Obama stimulus is failed

[boedicca]

That also doesn't count immigration, which is a strong factor in employment.

And longer life-spans among the elderly is a strong counter-factor.

Was there a point you were trying to make here?

It's hard to figure out his reasoning, if he has any. A couple of theories:

1. So many people are retiring that the drop in total employment is because as a society, we are retiring faster than we are adding new workers.

2. Those old people who are living longer are working longer as well, thus preventing younger workers for getting jobs.

One can assume two policy positions suggested by these two alternatives. For Alt.1, we should definitely restructure Social Security and Medicare as the ratio of workers to beneficiaries is reaching unsustainability. But the Leftwing could never do that, so VLWC would just ignore it as irrelevant and say we should just tax The Rich.

For Alt.2, the Leftwing policy position would be to force the elderly into retirement in order to free up jobs for the young. A likely plan would be to regulation that if one didn't retire and claim SS benefits by a certain age, one forfeited them for life. That's the kind of thing they would do.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Every picture tells a story...

And what do we have to show for those deficits: The New Meme that 9% Unemployment is the New Normal.

Thanks Obama!

Most of the Obama deficit was the 450 billion deficit he inherited from Bush plus lower tax revenues in 2009, 2010.

Wait so according to you, 450 Billion constitutes most of a 1.5 Trillion dollar Deficit?

Interesting math.

1. The Bush deficit for 2008 was 458 billion.

2. Tax revenues fell 420 billion between 2008 and 2009.

3. That makes the total deficit for 2009, even if spending had been frozen at 2008 levels,

878 billion. That is MOST of Obama's 1.4 trillion dollar deficit in 2009.

 

[boedicca]

Most of the Obama deficit was the 450 billion deficit he inherited from Bush plus lower tax revenues in 2009, 2010.

Wait so according to you, 450 Billion constitutes most of a 1.5 Trillion dollar Deficit?

Interesting math.

1. The Bush deficit for 2008 was 458 billion.

2. Tax revenues fell 420 billion between 2008 and 2009.

3. That makes the total deficit for 2009, even if spending had been frozen at 2008 levels,

878 billion. That is MOST of Obama's 1.4 trillion dollar deficit in 2009.

Sophistry. Obama increased spending, regulations, and uncertainty regarding to the point where economic growth has been stifled. The drop in tax receipts is due to the huge increase in Unemployment under Obama - as well as entrepreneurs and small business going on strike. Blaming the drop in tax receipt on Bush, when the rates are the same, is intellectually dishonest (so like you, btw).

That's why we have a deficit. He didn't "inherit" most of it. He Made Things Worse.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wait so according to you, 450 Billion constitutes most of a 1.5 Trillion dollar Deficit?

Interesting math.

1. The Bush deficit for 2008 was 458 billion.

2. Tax revenues fell 420 billion between 2008 and 2009.

3. That makes the total deficit for 2009, even if spending had been frozen at 2008 levels,

878 billion. That is MOST of Obama's 1.4 trillion dollar deficit in 2009.

Sophistry. Obama increased spending, regulations, and uncertainty regarding to the point where economic growth has been stifled. The drop in tax receipts is due to the huge increase in Unemployment under Obama - as well as entrepreneurs and small business going on strike. Blaming the drop in tax receipt on Bush, when the rates are the same, is intellectually dishonest (so like you, btw).

That's why we have a deficit. He didn't "inherit" most of it. He Made Things Worse.

Nonsense. The other poster questioned my math. That is the math.

The cost of the stimulus bill accounts for all of Obama's deficit in 2009 that he can be held responsible for. And $300 billion of that was the cost of the tax cuts in the stimulus bill.

 

[stormcloud1968]

Haven't the Democrats controlled Congress since '07? Hasn't spending exploded since then, reaching epic proportions under Obama, when the Dems couldn't even pass a budget.

Let's see here. The GOP had control of the executive branch and both halves of the legislative branch for 4 years (and even control of congress for an additional two years) and created a total disaster of the economy. The Dems had control of the executive branch and both halves of the legislative branch for half that amount of time with which to try and clean it up. Let's just take a look at the middle east situation shall we? Bush started off by responding to 9/11 and chasing down Bin Laden, which was legitimate and I fully supported. Then he decided the Bin Laden isn't important anymore (because he wasn't having any success), leaves that situation open ended and goes after the Hussein (legitimate target, but very stupid timing considering that we had him under a microscope and could have kept him on the back burner until we had the situation in Afghanistan cleaned up). If he had finished one job before starting another one, the military spending could have been kept at a reasonable level. Instead we're left with a military situation that's going to cost us in personnel and money for a LONG time. A lot longer that it needed to be.

 

[The Rabbi]

Haven't the Democrats controlled Congress since '07? Hasn't spending exploded since then, reaching epic proportions under Obama, when the Dems couldn't even pass a budget.

Let's see here. The GOP had control of the executive branch and both halves of the legislative branch for 4 years (and even control of congress for an additional two years) and created a total disaster of the economy. The Dems had control of the executive branch and both halves of the legislative branch for half that amount of time with which to try and clean it up. Let's just take a look at the middle east situation shall we? Bush started off by responding to 9/11 and chasing down Bin Laden, which was legitimate and I fully supported. Then he decided the Bin Laden isn't important anymore (because he wasn't having any success), leaves that situation open ended and goes after the Hussein (legitimate target, but very stupid timing considering that we had him under a microscope and could have kept him on the back burner until we had the situation in Afghanistan cleaned up). If he had finished one job before starting another one, the military spending could have been kept at a reasonable level. Instead we're left with a military situation that's going to cost us in personnel and money for a LONG time. A lot longer that it needed to be.

Hint: When did the economy start to decline? No it wasn't when the GOP ran things.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Every picture tells a story...

And what do we have to show for those deficits: The New Meme that 9% Unemployment is the New Normal.

Thanks Obama!

Do you stand by the accuracy of that chart?

Given that it shows 4 years of Clinton surpluses...

 

[The Rabbi]

And longer life-spans among the elderly is a strong counter-factor.

Was there a point you were trying to make here?

It's hard to figure out his reasoning, if he has any. A couple of theories:

1. So many people are retiring that the drop in total employment is because as a society, we are retiring faster than we are adding new workers.

2. Those old people who are living longer are working longer as well, thus preventing younger workers for getting jobs.

One can assume two policy positions suggested by these two alternatives. For Alt.1, we should definitely restructure Social Security and Medicare as the ratio of workers to beneficiaries is reaching unsustainability. But the Leftwing could never do that, so VLWC would just ignore it as irrelevant and say we should just tax The Rich.

For Alt.2, the Leftwing policy position would be to force the elderly into retirement in order to free up jobs for the young. A likely plan would be to regulation that if one didn't retire and claim SS benefits by a certain age, one forfeited them for life. That's the kind of thing they would do.

Except we have figures on workforce participation, i.e. the percentage of people who could be working vs those who actually are. And those figures show the lowest level of participation since '83.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/workforce-participation-lowest-since-83

 

[stormcloud1968]

Hint: When did the economy start to decline? No it wasn't when the GOP ran things.

And???? If our economy was a car headed toward "dead man's curve"; when Bush took the wheel, he cut the brake lines and hit the gas.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hint: When did the economy start to decline? No it wasn't when the GOP ran things.

And???? If our economy was a car headed toward "dead man's curve"; when Bush took the wheel, he cut the brake lines and hit the gas.

And then the Democrats gunned the engine, Thelma and Louise-like, over the cliff.

Are you done with stupid metaphors and unprovable theories?

 

[stormcloud1968]

And then the Democrats gunned the engine, Thelma and Louise-like, over the cliff.

Are you done with stupid metaphors and unprovable theories?

The engine was already gunned with the accelerator stuck to the firewall before '08. I don't know if you're done grasping at straws, but I think I'm done trying to reason with the unreasonable.

 

[boedicca]

Every picture tells a story...

And what do we have to show for those deficits: The New Meme that 9% Unemployment is the New Normal.

Thanks Obama!

Do you stand by the accuracy of that chart?

Given that it shows 4 years of Clinton surpluses...

Yes. There were surpluses during Clinton's second term. The dot com bubble/Y2K/Telecom fueled growth resulted in record tax receipts. Growth matters. We had some back then - although a large portion of it was based on vapor and resulted in subsequent job losses after the bubble burst.

There's also the consideration that government accounting is cash based. In reality, there was no surplus given that accrued liabilities are not included. That said, Clinton handled the economy orders of magnitude better than did Obama. Clinton was not a blind leftwing ideologue trying to transform society. He was just a good old boy southern politician.

 

[boedicca]

Was there a point you were trying to make here?

It's hard to figure out his reasoning, if he has any. A couple of theories:

1. So many people are retiring that the drop in total employment is because as a society, we are retiring faster than we are adding new workers.

2. Those old people who are living longer are working longer as well, thus preventing younger workers for getting jobs.

One can assume two policy positions suggested by these two alternatives. For Alt.1, we should definitely restructure Social Security and Medicare as the ratio of workers to beneficiaries is reaching unsustainability. But the Leftwing could never do that, so VLWC would just ignore it as irrelevant and say we should just tax The Rich.

For Alt.2, the Leftwing policy position would be to force the elderly into retirement in order to free up jobs for the young. A likely plan would be to regulation that if one didn't retire and claim SS benefits by a certain age, one forfeited them for life. That's the kind of thing they would do.

Except we have figures on workforce participation, i.e. the percentage of people who could be working vs those who actually are. And those figures show the lowest level of participation since '83.
Workforce Participation Lowest Since ’83 | Sweetness & Light

Yes. Labor Force Participation has tanked. If it hadn't, we'd have U3 unemployment well over 10%.

 

[The Rabbi]

And then the Democrats gunned the engine, Thelma and Louise-like, over the cliff.

Are you done with stupid metaphors and unprovable theories?

The engine was already gunned with the accelerator stuck to the firewall before '08. I don't know if you're done grasping at straws, but I think I'm done trying to reason with the unreasonable.

You call falsehoods, unproven assertions, and ridiculous metaphors reasoning?
You won't last long here.

 

[jeffrockit]

Just to clarify, it's not OBAMA's stimulus that failed. ALL stimulus fails...unless of course you're one of connected few to be handed my tax dollars. Keynes was wrong. Friedman/Hayek got it right.

Friedman stated that we needed a bigger stimulus. If you agree, as your quote states, that the stimulus failed, how can you thin Friedman got it right?

 

[The Rabbi]

Just to clarify, it's not OBAMA's stimulus that failed. ALL stimulus fails...unless of course you're one of connected few to be handed my tax dollars. Keynes was wrong. Friedman/Hayek got it right.

Friedman stated that we needed a bigger stimulus. If you agree, as your quote states, that the stimulus failed, how can you thin Friedman got it right?

Who is "Friedman"? You mean this guy?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESNCWrks6vQ&feature=related]YouTube - ‪Kinky Friedman, They Ain't Making Jews Like Jesus Anymore‬‏[/ame]

 

[NYcarbineer]

every picture tells a story...

and what do we have to show for those deficits: The new meme that 9% unemployment is the new normal.

Thanks obama!

do you stand by the accuracy of that chart?

Given that it shows 4 years of clinton surpluses...

yes. There were surpluses during clinton's second term. the dot com bubble/y2k/telecom fueled growth resulted in record tax receipts. Growth matters. We had some back then - although a large portion of it was based on vapor and resulted in subsequent job losses after the bubble burst.

There's also the consideration that government accounting is cash based. in reality, there was no surplus given that accrued liabilities are not included. That said, clinton handled the economy orders of magnitude better than did obama. Clinton was not a blind leftwing ideologue trying to transform society. He was just a good old boy southern politician.

wtf? No wonder this place is addicting.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hint: When did the economy start to decline? No it wasn't when the GOP ran things.

And???? If our economy was a car headed toward "dead man's curve"; when Bush took the wheel, he cut the brake lines and hit the gas.

And then the Democrats gunned the engine, Thelma and Louise-like, over the cliff.

Are you done with stupid metaphors and unprovable theories?

What did the Democratic Congress do, SPECIFICALLY, in 2007, that caused the recession?

 

[Vanquish]

If you say the stimulus failed...that means trickle-down tax cuts dont work either. Great job fucking yourself.

 

[The Rabbi]

If you say the stimulus failed...that means trickle-down tax cuts dont work either. Great job fucking yourself.

WTF are "trickle down tax cuts"???
Are you suggesting we should ahve raised taxes in the recession? Yeah that's a plan.