The latest CBO report says the stimulus saved or created 1.4 to 3.3 million jobs*

[boomerang]

Have you ever owned a business? Simply spewing out "Rich people" doesn't mean anything. The less money taken from business owners, the more money they have to invest in overhead, inventory, employees, improvements, and on, and on. Does the left just think that all the "rich people" just sit around having a good chuckle from the bow of the yachts?

Remember that the definition of a rich person in their eyes is anyone who has more than they do. How that individual achieved it is of no consequence. If they made sacrifices, or took great risk, failed a number of times prior, that means nothing. It's a form of injustice that they have more than others.

That's inherently unfair in the eyes of the left. It all goes back to childhood when little Johnny had a toy that they didn't. It's all a paradox of sorts. In the example used, people make buses. That's OK. But the guy that owns the bus manufacturer is a dirty fucking capitalist that must be taught a lesson. The owner needs the workers and the workers need the owner. The connection is never made that each needs the other.

Childlike thinking.

 

[xj0hnx]

Why am I going to risk capital by investing in my business if the return on that capital is greatly diminished by taxes? Why would I want to risk any capital in a market with unpredictable government intervention and meddling?

It doesn't matter if I'm not taxed on the $100,000 I invest in my business... if I think my returns are going to be eroded by taxes, inflation, and regulation, why wouldn't I just hold onto the $100,000?

How is it that progressives don't realize this?

 

[xj0hnx]

You're forgetting that there are a lot of tangible results as well.

Repaved highways, new bridges, national park projects, etc. ad nauseum.

It wasn't paying people to do nothing, which is what all of those people on ARRA would be getting if it didn't exist.

Yea, I've watched them "repave" the same stretches of road about four times in the last couple years, instead of doing it right they keep doing it the same way, it rains, and than two days later nothing but gravel and the same pot holes as before, but hey gotta keep that government milk flowing right.

 

[PeshakJang]

What do you mean "how would that help the economy"? Are you saying that money going to government employees and government contractors somehow doesn't go out to the rest of the economy?

Government jobs (not contracted jobs, ie road construction) do not create wealth. They don't create anything. They consume wealth. So if we took your argument to the extreme and used the stimulus to create 100% government jobs, that money would do almost nothing to improve the underlying economy. Once the money dries up, the jobs disappear, and you are worse off than you started. People would have spent some money to artificially inflate the economy, but no wealth would be created.

I work for the county which wouldn't have been able to afford my salary if they bought those aforementioned buses with 100% county money. So my job is indirectly funded by the stimulus input to our local government, and so is everyone else's here.

So what happens next time they need to buy some buses? Can the county now pay all your salaries for the forseeable future without hardship? Are they going to require more government assistance?

A government job is like the janitor in my earlier analogy. If I take out a loan for my business, and use all of it to pay my janitor's salary to avoid firing him, how does that improve my business?

100% of my income, plus money I've taken out of my IRA because I don't make enough to make ends meet, gets spent. $1100 a month goes to my landlady who uses it for the same things anyone else would- she doesn't burn it on a bonfire. $100 goes to the electric company who I know for a fact has employees that they pay with money. $60 goes to the local phone company that also hires people and pays them with money. A lot ends up going to Costco who hires quite a few people who I assume get paid with money as well... etc etc etc

So then you will argue that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were just as effective as the stimulus, right? All that money went to people and companies that hired people.

 

[xj0hnx]

o then you will argue that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were just as effective as the stimulus, right? All that money went to people and companies that hired people.

Duh, no, they don't like those people, hello

 

[Throckmorton]

Government jobs (not contracted jobs, ie road construction) do not create wealth. They don't create anything. They consume wealth. So if we took your argument to the extreme and used the stimulus to create 100% government jobs, that money would do almost nothing to improve the underlying economy. Once the money dries up, the jobs disappear, and you are worse off than you started. People would have spent some money to artificially inflate the economy, but no wealth would be created.

What are you talking about? Assuming the private sector "creates wealth" just by doing business, then 100% of my income is creating wealth because I spend 100% of my income after taxes on the private sector.

So what happens next time they need to buy some buses? Can the county now pay all your salaries for the forseeable future without hardship? Are they going to require more government assistance?

What? The county got stimulus money for buses and they bought bushes. When we need buses in the future, we'll have to cut spending somewhere else or raise a tax, which wouldn't be stimulative. What are you asking?

A government job is like the janitor in my earlier analogy. If I take out a loan for my business, and use all of it to pay my janitor's salary to avoid firing him, how does that improve my business?

I have no idea what your analogy has to do with reality. If the government hires a janitor to do nothing, yes of course it's stimulative. If the government hires construction contractors to build roads and public works, it's equally stimulative, but less of it goes directly to "A JOB". People like nick1985 are COMPLAINING about how much each job "costs", because they are ignoring the money that goes to materials etc, which also stimulates.

So then you will argue that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were just as effective as the stimulus, right? All that money went to people and companies that hired people.

Yes, they are effective as stimulus... Just like WWII. Duh? Is even war not stimulative in the revisionist rightwing fantasyland?

 

[heyheybooboo]

Why am I going to risk capital by investing in my business if the return on that capital is greatly diminished by taxes? Why would I want to risk any capital in a market with unpredictable government intervention and meddling?

It doesn't matter if I'm not taxed on the $100,000 I invest in my business... if I think my returns are going to be eroded by taxes, inflation, and regulation, why wouldn't I just hold onto the $100,000?

You are either not very smart or have a really crappy accountant. And clearly you don't have a small business because you are incredibly ignorant how capital flows within its corporate structure.

Before commenting further immediately educate yourself by reading this.


A Few Highlights:

If a shareholder receives a non-dividend distribution from an S corporation, the distribution is tax-free to the extent it does not exceed the shareholder’s stock basis.

A non-dividend distribution in excess of stock basis is taxed as a capital gain on the shareholder’s personal return, usually a long-term capital gain (LTCG).

And LOL at your 'plan' to sit on $100k because you're 'skeered'.

Now, what I really want to know: What kind of small business are you going to invest in/own where you fear government meddling? Paranoid, much?




--

 

[PeshakJang]

And LOL at your 'plan' to sit on $100k because you're 'skeered'.

You laugh at me even that that's exactly (*exactly*) what businesses in America are doing right now?

How many businesses are spending money to hire people right now?

Now, what I really want to know: What kind of small business are you going to invest in/own where you fear government meddling? Paranoid, much?

Healthcare, finance, housing. A few of the areas where there is extreme uncertainty about what is going to happen because of government intervention. Coupled with a congress that can't decide who's rich and who isn't... who to tax and who to tax more... that drives uncertainty.

You say paranoid, the market says uncertainty. Your ignorance of what drives expansion and investment is pretty obvious, maybe you should educate yourself before trying to educate others.

PS... not even commenting on your bolded segments because you seem to have no idea what is going on in this discussion.

 

[PeshakJang]

What are you talking about. Assuming the private sector "creates wealth", then 100% of my income is creating jobs because I spend 100% of my income after taxes on the private sector.

You don't seem to understand how the economy works. Simple analogy:

Your parents want you to save money for college. You have two options: You can get a job mowing your parent's lawn for $10 a week, or you can borrow $10 to start a lemonade stand.

If you mow the lawn, you aren't creating any net gain toward your college tuition, since it is just your parents money, and they'll need to pay whatever you don't take from them anyway. Government job.

If you start a lemonade stand, you can turn that $10 into $20, then reinvest that and make $30, and so on and so on. Your family (America) sees a net gain as a result of wealth creation. Private sector.

Simple analogy, but it's an important distinction.

What? The county got stimulus money for buses and they bought bushes. When we need buses in the future, we'll have to cut spending somewhere else or raise a tax, which wouldn't be stimulative. What are you asking?

See my analogy above. You are mowing your parent's lawn to save for college, and your parents buy you a new lawn mower. What is the long-term economic impact? Where does the money come from? Where does it go?

I have no idea what your analogy has to do with reality. If the government hires a janitor to do nothing, yes of course it's stimulative.

Ok, now it's pretty obvious you think stimulus is anything having do to with money and employment.

You're ignoring my business analogy. STIMULUS money is supposed to STIMULATE growth in the economy. If my business is struggling, and I take out a loan and spend it all on hiring janitors and decorating my office, how much better will my sales be as a result of this?

If the government hires construction contractors to build roads and public works, it's equally stimulative, but less of it goes directly to "A JOB". People like nick1985 are COMPLAINING about how much each job "costs", because they are ignoring the money that goes to materials etc, which also stimulates.

This is an example of positive stimulus. Like I said, I'm not taking the extreme opposite position that all stimulus is bad, but I am arguing that our current government is trying its hardest to counter every positive effect with an equally negative action.

Surely you could look at two different ways to spend a sum of money, and say one is more effective than another.

Yes, they are effective as stimulus... Just like WWII. Duh? Is even war not stimulative in the revisionist rightwing fantasyland?

Rightwing fantasy land? It's been a Democrat stance since 2001 that the war spending helped propel this country into the mess we are in. A day doesn't go by without a "Bush spent trillions on wars" comment referring to how it destroyed the economy.

 

[Throckmorton]

You don't seem to understand how the economy works. Simple analogy:

Your parents want you to save money for college. You have two options: You can get a job mowing your parent's lawn for $10 a week, or you can borrow $10 to start a lemonade stand.

If you mow the lawn, you aren't creating any net gain toward your college tuition, since it is just your parents money, and they'll need to pay whatever you don't take from them anyway. Government job.

If you start a lemonade stand, you can turn that $10 into $20, then reinvest that and make $30, and so on and so on. Your family (America) sees a net gain as a result of wealth creation. Private sector.

Simple analogy, but it's an important distinction.

See my analogy above. You are mowing your parent's lawn to save for college, and your parents buy you a new lawn mower. What is the long-term economic impact? Where does the money come from? Where does it go?

The lemonade stand isn't creating wealth. It's making ME wealthier, but that's not the same thing as creating wealth. I think you're confusing earning and wealth creation.

Assuming your analogy made sense, I take my lawn mowing money and spend all of it at a lemonade stand...

Ok, now it's pretty obvious you think stimulus is anything having do to with money and employment.

You're ignoring my business analogy. STIMULUS money is supposed to STIMULATE growth in the economy. If my business is struggling, and I take out a loan and spend it all on hiring janitors and decorating my office, how much better will my sales be as a result of this?

You aren't in the business of stimulus. The government is. You're in the business of making profit.

This is an example of positive stimulus. Like I said, I'm not taking the extreme opposite position that all stimulus is bad, but I am arguing that our current government is trying its hardest to counter every positive effect with an equally negative action.

Surely you could look at two different ways to spend a sum of money, and say one is more effective than another.

Yes, but the problem is you rightwingers are arguing on the one hand that the very concept of government stimulus is false and on the other hand complaining about certain jobs you don't like. Since you don't believe the government borrowing from the future for government workers and contracts is stimulative, you apparently believe the only stimulus that works is tax cuts.

Rightwing fantasy land? It's been a Democrat stance since 2001 that the war spending helped propel this country into the mess we are in. A day doesn't go by without a "Bush spent trillions on wars" comment referring to how it destroyed the economy.

So? What does that have to do with me? Maybe I need one of those macros... "bbbbbbbut Democrats!!!"

 

[sandorski]

Seems like the CBO is Right/Wrong depending on what side of an Issue one is.

 

[JoshGuru7]

The amazing thing to me is that there are people who believe you can spend money without creating jobs. Where do you believe the money goes? Into black holes?

The amazing thing to me is that there are people who believe you can spend money to create jobs without taking it away from someplace else that was going to spend money to create jobs. Just because you don't see a cost doesn't mean it isn't real - if you are talking about NET jobs created then you need to look at the opportunity cost of using stimulus funds.

 

[sandorski]

The amazing thing to me is that there are people who believe you can spend money to create jobs without taking it away from someplace else that was going to spend money to create jobs. Just because you don't see a cost doesn't mean it isn't real - if you are talking about NET jobs created then you need to look at the opportunity cost of using stimulus funds.

Protip: The reason Stimulus is important is because Others have not been Spending, thus not creating Jobs. They have every opportunity to do so, in fact the best opportunity in many Decades, yet they do not. It's not that it's their fault or a bad decision, but there is no taking away from them.

Your point is Fail.

 

[Fern]

Business expenses are taken pre-tax.

WTH does that have to do with anything?

Until they start giving you tax deductions for things you're gonna do in the future, your money to invest in these things is your post-tax money. (Besides, there is no deduction for buying inventory, and improvements are expensed over a long period of many years.)

Simply put, the less you pay in taxes means the more you have for other things. There's no way around it.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Protip: The reason Stimulus is important is because Others have not been Spending, thus not creating Jobs. They have every opportunity to do so, in fact the best opportunity in many Decades, yet they do not. It's not that it's their fault or a bad decision, but there is no taking away from them.

Your point is Fail.

You do realize that present day stimulous funded by debt means that there will less future stimulous? (Assuming the debt is not carried forever).

Is the trade-off worth it? Probably not if the present day stimulous was poorly designed. And not all forms/types of stimulous are equal.

Fern

 

[sandorski]

You do realize that present day stimulous funded by debt means that there will less future stimulous? (Assuming the debt is not carried forever).

Is the trade-off worth it? Probably not if the present day stimulous was poorly designed. And not all forms/types of stimulous are equal.

Fern

Yes, practically all stimulus(stimuli?)are funded by Debt. Economic stagnation and/or shrinkage is far worse than Debt.

 

[OutHouse]

If you start a lemonade stand, you can turn that $10 into $20, then reinvest that and make $30

thats one hell of a return, wish my 401K did that well.

 

[OutHouse]

bottom line is the gubernment has no business "creating jobs"

 

[TehMac]

Meanwhile, Paul Krugman can't even defend his bloated and outgrown Keynsian policies on his own column.

The old dinosaurs like the Bush family, and new blood like Obama all subscribe to the Cretaceous period of economics, and the meteor that is economic disaster has resulted. Let's reject the bull shit concept of socialism unequivocally, reform the Democrat party (expel the anti-american twerps) and get a move on.

 

[sandorski]

Meanwhile, Paul Krugman can't even defend his bloated and outgrown Keynsian policies on his own column.

The old dinosaurs like the Bush family, and new blood like Obama all subscribe to the Cretaceous period of economics, and the meteor that is economic disaster has resulted. Let's reject the bull shit concept of socialism unequivocally, reform the Democrat party (expel the anti-american twerps) and get a move on.

American Thinker, where people go for their daily oxymoron.

 

[1prophet]

Remember that the definition of a rich person in their eyes is anyone who has more than they do. How that individual achieved it is of no consequence. If they made sacrifices, or took great risk, failed a number of times prior, that means nothing. It's a form of injustice that they have more than others.

That's inherently unfair in the eyes of the left. It all goes back to childhood when little Johnny had a toy that they didn't. It's all a paradox of sorts. In the example used, people make buses. That's OK. But the guy that owns the bus manufacturer is a dirty fucking capitalist that must be taught a lesson. The owner needs the workers and the workers need the owner. The connection is never made that each needs the other.

Childlike thinking.

The connection is never made because American culture promotes the belief that management is competing against its workers and vice versa.

Cooperation not competition between management and workers is what is needed but very difficult to achieve in a me first society.

A perfect example of this is labor negotiations between unions and management where each side is looking what is best for themselves (competition) not what is best for the long term viability of a company. (cooperation).

 

[JoshGuru7]

Protip: The reason Stimulus is important is because Others have not been Spending, thus not creating Jobs.

Protip: Consider the most arrogant people that you know. Do you find their arguments persuasive?

Whether money "should" be transferred from the private sector to the public sector or not is a political argument you are engaging in and irrelevant to the economic argument that the transfer has a real cost associated with it which the CBO results need to be offset by.

Stimulus spending through debt is a transfer from the future to the present, from the private sector to the public sector. The fact that debt can be inflated away means that it can be easily discounted by politicians, but that does not diminish the actual cost to the private sector. Money will be worth less in the future and that is a real cost that needs to be balanced against the benefits of stimulus to determine whether it is actually good or bad.

My argument is not that stimulus spending is bad by default, but rather that the incentives for decision makers are clearly biased towards encouraging it. This creates a need for a careful analysis of both the benefits and the costs rather than simply citing the benefits. The common analogy here is of the very visible success of the TVA spending compared against the invisible costs of the missing automobiles, microwaves and toasters four years later around the rest of the country.

 

[sandorski]

Protip: Consider the most arrogant people that you know. Do you find their arguments persuasive?

Whether money "should" be transferred from the private sector to the public sector or not is a political argument you are engaging in and irrelevant to the economic argument that the transfer has a real cost associated with it which the CBO results need to be offset by.

Stimulus spending through debt is a transfer from the future to the present, from the private sector to the public sector. The fact that debt can be inflated away means that it can be easily discounted by politicians, but that does not diminish the actual cost to the private sector. Money will be worth less in the future and that is a real cost that needs to be balanced against the benefits of stimulus to determine whether it is actually good or bad.

My argument is not that stimulus spending is bad by default, but rather that the incentives for decision makers are clearly biased towards encouraging it. This creates a need for a careful analysis of both the benefits and the costs rather than simply citing the benefits. The common analogy here is of the very visible success of the TVA spending compared against the invisible costs of the missing automobiles, microwaves and toasters four years later around the rest of the country.

You just typed a whole lotta nuthin. When the Economy is depressed, Consumers are not spending, Businesses are not spending, you Stimulate. First you lower Interest Rates, but if that doesn't work, which it didn't, then you Spend borrowed Money. Business and Consumers are not borrowing, so Public borrowing is not taking anything away from them.

 

[PeshakJang]

You just typed a whole lotta nuthin. When the Economy is depressed, Consumers are not spending, Businesses are not spending, you Stimulate. First you lower Interest Rates, but if that doesn't work, which it didn't, then you Spend borrowed Money. Business and Consumers are not borrowing, so Public borrowing is not taking anything away from them.

Another person who seems to be of the mindset, "Whatever money is spent on anything, it's good, because it's stimulus."

Businesses aren't spending (hiring, expanding), because they feel there is too much risk and uncertainty due to continuous government intervention, fear of rising tax rates, uncontrolled government debt, inflation, etc. This is not my opinion, it is fact, supported in just about every study and poll of business owners across America. You can argue if you want, but you'll be "typing a whole lotta nuthin".

Throwing money at a problem isn't a solution unless it is done smartly, and is backed up by appropriate policy. What the government has done is thrown *massive* amounts of money at a problem in a semi-blind fashion, while ramming through legislation that was never even read before it was signed into law. Then they turn around and argue for months about whether or not to let tax cuts expire, they keep housing prices artificially inflated, and run up massive debt with seemingly no regard for paying it off... all the while they tour the country telling everyone how great things are.

Uncertainty is the enemy of growth, and the government is in the business of uncertainty right now. If we had a leader who had any understanding how business works, we might be a little better off.

 

[PeshakJang]

The lemonade stand isn't creating wealth. It's making ME wealthier, but that's not the same thing as creating wealth. I think you're confusing earning and wealth creation.

Assuming your analogy made sense, I take my lawn mowing money and spend all of it at a lemonade stand...

You can argue the definition of wealth... it's a very simple analogy. If you are mowing the lawn, you are earning money with respect to your personal income, but looking at your family, it is just a transfer of wealth, and it doesn't produce anything.

If you open a lemonade stand, you are creating wealth for your family. Your net wealth will be greater because you are creating a self-sustaining marketplace. Don't over-analyze it, just take the main point away from it.

You aren't in the business of stimulus. The government is. You're in the business of making profit.

This argument isn't going to go anywhere until you can make up your mind about the definition of stimulus. Stimulus is designed to STIMULATE businesses into making profit. In the lemonade stand, the $10 your parents give you would be the stimulus. Say you already owned a lemonade stand, but you couldn't afford any lemons. Parents give you $10, you buy lemons, and then you can reinvest your own profits. They STIMULATED your business, as you might not have had any other way of getting the $10 (poor credit market)

Yes, but the problem is you rightwingers are arguing on the one hand that the very concept of government stimulus is false and on the other hand complaining about certain jobs you don't like. Since you don't believe the government borrowing from the future for government workers and contracts is stimulative, you apparently believe the only stimulus that works is tax cuts.

As I said, I believe (and I would say most people have the same belief), that *wasteful* government stimulus does not work. Effective stimulus requires appropriate spending, focused on key sectors of the economy, coupled with moderate tax cuts, especially for small business. This needs to be backed up with clear, concise legislation that creates a business-friendly political climate and instill confidence in the marketplace.

You don't treat all cancer patients with the same medication. Get it out of your head that stimulus should be a blind stab at success without regard for circumstances or consequences.