The Stimulus Seems to have failed

[joobz]

Yes, I mentioned that earlier. The relationship is combative rather than cooperative.

And the costs of that combat come out of our pockets, whether we're patients paying directly, or insurance subscribers, or taxpayers.

exactly.

 

[BeAChooser]

Piggy, PixyMisa, joobz ...

I would ask all of you to take your discussion of health care, single payer, etc to a health care thread. This thread is about the stimulus and whether or not it has failed.

Thanks.

 

[AlBell]

The thread isn't about Piggy proving to the world at large what RINO means to people who actually want a conservative to vote for?

 

[Dorian Gray]

You're being a more than a little fast and loose with the facts, DG.

First, it's not clear there was a surplus. If you check out the official national debt, you find that it went up during each year of Clinton's term including FY 1999, FY 2000 and FY 2001. Don't believe me? Visit http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16 . That site links data from http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np , which is a site linked by the US Treasury website at http://www.ustreas.gov , to arrive at the following figures:

FY1993 $4.411 trillion
FY1994 $4.692 trillion, deficit = $281 billion
FY1995 $4.973 trillion, deficit = $281 billion
FY1996 $5.225 trillion, deficit = $250 billion
FY1997 $5.413 trillion, deficit = $188 billion
FY1998 $5.526 trillion, deficit = $113 billion
FY1999 $5.656 trillion, deficit = $130 billion
FY2000 $5.674 trillion, deficit = $18 billion
FY2001 $5.807 trillion, deficit = $133 billion

How can there be a surplus when the Treasury Department is telling us the national debt went up every single year? The answer is given at that website and turns out to be … as they say … "smoke and mirrors".



Now granted, the deficit went down to only $18 billion one year, but that was not a surplus. There was no surplus. Furthermore, note that Clinton, liar that he was, actually claimed to have generated a surplus totaling $360 billion the last three years in office. Don't believe me?

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/



That's not true. What Clinton did was pay down the public debt, NOT the national debt. And there's a difference. He paid down the public debt by borrowing money in the form of intergovernmental holdings ... which is included in the national debt. In essence, he hid the problem. And the democrat-friendly mainstream media helped him do it. And you bought it.

Note that the actual deficit went back up in FY2002 ... which was also a year based on Clinton's budget proposals, not Bush's. So in fact, Bush inherited a deficit of $133 billion from Clinton. Not quite the picture the democrat-friendly media falsely presents to the unwashed masses.

Second, as to the reduction in the deficit during Clinton's term, how do you think that came about? You will note that the deficit in FY1994 and FY1995 was $281 billion dollars. The deficit only began to fall in FY1996 and thereafter. Now what was different about the later years from the first two? Well to begin with, republicans took control of congress away from the democrats in January 1995. So FY1996 was the first year based on their budgeting. And balancing the budget was the heart of Republican fiscal policy during that time. Remember the government shutdown in late 1995? That was about balancing the budget and in the end President Clinton folded. Republicans retained control of congress, even if by a slim margin, until after Clinton left office, which explains why the deficit continued to fall during Clinton's term. Clinton just went along for the ride because he was always good at going whichever way the wind seemed to be *blowing* at the time.

Third, that period of time in the mid to late 90s had the benefit of a trillion dollar Peace Dividend (thanks again to republicans winning the Cold War) and the internet boom (which was not of Clinton's doing) during his administration. So again, it looks like you are giving Clinton accolades for something he really didn't do.

Fourth, the CBO made the projection that we would be running surpluses during Bush's term, prior to the collapse of the tech industry. And that collapse began at the end of Clinton's term, not after Bush took office, so it's dishonest to blame Bush for it. The effect of such a collapse wasn't included in the CBO analysis.

Fifth, the CBO's analysis didn't predict 9/11 or the WOT, and the effects they would have on the economy and spending. It is actually remarkable that despite all three of those serious negative influences on the economy, the economy recovered quite nicely. From 2003 to 2007, GDP growth was far above what it now is under Obama (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_2-oDfgGpQKg/SRW6q8D0whI/AAAAAAAABf4/Aq3MMdgFY2Y/s400/GDP+growth.jpg ). It remained strong until democrat's gained control of Congress in late 2006, then thing headed south, as you can see in that chart.

And sixth, this chart (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_gcA0ZuKGk...sh_deficit_vs_obama_deficit_in_pictures_2.jpg ) clearly shows that the deficit during all eight fiscal periods of the Bush administration was far below what it now is and is projected to be during all 8 (heaven help us) years of the Obama administration. As you can see from that chart, the deficit peaked at about -400 billion in 2003-2004, following the recession and massive military spending that was required to fight the WOT, then headed dramatically downward. It was at about -150 billion in 2007, when democrats took over both houses of Congress. And then it jumped back up to over -400 billion in just one year. Now whose fault do you really think that is?

Explain how all the bad things that happened from 1996-2001 were Clinton's fault, but all the good things that happened from 1996-2001 were the Republican Congress' fault? Oh that's right, you can't. Either everything was the fault of both, or neither, but you can't split it like that. Speaking of fast and loose.

"Required" to fight the WOT. In Iraq. Right.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Regardless of who is to blame, the bottom line is things tanked with the deregulation and tax cut policies. Now we have the Republicans claiming tax cuts for the rich would somehow create jobs. But you have big corporations being reported as sitting on cash until the economy improves. So giving more money to the supposed job creators can't be the answer when they are already flush with cash.

That also refutes the Republican talking point that these cash flush job creators need some kind of certainly in the tax code. It's a bizarre talking point I'm sick of hearing.

What is it about the right wingers and Libertarians that they cannot fathom the demand side of the equation? Someone needs to spend money in order for people to make money. The idea all wealth is created by magic pixies (government printing presses excepted) and none is really shifted from the poor to the rich is refuted by the evidence.

Squeeze the workforce too hard and you lose your customer base. Lose your customer base and no one is going to 'create jobs'. What would the workers do if there are no customers? YOU NEED TO CREATE DEMAND, NOT SUPPLY. We have the supply including a supply of investment capital.

And who can do that if not the government? You can give people more money to spend, fine. Cut taxes of the middle class and lower. But like it or not, the rich have plenty of money to spend. They need to return some of it into circulation.

The people who are claiming the stimulus failed should be campaigning for the rich to spend more money. Instead all they want to do is get back in power so they've blocked job measures and then claimed, See there are no jobs. What's sad is how easily people are misled into believing this lie.

We need to raise taxes on the most wealthy and spend it. Whether the money goes to the states to pay for civil workers, or to building infrastructure or both, that's the only way to speed up the recovery.

The policies that created the recession are clearly not the same policies that are going to end it. To keep up that farce is a tragedy for this country. It is blocking the stimulus the government needs to be providing solely because some politicians are greedy to get back in power.

 

[BeAChooser]

I see democrats are STILL Stuck On Stupid:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/10/027419.php

Last decade, liberal Democrats decided to impose a system that encouraged and enabled home ownership by people who could not afford to buy homes. This decision played a major role in nearly wrecking the banking system and in throwing the economy into a deep recession.

Now, even as the economy labors to overcome the effects of that recession, the same crowd is about to strike again. In combination with lawyers and some judges, liberals Democrats are seizing on what appears to be a technicality to enable people who can't afford to keep up payments on their homes nonetheless to keep the homes.

Harry Reid, desperate to find an issue that can save his job, has sent a letter to major banks asking them to suspend foreclosures. Bank of America has halted evictions in all 50 states. And senior Obama administration officials are saying that a nationwide moratorium on foreclosure sales may be inevitable.

This is just another sad, desperate attempt by democrats to buy votes just before the election. Now that the stimulus clearly didn't work. And keep them bought just long enough to get past the election.

And the result will be?

More uncertainty. This will only delay the inevitable. This will only delay recovery in the housing market. This will only stall general recovery even further.

But there is a bright side. This probably won't have much effect on this election. But it might delay recovery past 2012 and thus ensure another cataclismic defeat for democrats in 2012. Why republicans might even end up controlling both houses and the Presidency in filibuster proof fashion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I see democrats are STILL Stuck On Stupid:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/10/027419.php



This is just another sad, desperate attempt by democrats to buy votes just before the election. Now that the stimulus clearly didn't work. And keep them bought just long enough to get past the election.

And the result will be?

More uncertainty. This will only delay the inevitable. This will only delay recovery in the housing market. This will only stall general recovery even further.

But there is a bright side. This probably won't have much effect on this election. But it might delay recovery past 2012 and thus ensure another cataclismic defeat for democrats in 2012. Why republicans might even end up controlling both houses and the Presidency in filibuster proof fashion.

I see you ducked the issue and went for a red herring.

How will tax cuts for the rich who already are flush with cash create jobs?

If the government doesn't become the customer, where will these customers come from?

 

[BeAChooser]

How will tax cuts for the rich who already are flush with cash create jobs?

I suggest you go back and look at the history of tax cuts and their effect on economies and tax revenue, something democrats like you have been pointed to a million times. Isn't the real problem here that democrats just can't learn from history?

 

[joobz]

I suggest you go back and look at the history of tax cuts and their effect on economies and tax revenue, something democrats like you have been pointed to a million times. Isn't the real problem here that democrats just can't learn from history?

It is true that tax reciepts correlate between with GDP growth than it does with tax rate. However, evidence for the claim that tax cuts stimulate the economy seem to be historically missing.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/47493/20100830/correlation-income-tax-rate-tax-receipts-and-gdp.htm

And if you look at the rate rates of the upper tax bracket, you again see no correlation between tax rate and GDP growth.
http://www.slate.com/id/2245781/

 

[BeAChooser]

evidence for the claim that tax cuts stimulate the economy seem to be historically missing.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/47493/20100830/correlation-income-tax-rate-tax-receipts-and-gdp.htm

And if you look at the rate rates of the upper tax bracket, you again see no correlation between tax rate and GDP growth.
http://www.slate.com/id/2245781/

LOL! The articles and charts you link are just examples of how to lie with data and charts. Here's a much better one ... one that doesn't tried to hide the effect of incremental changes in GDP and looks at the much more informative parameter, GDP/capita:

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z4/palladiate/Politics/taxrate.png

Notice that from 1945-ish to 1962-ish, when the top tax rates were hovering around 90%, GDP per capita was basically flat, growing from $12,000 to $15,000. In fact, over the 10 year period from 1952 to 1962, per capita GDP only grew about $1,000. Then about 1962, Kennedy cut the top tax rate significantly. And from 1962 to 1976 (the next 10 year period), per capita GDP grew to $25,000, when it again appeared to level off for about 5 years. Then Reagan dramatically cut tax rates again. And again, per capita GDP skyrocketed, this time climbing from $25,000 to $35,000 in about 15 years. And because tax rates remained low, per capita GDP continued to grow reaching almost $45,000 about 2006. Then democrats took over both houses of Congress and talked about higher taxes … and it leveled off and even began dropping.

 

[joobz]

LOL! The articles and charts you link are just examples of how to lie with data and charts.

and yet the chart you show shows the exact same trend.

Here's a much better one ... one that doesn't tried to hide the effect of incremental changes in GDP and looks at the much more informative parameter, GDP/capita:

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z4/palladiate/Politics/taxrate.png

Notice that from 1945-ish to 1962-ish, when the top tax rates were hovering around 90%, GDP per capita was basically flat, growing from $12,000 to $15,000. In fact, over the 10 year period from 1952 to 1962, per capita GDP only grew about $1,000. Then about 1962, Kennedy cut the top tax rate significantly. And from 1962 to 1976 (the next 10 year period), per capita GDP grew to $25,000, when it again appeared to level off for about 5 years. Then Reagan dramatically cut tax rates again. And again, per capita GDP skyrocketed, this time climbing from $25,000 to $35,000 in about 15 years. And because tax rates remained low, per capita GDP continued to grow reaching almost $45,000 about 2006. Then democrats took over both houses of Congress and talked about higher taxes … and it leveled off and even began dropping.

Funny how according to the chart you show, the gdp started to increase PRIOR to the decrease in the tax rate. that throws a little monkey wrench into your causal relationship.
and indeed, the gdp continued to increase all the while the tax rate was increased in the 90s.
Sorry, but historically, your argument is simply unsubstantiated.

I could mention the observed trends the average wage has, but clearly you aren't interested in income equality.

 

[Hindmost]

I suggest you go back and look at the history of tax cuts and their effect on economies and tax revenue, something democrats like you have been pointed to a million times. Isn't the real problem here that democrats just can't learn from history?

Even Reaganites don't believe that tax cuts work...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/38810267/

David Stockman, director of OMB for President Reagan, wrote in a recent NY Times Op-Ed: "The second unhappy change in the American economy has been the extraordinary growth of our public debt. In 1970 it was just 40 percent of gross domestic product, or about $425 billion. When it reaches $18 trillion, it will be 40 times greater than in 1970. This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts."

Or Greenspan

http://www.cnbc.com/id/38634522/

For Information...

http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFi.../Economic_Mobility/PEW-Tax cut v15.pdf?n=6878

glenn

 

[lomiller]

Notice that from 1945-ish to 1962-ish, when the top tax rates were hovering around 90%, GDP per capita was basically flat, growing from $12,000 to $15,000.

A 25% increase is "basically flat"?

FYI that's ~1.35% per year growth, which is somewhat higher then the growth rate after the bush tax cuts

 

[Dorian Gray]

LOL! The quote in 1126 is from a blogger. And it says "last decade", which would have been the 2000s, when the Republicans were in charge. So when did these Democrats enact these reforms, again?

 

[Dorian Gray]

By the way, where is all that spending we keep hearing about?

 

[drkitten]

By the way, where is all that spending we keep hearing about?

Hiding behind all the "runaway inflation" that Obama's stimulus package was supposed to cause.

Which, in turn, is living in sin with a leprechaun across the street from Elvis.

 

[BeAChooser]

This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.

Talk about delusional.

Someone posted this on another thread but I think it clearly proves that spending is what is responsible for the growth of deficits over the past 50 years.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=19645&d=1286127078

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Re...ployment-Report-Stagnant-Economy-in-September "Heritage Employment Report: Stagnant Economy in September"

 

[BeAChooser]

http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/12/news/economy/jobs_revisions/index.htm?source=cnn_bin&hpt=Sbin

Recession job losses: Worse than first thought

… snip …

The government currently estimates that 2.2 million jobs were lost from April of 2009 through March of this year, a significant portion of the 7.8 million jobs lost since the start of 2008.

But in a little-noticed note at the bottom of September's jobs report, the Labor Department said it now appears there were 366,000 additional jobs lost during the 12 months that ended in March, a revision that is not yet included in the official numbers.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Oh, no answer to my question? Crickets?

"LOL! The quote in 1126 is from a blogger. And it says "last decade", which would have been the 2000s, when the Republicans were in charge. So when did these Democrats enact these reforms, again?"

So, when did they, BAC?