The Stimulus Seems to have failed

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?
BAC,
while you are busy formulating an answer to Dorian's question, perhaps you'd also like to explain your interpretation of the historical data. Afterall, it seems to completely contradict your argument.
 
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.

Will do. Sorry for the derail.
 
YOU NEED TO CREATE DEMAND, NOT SUPPLY.

You need to create both. Either without the other is worthless.

In fact, what we saw immediately after the crash was demand without supply, and we're still seeing a lot of that.

Dan Moynihan famously said that trickle-down economics was like trying to feed the pigeons by giving oats to the horses.

Well, by the same token, trickle-up economics is like trying to feed the horses by pissing on the field.
 
You need to create both. Either without the other is worthless.

In fact, what we saw immediately after the crash was demand without supply, and we're still seeing a lot of that.

Dan Moynihan famously said that trickle-down economics was like trying to feed the pigeons by giving oats to the horses.

Well, by the same token, trickle-up economics is like trying to feed the horses by pissing on the field.

This drove me nuts in economics classes. If you are selling an apple for a dollar, the other guy is selling a dollar for an apple. It is insane to think that one side is more important to recovery or easier to control than the other because they are the same thing going in different directions.

It is hard to prove that "stimulus" bills did or didn't work because no matter what happens someone can always argue that things would have been better or worse than they are.

The most likely problem, if there is one, is that lumps of charity, no matter how big, are a very inefficient way of relieving people's fear and uncertainty (feelings which inhibit trade even when supplies are adequate, and in some cases are the sole cause of a recession).

Those feelings are an accepted cause of economic trouble in "consumers" as individuals, but for some reason it is not equally accepted that businesses (which are also people) will behave in a contractive manner when politicians start raving about all of the ways they are going to try to run industries from Washington. Thus, every employer in the country has to engage in as much thrift as possible in anticipation of uncertain increases in costs imposed by politicians bent on sticking their fingers into things they don't necessarily understand.

Alan Greenspan wrote a piece recently in which he noted that the "activism" of much of the recent legislation has exactly this effect, dampening the positive effects of the stimulus (which may not be very effective in any case), and cited specific national statistics to back it up. Profits are up, but businesses aren't spending it on long-term investments (which WOULD create jobs) because the future environment for business is so cloudy.
 
I suggest you go back and look at the history of tax cuts and their effect on economies and tax revenue,


Myth 1: Tax cuts “pay for themselves.”

“You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase.” — President Bush, February 8, 2006

“You have to pay for these tax cuts twice under these pay-go rules if you apply them, because these tax cuts pay for themselves.” — Senator Judd Gregg, then Chair of the Senate Budget Committee, March 9, 2006
Reality: A study by the President’s own Treasury Department confirmed the common-sense view shared by economists across the political spectrum: cutting taxes decreases revenues.

Proponents of tax cuts often claim that “dynamic scoring” — that is, considering tax cuts’ economic effects when calculating their costs — would substantially lower the estimated cost of tax reductions, or even shrink it to zero. The argument is that tax cuts dramatically boost economic growth, which in turn boosts revenues by enough to offset the revenue loss from the tax cuts.

But when Treasury Department staff simulated the economic effects of extending the President’s tax cuts, they found that, at best, the tax cuts would have modest positive effects on the economy; these economic gains would pay for at most 10 percent of the tax cuts’ total cost. Under other assumptions, Treasury found that the tax cuts could slightly decrease long-run economic growth, in which case they would cost modestly more than otherwise expected. (http://www.cbpp.org/7-27-06tax.htm)

The claim that tax cuts pay for themselves also is contradicted by the historical record. In 1981, Congress substantially lowered marginal income-tax rates on the well off, while in 1990 and 1993, Congress raised marginal rates on the well off. The economy grew at virtually the same rate in the 1990s as in the 1980s (adjusted for inflation and population growth), but revenues grew about twice as fast in the 1990s, when tax rates were increased, as in the 1980s, when tax rates were cut. Similarly, since the 2001 tax cuts, the economy has grown at about the same pace as during the equivalent period of the 1990s business cycle, but revenues have grown far more slowly. (http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm)

Some argue that, even if most tax cuts do not pay for themselves, capital gains tax cuts do. But, in reality, capital gains tax cuts cost money as well. After reviewing numerous studies of how investors respond to capital gains tax cuts, the Congressional Budget Office concluded that “the best estimates of taxpayers’ response to changes in the capital gains rate do not suggest a large revenue increase from additional realizations of capital gains — and certainly not an increase large enough to offset the losses from a lower rate.” That’s why CBO, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the White House Office of Management and Budget all project that making the 2003 capital gains tax cut permanent would cost about $100 billion over the next ten years. (http://www.cbpp.org/policy-points4-18-08.htm)

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=692

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

9-27-06tax-f1.jpg

Ibid.

12-16-09bud-rev6-28-10-f1.jpg


http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036
 
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

First please don't alter my posts...you made the quote look like it was from me when it is from one of your conservative types from the reagan admin--David Stockman.

Note in the graph...true it is spending combined with poor tax policy, but it is under Bush, Bush and Reagan. It has been the biggest propaganda lie the Republicans have deceived the public with.

glenn
 
It is hard to prove that "stimulus" bills did or didn't work because no matter what happens someone can always argue that things would have been better or worse than they are.

Except one side can point to case after case after case in the historical record where doing little or nothing in the way of stimulus, or even doing the opposite, resulted in a much faster and stronger recovery from recessions and depressions than we are now seeing. Whereas the other side can't point to much if anything in the historical record that proves massive stimulus efforts of the type Obama pushed actually work. So I'm not sure things are inconclusive as you suggest.
 
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? :D
And I suggest you look at the data that the rich are already flush with cash. Why aren't they spending it now?

As for your version of reality, it is an imaginary version.
 
This drove me nuts in economics classes. If you are selling an apple for a dollar, the other guy is selling a dollar for an apple. It is insane to think that one side is more important to recovery or easier to control than the other because they are the same thing going in different directions....
Are you also incapable of recognizing not enough people have a dollar to sell right now?
 
Of course. But what is it we are lacking in the balance right now? It is buyers, not sellers. There are plenty of goods for sale out there.

It might seem that way, but remember, this is a recession caused by a financial crisis. It's a fiscal recession. Money is also a commodity, and right now the "sellers" are skittish in that market.
 
Note in the graph...true it is spending combined with poor tax policy, but it is under Bush, Bush and Reagan.

But we've already had this discussion and your side lost (actually ran from the discussion when I posted the sourced facts). It's who controls Congress that matters in each period where deficits climbed dramatically, not who was President. As I proved, it was democrats who controlled both houses of Congress, or controlled one house of Congress, in each period where spending and deficits climbed dramatically. When republicans controlled both houses, except under very narrow circumstances (like responding militarily to 9/11 during a recession it caused), deficits shrunk. Stop trying to rewrite or misinterpret history, Hindmost. And by the way, I apologize for inadvertently making it look like you wrote those words yourself. :D
 
And I suggest you look at the data that the rich are already flush with cash. Why aren't they spending it now?

That question just shows you still don't understand simple economics and market/capitalist behavior.

Which means that you don't understand what motivates people.

That's always been the problem with socialists, SG.

:D
 
But we've already had this discussion and your side lost (actually ran from the discussion when I posted the sourced facts). It's who controls Congress that matters in each period where deficits climbed dramatically, not who was President. As I proved, it was democrats who controlled both houses of Congress, or controlled one house of Congress, in each period where spending and deficits climbed dramatically. When republicans controlled both houses, except under very narrow circumstances (like responding militarily to 9/11 during a recession it caused), deficits shrunk. Stop trying to rewrite or misinterpret history, Hindmost. And by the way, I apologize for inadvertently making it look like you wrote those words yourself. :D

LOL. "When we ignore all the tax cuts, when we ignore all the war spending, when we ignore the fantastic new entitlements ie the medicare prescription drug subsidy bill, Republicans quite obviously cut deficits."

Basically, when we hand-wave reality away anything is possible!
 
Are you also incapable of recognizing not enough people have a dollar to sell right now?

That is the current result, but it was not the instant and initial cause.

These things both rely on each other, and looking at only one as the problem is both factually incorrect and irrational.
 
Of course. But what is it we are lacking in the balance right now? It is buyers, not sellers. There are plenty of goods for sale out there.

Sure, if you insist on only looking at this exact moment, which is a rather blinded view of the whole mess.

The bailouts were necessary because a bunch of banks, which are sellers of money and other services, were about to collapse. The whole concern was not that a bunch of bankers would lose their jobs (and who easily could have been placed on welfare), but that those financial institutions would be unable to continue providing necessary services to many other businesses.

Fortunately, the people in charge of things, hate them as I do for other reasons, were competent enough to realize that this is a problem, and that acting only after consumers were affected would be a disaster.

Unfortunately, no manual economic prop is perfect. Even knowing the above, some banks failed before they could be helped, and some banks were so bad that they were beyond it anyway.

That leads even further backwards to why the banks failed. Ironically, home buyers were actually able to obtain TOO MUCH money because the banks were able to get really cheap money from the government and from private investors. People who couldn't afford to repay any loan were still able to get loans, and people who could afford to repay a reasonable loan were able to borrow much more. Housing prises go way up, etc etc etc.

But if you need physical products, you can stick with the auto bailouts.

Honda and Toyota supported the bailout of GM because the loss of GM as a parts buyer could kill the parts suppliers, which would be bad for others who relied on those suppliers such as Honda and Toyota.
 
But we've already had this discussion and your side lost (actually ran from the discussion when I posted the sourced facts).
Who's Skeptic Ginger's side?



As I proved,
You haven't done such a thing. You've made attempts at it, but your rather selective view of the data suggests otherwise. One only needs to see this very page to see that your claims on taxes were not historically validated. Why would anyone expect your representation of other data to be any better?
 
LOL. "When we ignore all the tax cuts, when we ignore all the war spending, when we ignore the fantastic new entitlements ie the medicare prescription drug subsidy bill, Republicans quite obviously cut deficits."

Basically, when we hand-wave reality away anything is possible!

The problem with the GOP now -- with regard to that... we have other, much larger problems at the moment -- is not the long-standing principles.

The problem is that their political will, as evidenced by the recent "Pledge", is weak.

The 3 largest expenditures, by a long shot, are military spending, Medicare, and Social Security.

In order to reduce the deficit, we have to reduce spending on all 3, and raise taxes.

The math shows us there is no other way.

And yet the current GOP has declared those 3 sacrosanct, and refuses to consider tax hikes.

Dems are no better.

THAT is why we're not looking at any real solutions right now.
 
Another great one from Victor Davis Hanson …

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/249783/how-turn-recession-depression-victor-davis-hanson

OCTOBER 15, 2010

How to Turn a Recession into a Depression

… snip …

First, propose all sorts of new taxes. Float trial balloons about even more on the horizon. … snip …

Second, business expansion is predicated on confidence in the future. Destroy that, and depression can become far easier to achieve. … snip …

Third, create an artificial economic divide of them/us. Pick an arbitrary figure, say $250,000 in annual income. … snip …

Fourth, if one is really serious about undermining business confidence, then attack the very structure of law, statute, and custom. … snip … the point is to fire a volley across the bow of businesses, letting them know that social awareness and progressive ideology trump strict enforcement of legal statute … snip …

Fifth, bring as many academics into the administration, and as few people from private enterprise, as possible. ... snip ... Then just when their entire Keynesian blueprint is operative — have them all quit their jobs and return to places like Berkeley, Harvard, and the Council on Foreign Relations.

Sixth, overregulation is a powerful tool for prompting a depression and should not be ignored. … snip … Once again, the message is that the wasteful, cruel private sector must be corralled by the far better public sector.

Seventh, gorge the beast. Try to get annual federal deficits up to the $1.3–$1.5 trillion range. … snip …

Eighth, take over as many private businesses as possible, the bigger the better — auto manufacturers, banks, insurers. … snip … “You’re next” is a valuable tool in warning businesses to keep a low profile and slow things down.

Ninth, do not forget to reset foreign policy. Let it be known that socialist systems abroad are no longer suspect. … snip … Run down the value of the dollar. Talk about Keynesian deficits as a proper global model. Mimic the social policies of the European Union. … snip …

Tenth, assure businesses that they need more unions. Elevate the profile of the SEIU and ACORN. Get Andy Stern into the White House as much as possible. … snip …

If this ten-step program were to be followed, we might just get unemployment up to near 10 percent, consumer confidence down to historical lows, food-stamp use to record highs, the dollar to a new low, and annual budget deficits at levels previously unimaginable. That way we will never waste a crisis, since all sorts of new possibilities open up once we turn a normal recession into a genuine old-fashioned depression.

:D
 

Back
Top Bottom