The Stimulus Seems to have failed

Hindmost said:
Non Sequitur...what do you mean?

glenn
Click to expand...
With absolution no evidence, you said you wouldn't believe 30 out of 48 economists who said there shouldn't be more fiscal stimulus, yet you do believe the community organizer president who thinks there should be more.
A formeer community organizer with his own staff of experts. Yes.
Click to expand...
Oh, you mean like this one that just resigned to go back to teaching, who predicted the stimulus would keep the unemployment below 8%?

You sir do not know what you are talking about. Every high speed rail system in the world covers it's operating costs and do not require subsidies.
Click to expand...
I guess Germany isn't considered part of this world since Germany's high-speed rail network, required average annual subsidies of $11.6 billion during the 10-year study by Amtrak.
 
Chris L said:
Ok here goes. The jobs are being funded by tax payers in the first place, therefore you get no more tax revenue than you are spending. In order to keep the system alive, you need people who aren't being paid by the government to pay taxes.
Click to expand...
You are assuming government paid work never generates wealth.
Why do you make this assumption? Do you believe work is a zero sum game?
 
Chris L said:
So, in short, I am not intellectually arrogant enough to give a figure. Perhaps you have special knowledge in that area?
Click to expand...

You've made the rather logical claim that there is a "sweet spot" for taxes: Too much is bad, too low is bad. This I, and I am sure everyone on this forum agrees with. It really isn't a radical claim.

Where the distinction comes in is what is exactly that "sweet spot". as you say, it could change with economic conditions. But now, you presume that the tax rate should be lower. Well, lower is relative. You must believe that our current tax rates are greater than this "sweet spot". That is what is being asked. If you retreat from answering this question, than you must also concede that the sweet spot may actually be greater than what it is right now.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Uh

Since when does doubt require evidence? The fact that these same jerks screwed up on a major basis is reason enough to doubt.
Click to expand...
1. Evidence that "these same jerks screwed up"?
2. Evidence that the community organizer and advisers knew about the coming collapse in advance of the other economists in the poll, and thereby justify trusting the administration's opinion over the economists?
 
Hint
No criteria was given for how these 48 economists were selected. The poll is therefore worthless

Anyone trying to sell it as having more weight then the POTUS and his economic advisories is certainly not of a skeptical mindset. Trying to write off the POTUS as “a community organizer” simply proves the point.
 
joobz said:
You've made the rather logical claim that there is a "sweet spot" for taxes: Too much is bad, too low is bad. This I, and I am sure everyone on this forum agrees with. It really isn't a radical claim.

Where the distinction comes in is what is exactly that "sweet spot". as you say, it could change with economic conditions. But now, you presume that the tax rate should be lower. Well, lower is relative. You must believe that our current tax rates are greater than this "sweet spot". That is what is being asked. If you retreat from answering this question, than you must also concede that the sweet spot may actually be greater than what it is right now.
Click to expand...

Why are most debates regarding the rate of taxation held in the context of how much the populace can bear, rather than in the context of how much the government should be spending? It should be obvious, given human nature, that if you install a system of coercive wealth redistribution, the coercer is going to attempt to increase the scope of the system continually, regardless of how much he needs, or how much the coerced need him. If we instead focused on having a constitutionally limited government, then we would have the answer to the tax rate question, and we could then perhaps attempt to apply it progressively.
 
Tippit said:
Why are most debates regarding the rate of taxation held in the context of how much the populace can bear, rather than in the context of how much the government should be spending? It should be obvious, given human nature, that if you install a system of coercive wealth redistribution, the coercer is going to attempt to increase the scope of the system continually, regardless of how much he needs, or how much the coerced need him. If we instead focused on having a constitutionally limited government, then we would have the answer to the tax rate question, and we could then perhaps attempt to apply it progressively.
Click to expand...

Ok.
How much should we be spending?
What services provided by the government are extraneous and/or not beneficial?
 
joobz said:
Ok.
How much should we be spending?
What services provided by the government are extraneous and/or not beneficial?
Click to expand...

Far, far less than we are now. I think it would be beyond the scope of the thread to itemize every wasteful government program that we should eliminate. I would take a constitutionally inclusive approach to what government should actually be doing, and eliminate everything else. I'd like to see the government decapitate the multinational banks and corps that are currently raping the world, and tax individuals like you and I far less.

On the flip side, how much more do you think government should be doing? How much more in taxes should we pay to government so that it might run our lives better than we can, minus a not-so-small handler's fee?
 
Tippit said:
On the flip side, how much more do you think government should be doing? How much more in taxes should we pay to government so that it might run our lives better than we can, minus a not-so-small handler's fee?
Click to expand...
1.) universal health care.
2.) greater education and research investment.

On the flip side:
1.) reduce military spending
2.) limit earmarks severely (do not eliminate, but cap them)
3.) remove a large portion of subsidies
 
joobz said:
1.) universal health care.
Click to expand...

I oppose "universal health care", not only because I have second-hand knowledge of how much waste and fraud already exists in medicare and medicaid, but also because I don't want any more government regulation in medicine. My health is my responsibility. I wouldn't put that burden on you, or accept it in return.

2.) greater education and research investment.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see the government get out of the education business entirely. The complete privatization of all schools. The last thing we need is an educational monolith turning out legions of group-thinkers who were all taught from the same curriculum. Let the best ideas in the best schools win.

On the flip side:
1.) reduce military spending
Click to expand...

I agree completely. We could do that by not starting wars in the first place. Lets start with defending our borders, and stop making the world a safer place for mulitnational corporations, at taxpayer expense.

2.) limit earmarks severely (do not eliminate, but cap them)
Click to expand...

Earmarks are a large source of corruption and waste, they aren't transparent and there is little to no accountibility where the money goes. They should be abolished.

3.) remove a large portion of subsidies
Click to expand...

The government shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing anything. Taxing industries that externalize their costs on to the public is one thing, propping up unsustainable or non-cost effective industries at taxpayer expense is another.
 
Neally said:
With absolution no evidence, you said you wouldn't believe 30 out of 48 economists who said there shouldn't be more fiscal stimulus, yet you do believe the community organizer president who thinks there should be more....snip....
Click to expand...

The financial issues started quite some time ago...Greenspan et al were not exactly saying the US was going to have a financial meltdown. If you have evidence of many economists stating so, please link to it and I will be happy to read it. However, I believe that they weren't correct then, so there is no reason to trust their judgement now.

The rest of your post is a strawman..I did not state that there should be more fiscal stimulus or whether or not I agreed with the president.

glenn
 
Tippit said:
I oppose "universal health care", not only because I have second-hand knowledge of how much waste and fraud already exists in medicare and medicaid, but also because I don't want any more government regulation in medicine. My health is my responsibility. I wouldn't put that burden on you, or accept it in return.
Click to expand...
I support it because I see it functioning better and more economically than our current system. It doesn't make sense for us to maintain a pseudo-free market/insurance approach which simply is geared to bleed money into the pockets of a select few.


Tippit said:
I'd like to see the government get out of the education business entirely. The complete privatization of all schools. The last thing we need is an educational monolith turning out legions of group-thinkers who were all taught from the same curriculum. Let the best ideas in the best schools win.
Click to expand...
A free market education system caters to separation of classes. We had this system prior to land grant institutions, and only the wealthy were educated. the future of our country relies on an educated populous, not just an educated elite.

I am against "group think" as well, but I do not see how a private school system avoids such a problem.


Tippit said:
Earmarks are a large source of corruption and waste, they aren't transparent and there is little to no accountibility where the money goes. They should be abolished.
Click to expand...
In a perfect world, they would be. But I'm a bit more pragmatic.
earmarks are a great tool in getting things done in congress. It helps make political deals get done. What I would like to see is simply a cap on the deals made. Limit the number of poker chips and you can still get things done and done far more cheaply.


Tippit said:
The government shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing anything. Taxing industries that externalize their costs on to the public is one thing, propping up unsustainable or non-cost effective industries at taxpayer expense is another.
Click to expand...
Subsidies can help lessen the economic blowout that can occur when industries are changing. However, they have a habit of not being removed when they outlive their usefulness. I would simply like to see the ones removed that do not need to be there anymore (E.g., ethanol in gas subsidies)


ETA:
BTW, thank your for your posts. I enjoy reading them.
 
Last edited:
lomiller said:
Hint
No criteria was given for how these 48 economists were selected. The poll is therefore worthless

Anyone trying to sell it as having more weight then the POTUS and his economic advisories is certainly not of a skeptical mindset. Trying to write off the POTUS as “a community organizer” simply proves the point.
Click to expand...
"About the Survey-The Wall Street Journal surveys a group of 57 economists throughout the year. Broad surveys on more than 10 major economic indicators are conducted every month. Once a year, economists are ranked on how well their forecasts have fared. For prior installments of the surveys, see: WSJ.com/Economist."

The community organizer turned president is not an economist. His background is law and civil rights attorney, which proves my point that he does not have expertise in economic matters. Assuming he and his advisers are smarter than other economists, just because he is president, certainly is not of a skeptical mindset. Romer, his chair of Council of Economic Advisers was horribly wrong in her prediction of the impact of the stimulus on unemployment. Now explain to me again why Obama's economic policy of more stimulus spending should be followed over the majority of economists in the WSJ survey.

Hindmost said:
The rest of your post is a strawman..I did not state that there should be more fiscal stimulus or whether or not I agreed with the president.
Click to expand...
If you don't believe the majority of the economists, do you believe in the presidents position, which has even less expertise? There are only two choice here, more stimulus or no more stimulus.
 
LOL! So Obama is now proposing another $50 billion in stimulus spending on infrastructure (roads, railroads, runways). To get our economy moving.

Obama boast - "We are going to rebuild 150,000 miles of our roads -- that's enough to circle the world six times. ... We're going to lay and maintain 4,000 miles of our railways -- enough to stretch coast-to-coast." And don't forget the 150 miles of runway.

Now, of course, he announced this at a union meeting, so I imagine he's promising them a whole lot of jobs. And he claims the program will be "fully paid for" and not add to the deficit. Of course the details of how he'll accomplish that feat are a bit hazy. :rolleyes:

Well, setting aside the issue of whether such spending actually will help the economy in any sort of timely fashion … or even end up a net benefit to the country in the long run, let's see how the first stimulus turned out where "shovel ready" infrastructure spending was concerned:

http://biggovernment.com/mrichmond/2010/09/05/an-industry-by-industry-look-at-the-stimulus-failure/

An Industry by Industry Look at the Stimulus Failure
Click to expand...

Gee, it seems that the WORST job losses were in the industry that the Obama administration is claiming the most "created" jobs. Construction. So should we trust them again? Or should WE be stuck on stupid, too? :D
 
Tippit said:
Apparently you don't understand what selling short is. It's not "buying high and selling low", it's borrowing to sell high, and covering low.
Click to expand...
Yes the money is borrowed, but it certainly takes advantage of shrinking stock. Thus it essentially acts like buying high and selling low.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom