Some CEOs Defend Stimulus

[Genx87]

Wait, both CEO's mentioned the stimulus benefits of Tax Cuts to companies. Are you trying to prove that trickle down economics works?

Seneamp's head explodes

 

[theeedude]

Bingo.

Wrongo. Those people would be a burden on society collecting unemployment or welfare instead of working and creating that 1-2% GDP.

 

[theeedude]

Seneamp's head explodes

So GOP voted unanimously against tax cuts that created 1-2% of GDP?

 

[Genx87]

So GOP voted unanimously against tax cuts that created 1-2% of GDP?

These are all guesses anyways. And who cares? They can claim it saved 10%, I say it hurt long term growth by saddling us with more debt and adding uncertaintly into the market.

And even if we take their word as gospel it doesnt change the fact we spent 700 billion to save 300. And above it all it has nothing to do with you apparently cheerleading Reagonmics now that Obama and the Democrats need you too lol

 

[Fern]

Thanks, CEOs, for coming out and saying this now that it doesn't matter any more. Did it ever fucking occur to you, and Democrats, and Obama, to talk about the Stimulus and what it was doing for the past god damn 2 years?

The (NOL carryback change, back to what it was before, btw) wasn't part of the stimulous bill.

So, he can't be expected to have talked about the stimulous

The provision was part of legislation to revive the housing sector, not the $780 billion 2009 stimulus bill that has drawn the most criticism.

Along those lines, the thread title is misleading. Those two CEO's the OP quoted are both talking the NOL provision which was in a housing bill, again not the stimulous.

Fern

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Wrongo. Those people would be a burden on society collecting unemployment or welfare instead of working and creating that 1-2% GDP.

You can disagree on whether or not we should have gone into further debt to borrow money for the stimulus, but Bamacre is 100% correct with what he says. That is not debatable.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Good just got another 5% raise, and judging from the number of recruiters contacting me, there is hiring going on in engineering. It's nice being a liberal elite. I guess if I was a pickup driving teabagger doing construction, I might be complaining.

What kind of engineering do you do? There are tons of technical jobs here too. What's your point?

And as usual, you missed the overall point. I wish I could say I was surprised. I guess a $42 billion shortfall makes my point pretty apparent though.

 

[theeedude]

These are all guesses anyways. And who cares? They can claim it saved 10%, I say it hurt long term growth by saddling us with more debt and adding uncertaintly into the market.

I have no doubt that GOP stands willing and ready to destroy another 10% of our GDP, because they "care about the deficits" all of the sudden. Their recklessness is what's adding uncertainty.

And even if we take their word as gospel it doesnt change the fact we spent 700 billion to save 300. And above it all it has nothing to do with you apparently cheerleading Reagonmics now that Obama and the Democrats need you too lol

Actually we haven't spent the whole $700B yet. If we saved $300B of GDP already, sweet. Especially when we are borrowing at negative real interest rates to finance it.

 

[bamacre]

Wrongo. Those people would be a burden on society collecting unemployment or welfare instead of working and creating that 1-2% GDP.

LOL, do you not see that this is temporary? Short-term thinking FTL.

 

[Genx87]

I have no doubt that GOP stands willing and ready to destroy another 10% of our GDP, because they "care about the deficits" all of the sudden.

And why should we care what you think?

Actually we haven't spent the whole $700B yet. If we saved $300B of GDP already, sweet. Especially when we are borrowing at negative real interest rates to finance it.

If is the key word. We could also have destroyed 300 billion from adding uncertaintly into the market.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I have no doubt that GOP stands willing and ready to destroy another 10% of our GDP, because they "care about the deficits" all of the sudden. Their recklessness is what's adding uncertainty.

Whew, talk about reckless!

 

[theeedude]

LOL, do you not see that this is temporary?

Even if it is temporary, it's better to spend money on stimulus so people are working instead of spending it on unemployment and welfare for people sitting at home and letting their skills and morale deteriorate.

Short-term thinking FTL.

That one I agree with. If all your party is thinking is how to damage the economy enough to hurt Obama in 2012, that is some serious nearsightedness.

 

[theeedude]

Whew, talk about reckless!

CA has same problems we are seeing in the US. GOP obstructionism.

 

[bamacre]

Even if it is temporary, it's better to spend money on stimulus so people are working instead of spending it on unemployment and welfare for people sitting at home and letting their skills and morale deteriorate.

That's exactly what Bush and Greenspan concluded.

 

[Genx87]

Even if it is temporary, it's better to spend money on stimulus so people are working instead of spending it on unemployment and welfare for people sitting at home and letting their skills and morale deteriorate.

I really dont believe that at all. Especially when you consider the return on investment. Even if we take Obama's guess of 4 million jobs saved or created. That is about 200K\job. How many years would the avg person have to be on unemployment to spend that kind of money?

That one I agree with. If all your party is thinking is how to damage the economy enough to hurt Obama in 2012, that is some serious nearsightedness.

The republicans dont have to think or implement anything at all. Just let democrat policies play out.

 

[theeedude]

And why should we care what you think?



If is the key word. We could also have destroyed 300 billion from adding uncertaintly into the market.

The uncertainty in the market is due to investors being uncertain as to how far the GOP will go to damage the US economy to hurt Obama in 2012. Investors have seen the Republican party acting in bad faith, that does not inspire confidence for the future when this party is about to gain more power.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

CA has same problems we are seeing in the US. GOP obstructionism.

Funny how that "obstructionism" didn't seem to affect the subject of this thread, isn't it?

 

[Genx87]

CA has same problems we are seeing in the US. GOP obstructionism.

Dont forget too low taxes, eventhough anybody making over about 45K\year is paying nearly 10% in state income taxes lmao. California is a true liberals paradise. Where they claim to be about equal distribution of wealth, opportunity, and a progressive tax system that places the middle class 1 bracket below the millionaires.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

The uncertainty in the market is due to investors being uncertain as to how far the GOP will go to damage the US economy to hurt Obama in 2012. Investors have seen the Republican party acting in bad faith, that does not inspire confidence for the future when this party is about to gain more power.

LOL! Senseamp, I swear, if you ever lose your job, PLEASE consider becoming a comedian. You are comedy gold.

 

[Genx87]

The uncertainty in the market is due to investors being uncertain as to how far the GOP will go to damage the US economy to hurt Obama in 2012. Investors have seen the Republican party acting in bad faith, that does not inspire confidence for the future when this party is about to gain more power.

Uh huh, I am sure investors have been sitting on the sideline the last two years because they werent sure what the minority party was going to do. What world do you live in? Is the sky yellow with unicorns flying around while angels play instruments? I wouldnt mind visiting it after a bad day at work.

They are sitting on the sidelines now just like they did in the 30s. Because they dont know what the govt is going to do next. Why invest if tomorrow Obama deems that industry evil and works to penalize it and thus hurt your investment? Or why invest in one industry if democrats decide the opposing industry gave enough in campaign contributions to get govt breaks and money? Thus hurting your investment?

But you can continue to believe it was the Republicans who caused investors to sit on the sidelines. I am sure that helps you sleep better at night on your bed of roses.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Along those lines, the thread title is misleading. Those two CEO's the OP quoted are both talking the NOL provision which was in a housing bill, again not the stimulous.

Fern

Let me emphasize what Fern said, yet again. The comments by the CEO weren't related to the stimulus.

 

[theeedude]

I really dont believe that at all. Especially when you consider the return on investment. Even if we take Obama's guess of 4 million jobs saved or created. That is about 200K\job. How many years would the avg person have to be on unemployment to spend that kind of money?

You tell me. What's long term effect of people being unemployed for 2 years and losing their skill set? What's it going to cost to retrain them?
What about equipment and supplies they use in their jobs? Who else is going to get fired because GDP contracts?
How much money is it going to cost the states to maintain infrastructure without stimulus funds? If they don't have the money, how much is it going to cost later to repair much more deteriorated infrastructure? What's the lost GDP in the future if infrastructure does not keep up with population growth?
Spending 2% of GDP to create 2% of GDP is better than spending 1% of GDP to create nothing.
If you want to consider return on investment and pretend to be long term thinker, than consider the total return on investment over the long term, relative to the alternatives.

The republicans dont have to think or implement anything at all. Just let democrat policies play out.

This country would be much better off if they would just stick to that.

 

[theeedude]

Uh huh, I am sure investors have been sitting on the sideline the last two years because they werent sure what the minority party was going to do. What world do you live in? Is the sky yellow with unicorns flying around while angels play instruments? I wouldnt mind visiting it after a bad day at work.

They are sitting on the sidelines now just like they did in the 30s. Because they dont know what the govt is going to do next. Why invest if tomorrow Obama deems that industry evil and works to penalize it and thus hurt your investment? Or why invest in one industry if democrats decide the opposing industry gave enough in campaign contributions to get govt breaks and money? Thus hurting your investment?

But you can continue to believe it was the Republicans who caused investors to sit on the sidelines. I am sure that helps you sleep better at night on your bed of roses.

Why invest now, if government stimulus that is sustaining the recovery is going to be blocked by GOP next year, and asset prices are going to drop?
I certainly have no plans to do so with my money, if GOP wants to obstruct economic recovery to win in 2012, I am not going to put my money at risk now. Let them do their worst, then I'll think about it. I have a lot of cash sitting on sidelines.

 

[Genx87]

You tell me. What's long term effect of people being unemployed for 2 years and losing their skill set? What's it going to cost to retrain them?
What about equipment and supplies they use in their jobs? Who else is going to get fired because GDP contracts?
How much money is it going to cost the states to maintain infrastructure without stimulus funds? If they don't have the money, how much is it going to cost later to repair much more deteriorated infrastructure? What's the lost GDP in the future if infrastructure does not keep up with population growth?
Spending 2% of GDP to create 2% of GDP is better than spending 1% of GDP to create nothing.
If you want to consider return on investment and pretend to be long term thinker, than consider the total return on investment over the long term, relative to the alternatives.

1. Even with the stimulus people are out 2 years. It is the nature of the beast. It is possible with the lack of intervention we could have started a turn around. Instead we are looking at a double dip recession due to stimulus money running out. That works out great eh? Just like 1937 all over again. We never learn.
2. The state budgets in this country are overwhelmingly tied to schools and social programs not infrastructure. So that is a non-argument. States have money or not has little to do with infrastructure. States arent spending enough on it even when times are good. So I dont see this as a valid argument for a stimulus bill.
3. It doesnt make any sense to spend any gdp to create gdp. At best it appears you get a 1:1 return. In reality it looks like a 50% return on investment. Terrible terrible idea.

This country would be much better off if they would just stick to that.

Oh? What have republicans passed that has impeded the economy from returning to its former glory?

 

[Genx87]

Why invest now, if government stimulus that is sustaining the recovery is going to be blocked by GOP next year, and asset prices are going to drop?
I certainly have no plans to do so with my money, if GOP wants to obstruct economic recovery to win in 2012, I am not going to put my money at risk now. Let them do their worst, then I'll think about it. I have a lot of cash sitting on sidelines.

Gee are you trying to make my argument for me? You just made the perfect example of why govt intervention in the economy causes investors to sit on the sidelines.