3
1981-12-01 8.5
1982-01-01 8.6
1982-02-01 8.9
1982-03-01 9.0
1982-04-01 9.3
1982-05-01 9.4
1982-06-01 9.6
1982-07-01 9.8
1982-08-01 9.8
1982-09-01 10.1
1982-10-01 10.4
1982-11-01 10.8
1982-12-01 10.8
1983-01-01 10.4
1983-02-01 10.4
1983-03-01 10.3
1983-04-01 10.2
1983-05-01 10.1
1983-06-01 10.1
1983-07-01 9.4
1983-08-01 9.5
1983-09-01 9.2
1983-10-01 8.8
1983-11-01 8.5
1983-12-01 8.3
1984-01-01 8.0
1984-02-01 7.8

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

So yea, we've had deeper recessions that we recovered from a whole lot faster. So who's full of caca now Cammmmmmmmmpbelllllllllllllllllllll??

 

[saveliberty]

Selective data, funny stuff Crampedcell.

 

[Mac1958]

The disingenuously dubbed OASI and Medicare "trust funds" were brought on budget and their excess funds siphoned off to the "balance the budget"...Do this in the real world and you go to prison...Do it as a politician and neo-Keynesian socialist party man hacks laud you as a great steward of gubmint finances.

Like we needed any more proof that you are a blind authoritarian socialist central controller lemming.

For your information Red is Republican....Blue is Democrat. Kind of tells the story when Bush took over a surplus, cut taxes in 2001, 2003 and ran us in the hole again. Are You Ignorant or Stupid Everyone else seems to understand:

Note the red are periods of US involvement in wars. It was war spending idiot.

So we're less likely to be in a war and more likely to have a surplus when a Democrat is in the White House? And this isn't a good thing?

.

 

[saveliberty]

For your information Red is Republican....Blue is Democrat. Kind of tells the story when Bush took over a surplus, cut taxes in 2001, 2003 and ran us in the hole again. Are You Ignorant or Stupid Everyone else seems to understand:

Note the red are periods of US involvement in wars. It was war spending idiot.

So we're less likely to be in a war and more likely to have a surplus when a Democrat is in the White House? And this isn't a good thing?

.

I guess the terrorists are in league with the Democrats.

 

[Oddball]

For your information Red is Republican....Blue is Democrat. Kind of tells the story when Bush took over a surplus, cut taxes in 2001, 2003 and ran us in the hole again. Are You Ignorant or Stupid Everyone else seems to understand:

Note the red are periods of US involvement in wars. It was war spending idiot.

So we're less likely to be in a war and more likely to have a surplus when a Democrat is in the White House? And this isn't a good thing?

.

You mean like democrats Wilson, FDR, Truman and LBJ?

 

[Mac1958]

Note the red are periods of US involvement in wars. It was war spending idiot.

So we're less likely to be in a war and more likely to have a surplus when a Democrat is in the White House? And this isn't a good thing?

.

I guess the terrorists are in league with the Democrats.

What, terrorists want us to have peace and prosperity? This is new.

.

 

[saveliberty]

So we're less likely to be in a war and more likely to have a surplus when a Democrat is in the White House? And this isn't a good thing?

.

I guess the terrorists are in league with the Democrats.

What, terrorists want us to have peace and prosperity? This is new.

.

No, apparently Democrats want us at war when a Republican is in office. They approve the funding and support the actions.

 

[Mac1958]

I guess the terrorists are in league with the Democrats.

What, terrorists want us to have peace and prosperity? This is new.

.

No, apparently Democrats want us at war when a Republican is in office. They approve the funding and support the actions.

Okay, so the theory is that Democrats move us into peace and prosperity, but so badly want to damage the GOP and the country that they sabotage a Republican President by forcing him into wars and corresponding outrageous military spending. That's why they start with peace and prosperity, because then it looks even worse when the GOP President takes us in the opposite direction. It's all an anti-American, pro-terrorist conspiracy. Okay, got it.

Either that, or they're just more responsible.

One of the two, definitely.

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Like we needed another proof that you are a right wing nut in a denial of reality.

The disingenuously dubbed OASI and Medicare "trust funds" were brought on budget and their excess funds siphoned off to the "balance the budget"...Do this in the real world and you go to prison...Do it as a politician and neo-Keynesian socialist party man hacks laud you as a great steward of gubmint finances.

Like we needed any more proof that you are a blind authoritarian socialist central controller lemming.

For your information Red is Republican....Blue is Democrat. Kind of tells the story when Bush took over a surplus, cut taxes in 2001, 2003 and ran us in the hole again. Are You Ignorant or Stupid Everyone else seems to understand:

Why does your chart end in 2006? Now that Obama is in charge, it should be in surplus again.

 

[thereisnospoon]

A temporary increase in the government spending.

Oy vey..Facepalm.

Did I miss something, or is it just a symptom of your mental condition?

Once again. There is no such thing as temporary government spending.
I suppose when some politician goes in front a camera and beams with wide smile that government came up with a way to "save" money, you believe him/her?
Government does not save money.
Money collected and not spent where it previously has been is simply spent on somethng else.
For example....Here in this area we've had a mild winter. We received our first winter precip Sunday. It melted. So in the event we receive no other winter precip events, the local and county snow removal budgets are relatively untapped. The materials and fuel unused. IS this "saved" money? No...The budget for next winter will be lower. But the money WE paid in taxes for this budget is not returned to us( taxpayer) that money is simply spent elsewhere. GET IT?
Same issue when government runs a "surplus". That money is NEVER returned to it's rightful owners. That cash is simply used elsewhere. Of course the government entity will report to the media that they have a surplus. All that should mean to anyone with half a brain is that we were over taxed.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The economy had stopped contracting 4 months after the stimulus was announced. You may suggest that the two events are unrelated, but the you'd be better prepared to provide the factual support for the claim.

Nobody has to prove anything. There is no single variable correlation in an economy that is complex as this one.

You've never been able to prove the two are related.

I am so tired of you the dump people! Can you suggest a model in which the stimulus would NOT improve a depressed economy? When you claim that the stimulus did not work, you have to prove it because otherwise there is no single reason to believe that it didn't!

Government places orders, companies respond by stopping the lay-offs -- what other outcome could you possibly expect?

Listen, don't try playing mind checkers with us. We have you figured out.
Your entire premise is based on that you people look to government for all of your wants and needs.

 

[thereisnospoon]

If WWII brought us out of the great depression, as you claim, then it was an unprecedented government spending program (for the war) financed with borrowed money that did it.

That, by definition, is what a stimulus is.

Government spending with a purpose on national defense is Constitutionally mandated.
It was hire the defense contractors or be over run by the Japanese Empire or Germany.
Again, it was not until the early 50's the US economy actually began to grow at substantial and sustainable rates. WHY? Because the private sector was doing the heavy lifting.
Government spending which needs tax increases in order to be funded, removes cash from the economy and that cash never returns 100%. In fact, more times than not government spending results in a negative return to the taxpayers.

There is absoutely nothing in the Constitution that mandates how much we have to spend on defense.

And nothing you said refutes my point.

Dude.....Shut it.
Preamble





We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The authority given the federal government to provide for the common defense is broad.
Your argument is specious.

 

[Oddball]

Government spending with a purpose on national defense is Constitutionally mandated.
It was hire the defense contractors or be over run by the Japanese Empire or Germany.
Again, it was not until the early 50's the US economy actually began to grow at substantial and sustainable rates. WHY? Because the private sector was doing the heavy lifting.
Government spending which needs tax increases in order to be funded, removes cash from the economy and that cash never returns 100%. In fact, more times than not government spending results in a negative return to the taxpayers.

There is absoutely nothing in the Constitution that mandates how much we have to spend on defense.

And nothing you said refutes my point.

Dude.....Shut it.
Preamble





We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The authority given the federal government to provide for the common defense is broad.
Your argument is specious.

The vast bulk of carby's arguments are.


That said, the preamble is just an outline...The directed power to spend is in Article 1, Section 8.

 

[thereisnospoon]

If WWII brought us out of the great depression, as you claim, then it was an unprecedented government spending program (for the war) financed with borrowed money that did it.

That, by definition, is what a stimulus is.

Government spending with a purpose on national defense is Constitutionally mandated.
It was hire the defense contractors or be over run by the Japanese Empire or Germany.
Again, it was not until the early 50's the US economy actually began to grow at substantial and sustainable rates. WHY? Because the private sector was doing the heavy lifting.
Government spending which needs tax increases in order to be funded, removes cash from the economy and that cash never returns 100%. In fact, more times than not government spending results in a negative return to the taxpayers.

There is absoutely nothing in the Constitution that mandates how much we have to spend on defense.

And nothing you said refutes my point.

There does not exist a limit on military spending for the common defense either. What's your point? Ifr you have one. Or are you simply arguing for the sake of argument?