Obama Speech on Jobs

[Fern]

No it doesn't.

What it does imply is that all expenditures have an impact on demand. If expenditures are wasteful and inefficient they should be removed regardless, but to tie a reduction in expenditures elsewhere with a stimulus package is absolutely self defeating.

You've just implied it again.

If I cut $1 trillion in expenses that had a stimulative effect (increase in demand) of 'x', then choose new expenditures of $1 trillion that had an effect of 2 times 'x', I'm coming out way ahead with no net increase in spending.

Fern

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Wouldn't do him any good. His supporters all think pistols are to be held sideways; his opponents know how to use sights.

racist!

 

[Fern]

Pending the release of Obama's written plan with details, I'll say this new plan looks a helluva lot like the old one.

Just spreading more govt 'candy' around for a quick sugar buzz before the election.

Did our economy falter because schools didn't have fresh coats of paint? Nope. The maintenance thing looks an awful lot like the state/local govt 'welfare' in the last stimulus. Similarly, with this one states/local govt's will be able to shift their maintenance dollars around elsewhere to plug their budgets.

More road paving? Was that why our economy faltered? Nope. (I'm curious to see if there's any real infrastructure development here, like new highways or bridges. If there is we won't see anything in the near term because those are LT projects that take a lot of time to get in motion. I support REAL LT infrastructure building, new highways, airports, bridges etc, but not more repaving. That's maintenance, and in some cases 'busy work', not infrastructure development.)

A couple of percentage points of payroll tax withholding killed our economy? Nope.

I don't see how any of this addresses any of our systemic and other problems leading us to the current economic problems.

Just more big dollar programs (about a half $ trillion) amounting to a short term bandaid.

Fern

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Pending the release of Obama's written plan with details, I'll say this new plan looks a helluva lot like the old one.

Just spreading more govt 'candy' around for a quick sugar buzz before the election.

Did our economy falter because schools didn't have fresh coats of paint? Nope. The maintenance thing looks an awful lot like the state/local govt 'welfare' in the last stimulus. Similarly, with this one states/local govt's will be able to shift their maintenance dollars around elsewhere to plug their budgets.

More road paving? Was that why our economy faltered? Nope. (I'm curious to see if there's any real infrastructure development here, like new highways or bridges. If there is we won't see anything in the near term because those are LT projects that take a lot of time to get in motion. I support REAL LT infrastructure building, new highways, airports, bridges etc, but not more repaving. That's maintenance, and in some cases 'busy work', not infrastructure development.)

A couple of percentage points of payroll tax withholding killed our economy? Nope.

I don't see how any of this addresses any of our systemic and other problems leading us to the current economic problems.

Just more big dollar programs (about a half $ trillion) amounting to a short term bandaid.

Fern

Did you expect any different?

 

[werepossum]

Pending the release of Obama's written plan with details, I'll say this new plan looks a helluva lot like the old one.

Just spreading more govt 'candy' around for a quick sugar buzz before the election.

Did our economy falter because schools didn't have fresh coats of paint? Nope. The maintenance thing looks an awful lot like the state/local govt 'welfare' in the last stimulus. Similarly, with this one states/local govt's will be able to shift their maintenance dollars around elsewhere to plug their budgets.

More road paving? Was that why our economy faltered? Nope. (I'm curious to see if there's any real infrastructure development here, like new highways or bridges. If there is we won't see anything in the near term because those are LT projects that take a lot of time to get in motion. I support REAL LT infrastructure building, new highways, airports, bridges etc, but not more repaving. That's maintenance, and in some cases 'busy work', not infrastructure development.)

A couple of percentage points of payroll tax withholding killed our economy? Nope.

I don't see how any of this addresses any of our systemic and other problems leading us to the current economic problems.

Just more big dollar programs (about a half $ trillion) amounting to a short term bandaid.

Fern

Second verse, same as the first! Everybody!

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by OneOfTheseDays
This is why this country is fucked. You and your ilk simply don't have this country's best interest at heart. Your more content to watch it burn in flames.

Honestly I don't give two shits about you or your GOP ilk anymore. You are a scourge that must be rooted out of politics ASAP.

-Doesn't believe in evolution
-Doesn't believe in global warming
-Believes tax cuts for the rich will trickle down to the poor
-Believes in teaching Creationism in science classes
-Hates and discriminates against gays and minorities

That's your party. That's who you are.

you are a brainwashed tool.

On what points is he wrong?

 

[First]

Since a vast supermajority of economists agree the stimulus had a net positive or large net positive impact on the economy, it's not particularly surprising we're getting a 2nd stimulus recommended by people who aren't abject ideologues. Good move on the administration's part.

 

[Fern]

Since a vast supermajority of economists agree the stimulus had a net positive or large net positive impact on the economy, it's not particularly surprising we're getting a 2nd stimulus recommended by people who aren't abject ideologues. Good move on the administration's part.

Yeah, it was such large positive impact on the economy that things today are looking good and we don't need another expensive stimulus only two years later. Oh wait...



Fern

 

[Nemesis 1]

Since a vast supermajority of economists agree the stimulus had a net positive or large net positive impact on the economy, it's not particularly surprising we're getting a 2nd stimulus recommended by people who aren't abject ideologues. Good move on the administration's part.

Problem is these so called experts are semi retarded.

 

[werepossum]

Yeah, it was such large positive impact on the economy that things today are looking good and we don't need another expensive stimulus only two years later. Oh wait...



Fern

I don't think we've even finished spending the first one, have we?

 

[First]

Yeah, it was such large positive impact on the economy

It did, it's a simple matter of mathematics and straight forward econometrics. Without an injection of dollars from somewhere (in this case gov't stimulus) we would have tanked, and that's undeniably what happened in Q4 08, GDP tanked 6% because there was no gov't stimulus yet and private industry wasn't there to save the day as it usually does, leading to a huge drop in hiring due to lack of aggregate demand from self-perpetuated hysteria about financial stability stemming from casino-like gambling on the part of 2 major players (Lehman and AIG). Which is exactly when gov't should step in. Not frequently, just during infrequent severe recessions. But anyway, continue with your wholly unsupported and misguided rant...

that things today are looking good and we don't need another expensive stimulus only two years later. Oh wait...



Fern

I fail to see the point of this nonsense statement, since 2.1M+ private jobs have been created since January 2009 while 550,000+ local/state/federal jobs have been lost. You seem to be lacking the arithmetic to understand what's going on here.

 

[BoberFett]

Since a vast supermajority of economists agree the stimulus had a net positive or large net positive impact on the economy, it's not particularly surprising we're getting a 2nd stimulus recommended by people who aren't abject ideologues. Good move on the administration's part.

Buying things on credit improves my short term cashflow also. Doesn't mean it's a good idea for long term economic health. Aren't we always down on corporations because they only think about the next quarter? Why should government get a free pass when it comes to short term thinking?

The stimulus certainly helped. How it could not? We took future dollars and spent it now instead. Of course that will simply make it more difficult in the future, but I guess we'll deal with that when we get there?

 

[First]

Buying things on credit improves my short term cashflow also. Doesn't mean it's a good idea for long term economic health. Aren't we always down on corporations because they only think about the next quarter? Why should government get a free pass when it comes to short term thinking?

The stimulus certainly helped. How it could not? We took future dollars and spent it now instead. Of course that will simply make it more difficult in the future, but I guess we'll deal with that when we get there?

Right, borrowing from the future to fund and get through the present, which isn't "ideal" but it's hard to call it unwarranted when the alternative is likely worse; deflationary pressure on wages and far, far more job losses. It makes growing more difficult in the future, sure, but it doesn't make it impossible and, honestly, I don't ever see an end to the idea of business cycles created by bubble industries. Green energy or AI could be the next big bubble, and 5%-6% growth for a few years (and a corresponding increase in gov't revenue in the hundreds of billions) wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Fern]

I don't think we've even finished spending the first one, have we?

I don't think so. IIRC, I recently heard that only 30% of stim money for 'green projects' has been disbursed.

Fern

 

[BoberFett]

Right, borrowing from the future to fund and get through the present, which isn't "ideal" but it's hard to call it unwarranted when the alternative is likely worse; deflationary pressure on wages and far, far more job losses. It makes growing more difficult in the future, sure, but it doesn't make it impossible and, honestly, I don't ever see an end to the idea of business cycles created by bubble industries. Green energy or AI could be the next big bubble, and 5%-6% growth for a few years (and a corresponding increase in gov't revenue in the hundreds of billions) wouldn't surprise me.

You may be right, but then the world economy is truly screwed.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Fern is quite possibly the dumbest accountant I've ever seen. I wouldn't trust this guy with my money.

Seriously, learn basic math. You fail at it.

 

[werepossum]

Fern is quite possibly the dumbest accountant I've ever seen. I wouldn't trust this guy with my money.

Seriously, learn basic math. You fail at it.

With an attack like that, it's a good thing you've already demonstrated your absolute mastery of - um, I mean basic proficiency in . . . Uh, enough common sense to - Lack of sheer idiocy . . .


Houston, we have a problem . . .

 

[Bowfinger]

Buying things on credit improves my short term cashflow also. Doesn't mean it's a good idea for long term economic health. Aren't we always down on corporations because they only think about the next quarter? Why should government get a free pass when it comes to short term thinking?

The stimulus certainly helped. How it could not? We took future dollars and spent it now instead. Of course that will simply make it more difficult in the future, but I guess we'll deal with that when we get there?

Sorry, that's the wrong argument. It's not short-term thinking when it's an investment with a long-term profit. That's the philosophy behind these stimulus plans. They are intended to fuel the economy NOW, to keep things from crashing so badly that they cripple the economy far into the future. That is the epitome of long-term thinking.

The valid argument is whether these plans will produce this long-term payoff. Unfortunately, the only way to prove it is if they fail and the economy fails ... and even then the argument will be the plans simply weren't big enough. If the economy recovers, the proponents will claim they worked and the opponents will claim the economy would have recovered anyway. All we have is opinions, most driven solely by ideology.

 

[werepossum]

Sorry, that's the wrong argument. It's not short-term thinking when it's an investment with a long-term profit. That's the philosophy behind these stimulus plans. They are intended to fuel the economy NOW, to keep things from crashing so badly that they cripple the economy far into the future. That is the epitome of long-term thinking.

The valid argument is whether these plans will produce this long-term payoff. Unfortunately, the only way to prove it is if they fail and the economy fails ... and even then the argument will be the plans simply weren't big enough. If the economy recovers, the proponents will claim they worked and the opponents will claim the economy would have recovered anyway. All we have is opinions, most driven solely by ideology.

QFT Same thing with tax cuts on the other side.

 

[BoberFett]

Sorry, that's the wrong argument. It's not short-term thinking when it's an investment with a long-term profit. That's the philosophy behind these stimulus plans. They are intended to fuel the economy NOW, to keep things from crashing so badly that they cripple the economy far into the future. That is the epitome of long-term thinking.

The valid argument is whether these plans will produce this long-term payoff. Unfortunately, the only way to prove it is if they fail and the economy fails ... and even then the argument will be the plans simply weren't big enough. If the economy recovers, the proponents will claim they worked and the opponents will claim the economy would have recovered anyway. All we have is opinions, most driven solely by ideology.

The economy has to contract. We've been riding bubble after bubble for too long. Long term thinking would mean learning how to live sustainably in that economic reality instead of one where we close our eyes, plug our ears and pretend everything is great because we keep spending our grandchildrens money. Why is sustainable energy such a popular topic but sustainable economies aren't?

Besides, we're barely investing anything. We're simply going to increase government handouts while we create some make work programs with no real long term output.

 

[werepossum]

The economy has to contract. We've been riding bubble after bubble for too long. Long term thinking would mean learning how to live sustainably in that economic reality instead of one where we close our eyes, plug our ears and pretend everything is great because we keep spending our grandchildrens money. Why is sustainable energy such a popular topic but sustainable economies aren't?

Besides, we're barely investing anything. We're simply going to increase government handouts while we create some make work programs with no real long term output.

Exactly right. Problem is, government is really, really bad at predicting which new technology is the Ford Model T and which is the Toledo Steam Carriage.

 

[Jhhnn]

QFT Same thing with tax cuts on the other side.

Tax cuts have an indirect effect, at best. There's no reason to think that the money won't just be spent on schlock from Guangdong, used to pay down debt, or in the case of the rich, socked away into govt bonds, conveniently made available by... tax cuts.

Tax cuts are completely immaterial for people who don't have jobs, btw...

 

[Fern]

Does anybody here think Obama proposed an almost half $ trillion plan to give Boehner and the House Repubs a major headache with the TEA Party people before the election?

Before jumping to the conclusion that TEA Party will support this for the tax cuts be aware their polling doesn't indicate they want tax cuts. They want (1) less gov spending and (2) no new taxes according to the polls recently.

Are we going to have a redo of the debt ceiling type event?

Personally I think the plan is crap as far as real economic improvement, but might be shrewd political gamesmanship. Either way he wins, if he gets his plan passed it's just bunch of expensive govt candy to make him look better before the election.

Fern

 

[SparkyJJO]

Cutting spending in the middle of a recession.

Well DUH. The wallet is empty, been empty, and the cards are near maxed. If you or I was faced with that, you and I would have to cut spending too. Why is government any different? Spending more hasn't gotten us anywhere except into a deeper and deeper hole, why would it change now? Something about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result comes to mind.

Balance the freakin' budget. Oh noes, it'll hurt some to do that! Well guess what, it hurts NOW, and to keep putting it off makes it hurt MORE later.

It is something so elementary, a 5th grader can tell you when numbers don't add up, yet the brilliance of government is to ignore basic math and pretend that general economic rules don't apply to them.

 

[trenchfoot]

Wouldn't do him any good. His supporters all think pistols are to be held sideways; his opponents know how to use sights.

lol And the ones with SNS revolvers all had silencers put on them.