Republicans oppose economic stimulus

[xcelerate]

Stimulus doesn't fix shit. Do you not realize that any stimulus money must first come OUT of the economy, generally from the most productive citizens and companies?

Those individuals (many of whom reside overseas) are looking at every possible investment opportunity available and choosing to buy government debt - at some of the lowest rates in history.

Why that is relevant is beyond me.
They are also choosing to buy gold at historically high prices. The reason is the same: flight to safety. It is a no-confidence vote in this administration.

100% true went from 800 per oz to 1800 per oz in the Obama regime, That's a MASSIVE R.O.I. for anyone trading in commodities, Smart traders know that a poor unstable economy is the best time to make money. A lot of these fat cats and wall street brokers that liberals hate so very very much are sitting back laughing as capital gains tax stays the same and they are making tons of money short selling or buying up put contracts. Entire country could fall apart and they could all get rich off it.

 

[Dragon]

In the 40s people were united. Things were tough for everyone, but they believed in their soldiers and their country. We didn't have a divider in chief leading the nation.

Things were a lot harder then, everything was rationed so there was enough money to fight the war. People were proud to step up to do what was necessary. This is not the 40s and we have no clue how to do it like our grandparents and great-grandparents did. We have a spoiled entitlement generation that thinks everyone should pay higher taxes, well that is everyone but them.

What does that have to do with anything? The fact remains that the war spending in the 1940s shows very clearly that stimulus works. Government spending can jump-start a depressed economy, if done on a sufficiently large scale.

All of the theoretical objections to it must fail in light of that real-world demonstration. To address one such theoretical objection, you are not taking money out of the economy because the money taken is idle anyway; those with the means to invest aren't investing because the consumer demand doesn't exist to justify the investment.

One may of course object to taking that idle money and having the government do some investing of its own on moral or ethical grounds, but to say that it doesn't work is demonstrably wrong.

 

[Oddball]

In the 40s people were united. Things were tough for everyone, but they believed in their soldiers and their country. We didn't have a divider in chief leading the nation.

Things were a lot harder then, everything was rationed so there was enough money to fight the war. People were proud to step up to do what was necessary. This is not the 40s and we have no clue how to do it like our grandparents and great-grandparents did. We have a spoiled entitlement generation that thinks everyone should pay higher taxes, well that is everyone but them.

What does that have to do with anything? The fact remains that the war spending in the 1940s shows very clearly that stimulus works. Government spending can jump-start a depressed economy, if done on a sufficiently large scale.

All of the theoretical objections to it must fail in light of that real-world demonstration. To address one such theoretical objection, you are not taking money out of the economy because the money taken is idle anyway; those with the means to invest aren't investing because the consumer demand doesn't exist to justify the investment.

One may of course object to taking that idle money and having the government do some investing of its own on moral or ethical grounds, but to say that it doesn't work is demonstrably wrong.

Utter nonsense.

The war continued to be a time of rationing and general lack of consumer goods, followed by the economy cratering again as war implement contacts got canceled.

The only reason that the American economy rebounded so relatively quickly after that recession, is that we were pretty much the only nation on the planet with any kind of global industrial capacity left.

 

[Oldstyle]

That would be ZERO. FUCKING ZERO.

Yeah, but a jillion squillion jobs were "saved".

So, in essence, you are agreeing that extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy did nothing for unemployment?

Let me see if I understand this...those of you that believe the Obama stimulus "saved" millions of jobs, think that extending the Bush tax cuts didn't save any?

Would you care to explain why President Obama reluctantly went along with extending them? The obvious answer to that question is that letting them expire would have caused the economy to contract and for jobs to be lost. It was the fear of THAT which led to so many Democrats to refuse to vote for letting the Bush cuts expire.

 

[xcelerate]

Seriously, are there any liberals that know how to use there brain? or maybe its just the ones that do know how just decided being liberal isn't the intelligent choice. Hell I was for Obama back in 08, then I realized how retarded I was after I put some thought into it.

STIMULUS = throwing money everywhere = BAD
TAX CUTS = generating more money = GOOD

lazy liberals just want some more free handouts, get a job, be useful to society.

 

[naturegirl]

In the 40s people were united. Things were tough for everyone, but they believed in their soldiers and their country. We didn't have a divider in chief leading the nation.

Things were a lot harder then, everything was rationed so there was enough money to fight the war. People were proud to step up to do what was necessary. This is not the 40s and we have no clue how to do it like our grandparents and great-grandparents did. We have a spoiled entitlement generation that thinks everyone should pay higher taxes, well that is everyone but them.

What does that have to do with anything? The fact remains that the war spending in the 1940s shows very clearly that stimulus works. Government spending can jump-start a depressed economy, if done on a sufficiently large scale.

All of the theoretical objections to it must fail in light of that real-world demonstration. To address one such theoretical objection, you are not taking money out of the economy because the money taken is idle anyway; those with the means to invest aren't investing because the consumer demand doesn't exist to justify the investment.

One may of course object to taking that idle money and having the government do some investing of its own on moral or ethical grounds, but to say that it doesn't work is demonstrably wrong.

Utter nonsense.

The war continued to be a time of rationing and general lack of consumer goods, followed by the economy cratering again as war implement contacts got canceled.

The only reason that the American economy rebounded so relatively quickly after that recession, is that we were pretty much the only nation on the planet with any kind of global industrial capacity left.

 

[8537]

Stimulus doesn't fix shit. Do you not realize that any stimulus money must first come OUT of the economy, generally from the most productive citizens and companies?

Those individuals (many of whom reside overseas) are looking at every possible investment opportunity available and choosing to buy government debt - at some of the lowest rates in history.

Why that is relevant is beyond me.

Of course it's beyond you.

 

[8537]

Stimulus doesn't fix shit. Do you not realize that any stimulus money must first come OUT of the economy, generally from the most productive citizens and companies?

Those individuals (many of whom reside overseas) are looking at every possible investment opportunity available and choosing to buy government debt - at some of the lowest rates in history.

He's still right, stimulus really doesn't fix shit. As for those overseas investors buying our debt. Good for them they get to make money off of our idiotic administration.

"make money"? Last week for a brief period they were purchasing US treasuries at above face value. They are currently buying it at less than one percent nominal rates with inflation above that.

In other words, we're repaying them less than we borrowed in real terms.

 

[8537]

Stimulus doesn't fix shit. Do you not realize that any stimulus money must first come OUT of the economy, generally from the most productive citizens and companies?

Those individuals (many of whom reside overseas) are looking at every possible investment opportunity available and choosing to buy government debt - at some of the lowest rates in history.

Taxes don't come from overseas investors, they come from US citizens and corporations mainly. Are you suggesting we simply borrow the money for stimulus? Is that your plan?

Yes, that's how stimulus spending works during a recession.

If so, tell me how will you be paying the $131,500 you owe now, much less the higher amount that will result from more borrowing? Or, should we simply let the next generation deal with that burden?

Failing to stimulate the economy will simply increase the debt load higher as revenues continue to falter and the the automatic stabilizers continue to be needed. Borrowing at below zero real rates won't create a "burden for the next generation".

 

[Dragon]

Utter nonsense.

The war continued to be a time of rationing and general lack of consumer goods, followed by the economy cratering again as war implement contacts got canceled.

It is not nonsense and the economy did not "crater." The loss of government money from defense spending was easily replaced by consumer spending, as people had been employed for several years at good wages and the high unemployment of the Depression was completely cured.

The only reason that the American economy rebounded so relatively quickly after that recession, is that we were pretty much the only nation on the planet with any kind of global industrial capacity left.

Ah, that old beggar-thy-neighbor bullshit that you don't believe yourself in any other context. Tell me this, then. If that reasoning were correct, then we could recreate those four decades of postwar prosperity by completely isolating ourselves and refusing to trade with anyone. I mean, the same effect would be had if we did that as if the rest of the world had no industrial capacity. The U.S. market would be the only market, and our businesses would be the only ones selling to it.

Oh, and by the way, you're wrong. We were nowhere near the only nation on the planet with any kind of global industrial capacity left. Most of industrialized Europe was relatively untouched by the war. British and French industrial capacity remained strong. Most British factories were located where the Luftwaffe hadn't been able to reach, and France fell so quickly to the Germans that property damage was actually minimal, nor did Allied bombing strike most of the country prior to D-day. And of course, Spain, the Scandinavian countries, the Low Countries, all of these were also only minimally damaged. The only countries that really took serious damage to their industrial plants were our main enemies, Germany and Japan, and they were fully rebuilt by the end of the 1950s.

 

[Oddball]

Utter nonsense.

The war continued to be a time of rationing and general lack of consumer goods, followed by the economy cratering again as war implement contacts got canceled.

It is not nonsense and the economy did not "crater." The loss of government money from defense spending was easily replaced by consumer spending, as people had been employed for several years at good wages and the high unemployment of the Depression was completely cured.

Really?....Tell us all how well life just rolled along swimmingly for guys like Andrew Higgins.

Oh, and the retooling from making bombs, tanks and airplanes to automobiles and washing machines was just done by the underpants gnomes, right?

 

[The Rabbi]

Those individuals (many of whom reside overseas) are looking at every possible investment opportunity available and choosing to buy government debt - at some of the lowest rates in history.

Why that is relevant is beyond me.

Of course it's beyond you.

Because Special Ed wasn't my field.

 

[Oddball]

The only reason that the American economy rebounded so relatively quickly after that recession, is that we were pretty much the only nation on the planet with any kind of global industrial capacity left.

Ah, that old beggar-thy-neighbor bullshit that you don't believe yourself in any other context. Tell me this, then. If that reasoning were correct, then we could recreate those four decades of postwar prosperity by completely isolating ourselves and refusing to trade with anyone. I mean, the same effect would be had if we did that as if the rest of the world had no industrial capacity. The U.S. market would be the only market, and our businesses would be the only ones selling to it.

Strawman on top of strawman.

If your "war and the military-industrial complex creates prosperity" bullshit held any water whatsoever, the housing crash would've been a mere bump in the road and Iraq & Afghanistan would've been the biggest "economic stimulus" programs of all time.

Oh, and by the way, you're wrong. We were nowhere near the only nation on the planet with any kind of global industrial capacity left. Most of industrialized Europe was relatively untouched by the war. British and French industrial capacity remained strong. Most British factories were located where the Luftwaffe hadn't been able to reach, and France fell so quickly to the Germans that property damage was actually minimal, nor did Allied bombing strike most of the country prior to D-day. And of course, Spain, the Scandinavian countries, the Low Countries, all of these were also only minimally damaged. The only countries that really took serious damage to their industrial plants were our main enemies, Germany and Japan, and they were fully rebuilt by the end of the 1950s.

We were the only so-called "economic superpower" left.

Where do you think all the scratch for the Marshall plan came from, the tooth fairy?

 

[Dragon]

Really?....Tell us all how well life just rolled along swimmingly for guys like Andrew Higgins.

I said the economy didn't "crater." In a prosperous economy, some people can still lose their shirts. There is no such thing as an economy in which no business fails, ever.

Oh, and the retooling from making bombs, tanks and airplanes to automobiles and washing machines was just done by the underpants gnomes, right?

What's your point? It's never a question of whether business CAN produce, invest, and hire, but whether it WILL.

For four years, America had had full employment at high and rising wages, at the same time as consumer goods were rationed. Because of this, consumer demand was very high. Because of this demand, business had a huge incentive to invest in producing consumer goods, the exact opposite of what had been the case during the Great Depression and of what is the case today.

All of that was the result of the government's massive stimulus spending during World War II. The money wasn't spent for the purpose of stimulating the economy, but that's the effect that it had.

 

[Dragon]

Strawman on top of strawman.

It's not a strawman (do you even understand what that word means?). The "last man standing" fallacy to explain postwar prosperity rests on an idea -- beggar-thy-neighbor -- that none of the people who trot it out even believe in any other context. None of those people (yourself, for example) believes in mercantilism or the Smoot-Hawley tariff, but yet they believe in this, which rests on exactly the same false principle.

We do not gain from the rest of the world's poverty. We gain from the rest of the world's prosperity, in fact. If they can't compete with us, neither can they buy what we have to sell. All trade involves an exchange of value.

If your "war and the military-industrial complex creates prosperity" bullshit

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that stimulus works, and that World War II proves it works. That the spending in that instance was for war is not important; it's not the war that restored the economy but the stimulus. FDR could have accomplished the same thing years earlier by spending the same amount of money on public projects and wealth redistribution; he didn't because he was too conservative for that. But he was willing to do it to beat Hitler and the Japanese, and that worked, too.

We were the only so-called "economic superpower" left.

That was no more or less true in 1945 than it had been in 1940.

 

[eflatminor]

Those individuals (many of whom reside overseas) are looking at every possible investment opportunity available and choosing to buy government debt - at some of the lowest rates in history.

Taxes don't come from overseas investors, they come from US citizens and corporations mainly. Are you suggesting we simply borrow the money for stimulus? Is that your plan?

Yes, that's how stimulus spending works during a recession.

If so, tell me how will you be paying the $131,500 you owe now, much less the higher amount that will result from more borrowing? Or, should we simply let the next generation deal with that burden?

Failing to stimulate the economy will simply increase the debt load higher as revenues continue to falter and the the automatic stabilizers continue to be needed. Borrowing at below zero real rates won't create a "burden for the next generation".

You clearly have never studied Keynesian economics much less that of the Austrian or Chicago schools. Again, we would have had to run a surplus during all the economic expansion that took place over the last 30 years in order for temporary stimulus via borrowed money to work...according to Keynes.

Stimulating the economy will NOT happen with more money borrowed, regardless of the rate. Otherwise, the last stimulus would not have resulting in a net increase in the unemployment rate and a slowing of the economy. Our debt to GDP now over 100%, the highest it's ever been, and we add over 100 billion to that debt every frickin' month just with our normal expenditures....adding to that 14.7 trillion we already have...and you want to add even more. Not a burden, eh? I suppose you will be paying your $131,500 you owe, correct?

We'll stimulate the economy in 2013 when you central planner fucks are out of office. Lower corp interest rates, cut federal spending, reform entitlements, back off job killing regulations...that's how this economy will turn around, not because we took even MORE money out of the economy.

 

[Oddball]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that stimulus works, and that World War II proves it works. That the spending in that instance was for war is not important; it's not the war that restored the economy but the stimulus. FDR could have accomplished the same thing years earlier by spending the same amount of money on public projects and wealth redistribution; he didn't because he was too conservative for that. But he was willing to do it to beat Hitler and the Japanese, and that worked, too.

WWII was a time of shortages, rationing, scrap drives for every kind of industrial raw material imaginable, high inflation and taxation, for starters....In fact, there was such little actual wealth-creating GDP to tax that we needed programs like lend-lease and those tax-yourself-some-more events known as "war bond drives"...If that's economic recovery, I don't want to see the bad times.

We were the only so-called "economic superpower" left.

That was no more or less true in 1945 than it had been in 1940.

More nonsense.

Germany and Japan didn't build their massive war machines with box tops and Gold Bond stamps.

 

[Dragon]

WWII was a time of shortages, rationing, scrap drives for every kind of industrial raw material imaginable, high inflation and taxation, for starters....

The inflation was a good thing, needed to correct the systemic deflation of the Depression. The taxation was a necessary thing, unless we wanted to do it all through deficit spending. The rest was irrelevant, except that it served to increase consumer demand after the war still further -- but just having plenty of money in people's pockets would have done that sufficiently.

A little historical nitpicking to follow:

In fact, there was such little actual wealth-creating GDP to tax that we needed programs like lend-lease

No, lend-lease was not done out of economic but out of political necessity. Before Pearl Harbor, the majority of Americans were against getting into the war. Lend-lease was the rather deceptive trick that FDR and Churchill cooked up between them to get aid to Britain and pretend it was only a loan. Of course it wasn't -- this was military equipment we're talking about which of its very nature tends to have a risky existence -- not a garden hose. We paid for lend-lease, but that way Roosevelt could finagle his way past the American people's desire for neutrality.

and those tax-yourself-some-more events known as "war bond drives"...

War bonds represented deficit spending. It was an investment, just like U.S. bonds are today. We've never managed to fight a major war without borrowing money.

If that's economic recovery, I don't want to see the bad times.

And yet it's not hard to see the bad times. Just look back a few years and you find double-digit unemployment, bread lines, Hoovervilles, and all those government work-relief programs needed to give people enough to survive. Things got better still after the war was over, but economically they were a lot better during the war than before. (Of course, for some 300,000 American servicemen, there was no after the war. You can't evaluate it purely in economic terms.)

Germany and Japan didn't build their massive war machines with box tops and Gold Bond stamps.

Those "massive war machines" were pissant compared to the one we built. We did win the war, after all. And we won it by outproducing the enemy.

 

[rdean]

because the government spending money doesn't fix the economy,

It did in the 40's

but the government taking less money from the people is a whole different story

Depends. If they're taking less money from those who aren't spending it - it won't do much good.

Uh oh, now you did it. You went and made sense.

 

[The Infidel]

because the government spending money doesn't fix the economy,

It did in the 40's

but the government taking less money from the people is a whole different story

Depends. If they're taking less money from those who aren't spending it - it won't do much good.

Uh oh, now you did it. You went and made sense.

No it didnt.... WWII saved this nation from collapse. Like it or not, its the truth.



That sounds like out & out theft if ya ask me.



And as for you.... your just an idiot, go away!