Obama urging for $50B spending to cover states' shortcomings.

[ayabe]

Kudos to those states who are balancing their budgets but they wouldn't have been able to do that without the original stimulus plan and anyone claiming otherwise is just refusing to deal with facts.

I'm looking at you Texas.

 

[IGBT]

vast majority of states in trouble are liberal controlled states. why aren't they examples of economic solvency??

 

[nageov3t]

vast majority of states in trouble are liberal controlled states. why aren't they examples of economic solvency??

people actually wanted to live in liberal-controlled states, fueling the housing bubble, which allowed states to base their budgets on property tax income that has since disappeared in the crash?

 

[IGBT]

people actually wanted to live in liberal-controlled states, fueling the housing bubble, which allowed states to base their budgets on property tax income that has since disappeared in the crash?

so they recklessly spent up to and beyond their revenue and used base line budgeting scam to justify the spending.

 

[Throckmorton]

LOL Republicans claim that Obama hasn't helped unemployment and bash him for it, then when he wants to give more money to states so they don't have to lay workers off they bash him for that.

If anyone really thinks this isn't purely political gamesmanship, wake up.

 

[nick1985]

Throck, do you think we have this money?

 

[Throckmorton]

Throck, do you think we have this money?

We don't have this money. Hence we would BORROW IT, just like we borrowed the money for Bush's stimulus, Obama's stimulus, the current wars, and the public works programs and WWII that saved us from the Great Depression. Jesus H. Christ, it's like you fail to grasp the most basic of concepts, even something as basic as deficit.

Do you understand the concept of deficit spending? Do you understand the concept of deficit spending to help the economy during a recession? Do you understand the concept of deficit spending to prevent greater unemployment which would make the recession worse?

I could have sworn I tried and tried to explain this to you last week, and you just refuse to get it. In your economics challenged brain, government should cut spending during a recession, and apparently no amount of education will change that. I really hope that one day you crack open an economics textbook, maybe even a history textbook.

 

[nick1985]

Do you honestly for a second believe they will balance the budget when the recession ends (if it ends)?

I see you are trying to attack me in your last paragraph(and no, I dont think you were arguing with me), so I'll take the high road and just ignore that. It makes you look dumb as fuck.

 

[Fern]

Fail, sorry. This is not meant to Fix "Bankruptcy"(which is a false statement to begin with). It is meant to maintain essential Services during an Economic Downturn. I realize that doesn't invoke the necessary Outrage talking point, but it is the truth of the matter.

That's funny, because when they did the exact same thing in $trillion stimulous bill it was said to stimulate the economy.

So, no, it's not maintain essential services. It's for political purposes. November is rapidly approaching. Otherwise unemployment figures will look worse (can no longer count each renewed teacher job as 3 or 4 "new jobs") and the unions (AFSCME) want some 'payback' for their support.

Fern

 

[Throckmorton]

Do you honestly for a second believe they will balance the budget when the recession ends (if it ends)?

I see you are trying to attack me in your last paragraph(and no, I dont think you were arguing with me), so I'll take the high road and just ignore that. It makes you look dumb as fuck.

I sure as hell hope we do get back to the surplus we had at the end of the Clinton administration so we can reduce the national debt. That would be dependent on not getting a Republican president who "gives back" the surplus to the people in the form of tax cuts .

What makes YOU look dumb as fuck is refusing to understand the very basic concepts of stimulus spending and borrowing from the future to fund the present. Do you not see that even George W. Bush understood stimulus spending? The current rightwing politicaly posturing hasn't changed that, only convinced gullible people like you that stimulus is bad and government should cut spending during a recession or depression. You can bet that if conservatives were in power they'd also be deficit spending (which btw they were doing even when the economy was good) and stimulating the economy, because they do have common sense.

I hope one day you post on this forum that you're starting a business with a loan from the bank, so I can ask you if you "have the money" and bash you for borrowing from the future to fund your business. After all, isn't the concept that you'd be better off in the future thanks to borrowing now completely alien to you?

 

[Fern]

LOL Republicans claim that Obama hasn't helped unemployment and bash him for it, then when he wants to give more money to states so they don't have to lay workers off they bash him for that.

If anyone really thinks this isn't purely political gamesmanship, wake up.

Some federal support to states is understandable for unemployment etc and to cushion the downturn (although has supposidly passed).

However, my complaint has always been that government jobs do not produce GDP. Gov jobs do not generate the income to be self-supporting like private sector jobs. This is another 'temporary', and expensive, patch that does little to nothing to solve the economic problem. We need more GDP to pull us of out of this, to generate jobs and revenue. Throwing our recourses at this is just giving rise to other problems without providing a long term (or real) solution.

Fern

 

[Throckmorton]

Some federal support to states is understandable for unemployment etc and to cushion the downturn (although has supposidly passed).

However, my complaint has always been that government jobs do not produce GDP. Gov jobs do not generate the income to be self-supporting like private sector jobs. This is another 'temporary', and expensive, patch that does little to nothing to solve the economic problem. We need more GDP to pull us of out of this, to generate jobs and revenue. Throwing our recourses at this is just giving rise to other problems without providing a long term (or real) solution.

Fern

Which results in higher GDP, a teacher at home collecting unemployment and spending that out in the economy, or collecting a full salary and spending that out in the economy?

I don't understand what you're saying about government not producing GDP. If the government buys 100 bombers to drop bombs on the Nazis, how is that production not a part of the GDP?

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Sandorski -

Why do you Insist on capitalizing Random words in your Posts? Is this Something Canadian or do you Do it just to Stand out?

To the topic -

I don't really identify with any party and firmly believe that career politicians should not be allowed to make more than $80,000 per year, directly or indirectly. I think it should be a calling...a job someone does because they feel they can make a difference, not get rich.

That said, I see the continued spending as a way to placate the voters and make it appear that Obama is doing something. People respond to money like racoons do to tinfoil "OOOOHHHH! Shiny!" This nation has turned into a bunch of fucking retards that would rather argue over who signed what bill and whose fault this is as opposed to realizing that our ship is sinking and we better find a goddamn life boat and do it quick. Continued spending and increasing budgets will NEVER get us out of our hole.

We need to realize that a lot of other countries don't even have textbooks for their children, meanwhile we bitch because we have 22 kids per class and old laptops.

Other countries cannot afford to immunize their children, meanwhile we bitch because we had to pay $100 to see a doctor about our child's runny nose.

Many countries have nothing along the lines of firemen, and ours bitch that their union benefits aren't good enough.

Many countries will arrest or even kill you for illegally entering, meanwhile our bleeding-hearts cry because an immigrant was asked for proper documentation while receiving free medical care.

I have started hating this country and the entitled, spolied, selfish Americans that live here.

 

[Fern]

Which results in higher GDP, a teacher at home collecting unemployment and spending that out in the economy, or collecting a full salary and spending that out in the economy?

Where is that extra money for a full salary gonna come from?

You wish to leave that out of your above equation.

Sooner or later it's going to be sucked out of the regular economy, damaging our prospects for recovery and growth. Does the phrase "no free lunches" ring a bell?

I don't understand what you're saying about government not producing GDP. If the government buys 100 bombers to drop bombs on the Nazis, how is that production not a part of the GDP?

The government didn't produce those bombs. The government just took OPM (other peoples' money) and purchased the bombs. I.e., the government is just a clearing house, a transfer agent, and it takes a big cut out of the transaction (in addition to producing exactly zip).

Fern

 

[nick1985]

I sure as hell hope we do get back to the surplus we had at the end of the Clinton administration so we can reduce the national debt.

I think everyone hopes that we can return to a surplus, however it will be years, if not decades to turn a 1.5 trillion (I could be off on that number) deficit into a surplus.

That would be dependent on not getting a Republican president who "gives back" the surplus to the people in the form of tax cuts .

Oh give me a fucking brake. Pinning this all on (R)'s is asanine and you know it.

What makes YOU look dumb as fuck is refusing to understand the very basic concepts of stimulus spending and borrowing from the future to fund the present.

So much of that stimulus spending has been wasted on retarded projects, but thats for another thread. I understand the basics of stimulus spending, however, spending 200k for 1 road construction worker job isnt my idea of an effective stimulus. And when I hear borrowing from the future I cringe...

Do you not see that even George W. Bush understood stimulus spending? The current rightwing politicaly posturing hasn't changed that, only convinced gullible people like you that stimulus is bad and government should cut spending during a recession or depression.

If our government would cut back on the social programs that are bleeding this country dry, then we wouldn't need stimulus in the first place. We are not a financially responsible nation. Both parties have let us down (although you only think its Republicans).

You can bet that if conservatives were in power they'd also be deficit spending

Again, both parties have let us down.

I hope one day you post on this forum that you're starting a business with a loan from the bank, so I can ask you if you "have the money" and bash you for borrowing from the future to fund your business. After all, isn't the concept that you'd be better off in the future thanks to borrowing now completely alien to you?

Comparing borrowing money for a business to a nation spending itself into oblivion is not a comparison at all. Surely you see the difference between the two.

 

[Throckmorton]

Where is that extra money for a full salary gonna come from?

You wish to leave that out of your above equation.

Sooner or later it's going to be sucked out of the regular economy, damaging our prospects for recovery and growth. Does the phrase "no free lunches" ring a bell?

Yes, and because it will be later and not sooner, it helps us now so that later we'll be better off economically.

The government didn't produce those bombs. The government just took OPM (other peoples' money) and purchased the bombs. I.e., the government is just a clearing house, a transfer agent, and it takes a big cut out of the transaction 9in addition to producing exactly zip).

Fern

Not other peoples' money, borrowed money. It won't be "OPM" until later, by which the "OP" will have more money thanks to the government spending X amount of borrowed money to add X to the GDP.

 

[Fern]

Yes, and because it will be later and not sooner, it helps us now so that later we'll be better off economically.

Maybe not. A good portion of federal revenue (tax dollars) go to debt service. Our rating is already in jepordy, if it falls our interest rate will rise meaning less money available for anything and everything (including reducing our debt). I.e., we need to stop digging or the hole will be so deep we'll never climb out.

Not other peoples' money, borrowed money. It won't be "OPM" until later, by which the "OP" will have more money thanks to the government spending X amount of borrowed money to add X to the GDP.

Semantics, it's OPM now. It's lenders' OPM, that will will paid back with taxpayers' OPM.

And NO, we will not "have more money thanks to the government spending X amount of borrowed money to add X to the GDP" because (again) gov jobs do not create GDP.

If just handing out money so that people spending it (magically) created GDP we could have just issued huge government checks to everybody and now being enjoying an economic heyday.

The federal money needed to be invested in areas to increase GDP. Printing more money and handing it out basically just leaves the same amount of GDP but more $'s chasing it.

A private sector job must create enough GDP/wealth/profit to pay for itself after the initial investment or the job isn't worth it and will be terminated. So that initial investment cretes an economic 'energizer bunny' that keeps on going. As this demonstrates, a gov job doesn't, it requires a new investment each year or stops. We don't have the money to keep on subsidizing these gov jobs indefinately. IIRC, this is about the third installment of subsidies for states.

Economically it's only wise to borrow money if the amount of profit you can make with that borrowed money invested exceeds your interest costs on the loan. That ain't happening here.

I think eventually people will find that governments are subject to similar market forces that businesses are. You can't borrow your way to prosperity, and there's no such thing as a bottomless pit of money - borrowing ability is finite. Is our government pushing to find the limit?

Fern

 

[StageLeft]

It's not "hiding the damage", it's maintaining a stable Economy until it gets back on it's feet. It's working very well.

I disagree. It's not working well at all, not for the huge debt it's running up.

 

[Pulsar]

at a certain point, the solution has got to be spending cuts over printing out more money.

if states have overextended themselves, and I know mine certainly has, I feel like cleaning up the mess is a much preferable long-term solution rather than continuing the clusterfuck on the fed's dime.

On the Fed's dime?

Heh. You mean on ours. Follow the money trail. The sick part is, look at how much money some states have to GIVE to the fed, only to have the fed give it back. It's like some insane profit sharing system that satan devised. California is a perfect example.

If people understood how many times our money actually got passed back and forth with a % being removed each time, you'd understand why we have so many people living off government paychecks.

California Taxes the People => Fed => Back to Cali as "aid" => etc etc.

But don't worry. I'm sure Obama will create yet ANOTHER committee to discuss this serious issue. We need another couple people drawing paychecks from the government.

 

[woolfe9999]

If the government does nothing and lets the economy take its course, and it tanks even further, then the deficits, federal AND state, will be even worse even though we spent nothing to stimulate the economy. That said, we are in terrible trouble this time because we didn't have fiscal discipline BEFORE the worst recession since the 1930's hit the country, and hence we are now faced with a Hobson's choice where there is no good solution. Whether the federal government should pump in more stimulus money to fix this, and if so, how much, I honestly do not know.

- wolf

 

[StageLeft]

If the government does nothing and lets the economy take its course, and it tanks even further, then the deficits, federal AND state, will be even worse even though we spent nothing to stimulate the economy. That said, we are in terrible trouble this time because we didn't have fiscal discipline BEFORE the worst recession since the 1930's hit the country, and hence we are now faced with a Hobson's choice where there is no good solution. Whether the federal government should pump in more stimulus money to fix this, and if so, how much, I honestly do not know.

- wolf

Possibly. If the government had surplus funds to begin with things would be much different--and much better--right now. Instead it's basically watching late night tv up to its eyeballs in debt and wondering if that slick talker selling a get rich scheme is worth maxing out the credit card for because sometimes they do work, those schemes, just not most of the time.

 

[woolfe9999]

Possibly. If the government had surplus funds to begin with things would be much different--and much better--right now. Instead it's basically watching late night tv up to its eyeballs in debt and wondering if that slick talker selling a get rich scheme is worth maxing out the credit card for because sometimes they do work, those schemes, just not most of the time.

Perhaps, but it's easy to criticize the course of action when we are in a no win situation, and more difficult to explain which alternative is/was the better one. I don't know if I agree with this particular stimulus idea or not, and I suspect I will not know until we have more historical hindsight to work with. However, it is apparent that we are in a very tight spot and no one has any good ideas. For the most part, all we have is ideological talking points which are totally divorced from reality.

- wolf

 

[sandorski]

That's funnt, because when they did the exact same thing in $trillion stimulous bill it was said to stimulate the economy.

So, no, it's not maintain essential services. It's for political purposes. November is rapidly approaching. Otherwise unemployment figures will look worse (can no longer count each renewed teacher job as 3 or 4 "new jobs") and the unions (AFSCME) want some 'payback' for their support.

Fern

Uhh, cause that was a Stimulus Package. Read the Title of Thread, OP, and Article. This is to top up States Budgets.

 

[sandorski]

Sandorski -

Why do you Insist on capitalizing Random words in your Posts? Is this Something Canadian or do you Do it just to Stand out?

Many have asked this question, there is no answer. The sandorski works in mysterious ways.

 

[rudder]

http://www.theobamacountdown.com/