The Stimulus Seems to have failed

mhaze said:
Because I provided two links (of hundreds) that have studied this matter. Which you ignored.

Because I think from your method of questioning you are not serious, and are just trying to find something....somewhere...to pick on.

AS OF NOW you've contributed nothing to the discussion.

Think about it.
Click to expand...

It's simple, mhaze. You've blamed poor growth on 9/11, now give a number. If the links you've posted corroborate your stance, take the number from the links.
 
stokes234 said:
It's simple, mhaze. You've blamed poor growth on 9/11, now give a number. If the links you've posted corroborate your stance, take the number from the links.
Click to expand...
Shall we proceed to discussing the merits of Phd theses on the matter of economic impact of 911.

Nope. According to you, "it's simple".

Edited by Tricky: 
Edited for rule 12.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BobTheDonkey said:
So, now that stimulus funds have run their course (or at least mostly), the economy is slowing back down? It's almost as though the stimulus needed to be bigger/longer and instead was cut short and the economy has suffered subsequently.
Click to expand...

So have you ever heard of a junkie wanting LESS of his favorite fix tomorrow than yesterday?
 
mhaze said:
Because I provided two links (of hundreds) that have studied this matter. Which you ignored.

Because I think from your method of questioning you are not serious, and are just trying to find something....somewhere...to pick on.

AS OF NOW you've contributed nothing to the discussion.

Think about it.
Click to expand...

This is what, your fourth evasion?

Admit that by your own numbers george w bush shrank the economy and 9/11 is no excuse for it. Or quantify the effect.
 
mhaze said:
So have you ever heard of a junkie wanting LESS of his favorite fix tomorrow than yesterday?
Click to expand...

Well, if that junkie is addicted to morphine/heroin, I suppose I could see how this would be similar (because heroin actually creates a chemical dependency).

But, then, most junkies don't need their drug to exist. It's hard for the economy to exist without cash flow. A more appropriate comparison would be that of a car wreck victim who's bleeding profusely. It certainly makes sense to continue blood infusions while attempting to fix the holes/broken bones/etc. To not infuse blood, or even just not enough blood, would result in a much more difficult recovery if recovery were able to occur at all.

Cash is certainly the blood of our economy. When cash stops flowing/runs out, the economy cannot survive.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
Well, if that junkie is addicted to morphine/heroin, I suppose I could see how this would be similar (because heroin actually creates a chemical dependency).

But, then, most junkies don't need their drug to exist. It's hard for the economy to exist without cash flow. A more appropriate comparison would be that of a car wreck victim who's bleeding profusely. It certainly makes sense to continue blood infusions while attempting to fix the holes/broken bones/etc. To not infuse blood, or even just not enough blood, would result in a much more difficult recovery if recovery were able to occur at all.

Cash is certainly the blood of our economy. When cash stops flowing/runs out, the economy cannot survive.
Click to expand...

Some subsections of that economy would not survive, and some would thrive. For example, the section of the Greek economy consisting of those who "have a right" to retire at age 49 would not see much useful cash come their way....

Would there be dire consequences to stopping those transfers? Yep. But the existence of the problem today is because of the continuation of the problem...."kicking the can down the road"....

The solution to that isn't kicking the can down the road.

:rolleyes:
 
mhaze said:
Some subsections of that economy would not survive, and some would thrive. For example, the section of the Greek economy consisting of those who "have a right" to retire at age 49 would not see much useful cash come their way....

Would there be dire consequences to stopping those transfers? Yep. But the existence of the problem today is because of the continuation of the problem...."kicking the can down the road"....

The solution to that isn't kicking the can down the road.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Stimulus isn't just kicking the can down the road. The other side to this economic policy is that during the boom times, the Gov't should reign in it's spending and pay down it's debt. That this hasn't happened in the very recent past (say, the 7 or so years prior to the recession) is not reason to argue against stimulus to salvage the current economy.

Put it this way: If the patient in the ER dies, it's difficult for the hospital to receive any form of payment (no family to sue, etc) from that patient. By transfusing the blood and working to save the patient, that patient is able to pay his/her/it's debt to the hospital.

I'm not sure why Greece was brought into this. We weren't talking about Greece, unless you're implying that Greece has a lot of junkies? Or are you saying we should look at Greece as the patient? Ok. Austerity measures enforced by the EU mean that the director of the hospital came down and said: "well, I know he's in a rough spot, but he's going to have to show us he wants to survive before we'll give him the blood transfusions he needs. And when he does show that will, make sure you don't give him too much blood, too."

Yes, the patient could survive, but you're significantly decreasing his chances.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
Stimulus isn't just kicking the can down the road. The other side to this economic policy is that during the boom times, the Gov't should reign in it's spending and pay down it's debt. That this hasn't happened in the very recent past (say, the 7 or so years prior to the recession) is not reason to argue against stimulus to salvage the current economy.....
Click to expand...

Umm, yes actually it is in this case.

The reason is that we have entered into a new era of structural fiscal imbalances where "paying down the debt" is impossible and "reigning in it's spending" is difficult, if you just look at the postings here.

For example, if we took 1/3 of all revenue from 1040 personal tax returns, and assumed that continued at current levels, plus assuming we had a balanced budget for the full course of years...how long do you think it would be before the current deficit was paid off?

<exercise left to reader>

Next, assume that

(B) the unspoken intent is to not pay the debt off

(C) the intent is to print dollars until the magnitude of the debt is insignificant

and restate your premises.
 
mhaze said:
Umm, yes actually it is in this case.

The reason is that we have entered into a new era of structural fiscal imbalances where "paying down the debt" is impossible and "reigning in it's spending" is difficult, if you just look at the postings here.

For example, if we took 1/3 of all revenue from 1040 personal tax returns, and assumed that continued at current levels, plus assuming we had a balanced budget for the full course of years...how long do you think it would be before the current deficit was paid off?

<exercise left to reader>

Next, assume that

(B) the unspoken intent is to not pay the debt off

(C) the intent is to print dollars until the magnitude of the debt is insignificant

and restate your premises.
Click to expand...

Yes, let's ignore the rest of my post and focus on the one argument you maybe had a chance at winning. Except that you fail to realize that tax revenues are down strictly because the economy is down - lower wages and lower employment results in lower tax revenue. By rebuilding the economy (via stimulus), tax revenue is increased, making balancing the budget and paying off the debt easier/faster. This is, in fact, what should have been happening over the 7 or so years prior to the recession. Instead, it (and more) was spent on foreign engagements.

That one President allowed/encouraged this to happen does not mean that all Presidents would/will. So, aside from poisoning the well, you've not actually argued anything other than base assertions with no evidence to support their accuracy.


As for those assumptions, those are indeed assumptions. And they have no bearing on whether stimulus money should be spent or not. You argue that it's a way of paying off the debt by devaluing money, but you haven't shown that the Gov't wouldn't revalue the money (slowly) after the economy has recovered.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
Yes, let's ignore the rest of my post and focus on the one argument you maybe had a chance at winning. Except that you fail to realize that tax revenues are down strictly because the economy is down - lower wages and lower employment results in lower tax revenue. By rebuilding the economy (via stimulus), tax revenue is increased, making balancing the budget and paying off the debt easier/faster. This is, in fact, what should have been happening over the 7 or so years prior to the recession. Instead, it (and more) was spent on foreign engagements.

That one President allowed/encouraged this to happen does not mean that all Presidents would/will. So, aside from poisoning the well, you've not actually argued anything other than base assertions with no evidence to support their accuracy.


As for those assumptions, those are indeed assumptions. And they have no bearing on whether stimulus money should be spent or not. You argue that it's a way of paying off the debt by devaluing money, but you haven't shown that the Gov't wouldn't revalue the money (slowly) after the economy has recovered.
Click to expand...
Sure, no problem. We'll ignore your argument about ...uhhh....this prez versus that prez, "rebuilding the economy", "foreign engagements", and some kind of analogy to emergency rooms.

We'll stick with my point #1 which you didn't answer, so here is your very untasty answer.

Paying the CURRENT DEBT off, no additional interest, tax revenues constant requires 1/3 of all 1040 revenue for FIFTY YEARS.

So that isn't going to happen. Now, if you want to continue the discussion, we'll go to my options (2) and (3)...and neither of them is any tastier.

Believe me, it's much more comfy in that warm basket of feelings of one party versus the other one and mine is wonderful and they are devils incarnate. You can of course argue that "stimulus" is "rebuilding the economy" but these are the available frames of reference:

(B) the unspoken intent is to not pay the debt off

(C) the intent is to print dollars until the magnitude of the debt is insignificant

And either has implications as to the effect of the premises.

;)
 
mhaze said:
Sure, no problem. We'll ignore your argument about ...uhhh....this prez versus that prez, "rebuilding the economy", "foreign engagements", and some kind of analogy to emergency rooms.

We'll stick with my point #1 which you didn't answer, so here is your very untasty answer.

Paying the CURRENT DEBT off, no additional interest, tax revenues constant requires 1/3 of all 1040 revenue for FIFTY YEARS.

So that isn't going to happen. Now, if you want to continue the discussion, we'll go to my options (2) and (3)...and neither of them is any tastier.

Believe me, it's much more comfy in that warm basket of feelings of one party versus the other one and mine is wonderful and they are devils incarnate. You can of course argue that "stimulus" is "rebuilding the economy" but these are the available frames of reference:

(B) the unspoken intent is to not pay the debt off

(C) the intent is to print dollars until the magnitude of the debt is insignificant

And either has implications as to the effect of the premises.

;)
Click to expand...
This isn't about "this vs that Prez". This is about you making the claim that the debt hasn't been paid down, when in fact it has been - just not every time it should have been (which is what I was pointing out).

Now, your claim about 50 years at 1/3 of current tax revenue is scary indeed...unless we acknowledge (as I've pointed out) that tax revenues are down due to, you guessed it, a struggling economy. Improve the economy, increase tax revenue. I realize this isn't one of your options, but then your options aren't all-inclusive (obviously).

The Fed Debt is not what's dragging the economy down. Working to decrease that debt in the middle of a struggling economy is like taking a blood donation from that ER patient while he's struggling for life. Just doesn't make sense.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
The Fed Debt is not what's dragging the economy down.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they're threatening to reduce America's credit rating for no reason at all and should that happen, it will have no impact on the economy. :rolleyes:

And it's no problem that 20 cents out of every dollar of total tax revenue collected is immediately used to pay the interest on the Federal debt. That has absolutely no impact on the economy. :rolleyes:

And worry about inflation as a result of the growing debt? Don't be silly. And even if inflation does raise it's ugly head, trouble yourself not ... that won't affect the economy. :rolleyes:

Just to start the conversation.

:D
 
BeAChooser said:
Yeah, they're threatening to reduce America's credit rating for no reason at all and should that happen, it will have no impact on the economy. :rolleyes:

And it's no problem that 20 cents out of every dollar of total tax revenue collected is immediately used to pay the interest on the Federal debt. That has absolutely no impact on the economy. :rolleyes:

And worry about inflation as a result of the growing debt? Don't be silly. And even if inflation does raise it's ugly head, trouble yourself not ... that won't affect the economy. :rolleyes:

Just to start the conversation.

:D
Click to expand...
Well, some of this is a bit technical. But for starters, consider if the FED is forced by market conditions to raise the interest they pay. Vast amounts are moving out of the country and the amounts are increasing.

Then that 20 cents out of every dollar of tax revenue becomes 40 or 60 cents. So they are running a very narrow, one lane road on the side of a mountain of past fiscal errors and current appetites.

Bob has not considered that the stimulus is not stimulus, and an "economic rebound" cannot be allowed - that brings full employment, higher money velocity, banks loaning....these factors create a bad inflation and coupled with the current spending levels, a hyperinflation.

So we have a stagflation, which is a set of dampers on a dynamically unstable basis of money expansion, credit restriction, and increased government meddling.

That's a bubble.
 
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=576738&p=1

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke says he's puzzled by the failure of the economy to respond to our government's many ministrations. Which explains much of why our economy is such a mess.

'We don't have a precise read on why this slower pace of growth is persisting," Bernanke said recently, adding that the growth slowdown was proving to be "more persistent than we thought."

His remarks came as the Fed dropped its 2011 gross domestic product growth forecast from the range of 3.1% to 3.3%, made just two months earlier, to a much slower 2.7% to 2.9% pace.
Click to expand...

Let me help Stuck On Stupid Bernanke … read this thread. :D

And apparently the IBD editor agrees …

Not to be rude, but can the nation's top banker really be so clueless? Anyone with half a lick of common sense looking at our economy knows what's wrong: We've spent the better part of three years with government making the most extraordinary interventions in the economy in our nation's history.
Click to expand...
 
BeAChooser said:
Not to quibble, BTD, but you really haven't paid much attention to what's been posted on this thread, have you? :D
Click to expand...


Well you certianly haven't because you still haven't been able to explain that one...

Why don't you try again I'm sure no more insane rants panicked hand-waving or non-sequitur nonsense can give everyone a laugh once again :D :D :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom