Why we want stimulus now and worry about deficits later

[ilia25]

I fail to see any "facts" showing improvement due to the stimulus, based upon these economic trends.

That is because you are an idiot. You keep complaining about the misery index -- although you've been told many times that it would be much worse if the stimulus was never enacted.

 

[ilia25]

HA! Hey mr Wishful thinking, there is no such thing as "temporary government spending".

The stimulus was temporary.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Just like fdr prolonged the Great Depression.

wonder who knows why it got the title of The 'Great' Depression?

You are just making things up.

You don't know that there was a depression in the 20's. The government did nothing and it was over in a year.

fdr was a tyrant that made things worse to keep himself in power. It was our entrance into the war that brought us out of the GD

Officially the Great Depression did not end until AFTER the completion of WW II.
It was not until the early 50's the economy fully recovered and grew at acceptable levels

 

[thereisnospoon]

It did not fail, it stopped the economy from sliding deeper into recession.

Absolutel no proof of that.

There is even less proof that it didn't.

However when the stimulus was announced the gov't set unemployment goals that the stimulus would produce.

The government clearly underestimated the depth of the crisis and the size of an adequate stimulus. But it does not mean that the stimulus we had was useless.

Yes. Here we go. When a lib's argument runs out of gas, demand that the opposing viewpoint prove a negative....Around here, it doesn't work that way.
You make a claim, you'd better damned well be prepared to provide factual support for the claim. Failing that, your argument is mere opinion and conjecture.

 

[ilia25]

Of course, none of this presents a single shred of evidence that the Clintoon tax increase was any significant factor in creating the illusory balanced budget, as it was projected in 1998....Which was the original point, from which you've been desperately attempting to divert.

Open your eyes and look at the chart:

You can clearly see the effect of Clinton rising the taxes -- the blue line breaks at around 1994 and rises steeper. Then we can see the effect of Bush cutting the taxes -- the revenues continued to decline long after the recession is over.

Also here is the effect of letting Bush tax cuts to expire:

 

[thereisnospoon]

The spending crushed that value of the dollar by ramping up inflation.

What inflation??? There is no inflation:

so the fact that everything costs more is just my imagination.



anyone else think this is BDBoop?

Last summer, the head of the Chicago Federal Reserve bank stated in an interview that while certain consumer items were rising, the overall "Market Basket" of goods price index was relatively flat. He went on to say ( now this was fucking rich) that flat panel tv's and other electronic devices had fallen.....I shouted at the tv "you fucking arrogant prick, I can't eat a computer!!!!!!"....
Fuel prices are on the rise again to perhaps record levels. That always translated to higher food prices. In fact the cost of everything follows the cost of fuel.
SO these people who hold opinions such as "there is no inflation" are living in a parallel universe. And of course we all know why they say the things they do. They are cheer leading for Obama.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The chart above shows a deeply depressed economy. The US still produce about 1 trillion less in annual GDP than they are capable of. Not only it results in a lot of human suffering, but it also starves the government of tax revenues, creating huge budget deficits.

Therefore we need more stimulus to help the economy closing the gap (which basically means creating more jobs) -- because it will also reduce the deficits.

In George W. Bush's first cabinet meeting Dick Cheney said,"The Debt Doesn't Matter, Raegan Proved That!" Bush cut taxes twice and proceeded to double the total debt from $5.7 to nearly $12 trillion. Why are we all of a sudden cupposed to be worrying about it if it doesn't matter

Nope...No more blaming Bush. Disqualified from posting.

 

[Full-Auto]

The chart above shows a deeply depressed economy. The US still produce about 1 trillion less in annual GDP than they are capable of. Not only it results in a lot of human suffering, but it also starves the government of tax revenues, creating huge budget deficits.

Therefore we need more stimulus to help the economy closing the gap (which basically means creating more jobs) -- because it will also reduce the deficits.

In George W. Bush's first cabinet meeting Dick Cheney said,"The Debt Doesn't Matter, Raegan Proved That!" Bush cut taxes twice and proceeded to double the total debt from $5.7 to nearly $12 trillion. Why are we all of a sudden cupposed to be worrying about it if it doesn't matter

Nope...No more blaming Bush. Disqualified from posting.

Cammmbell is a known liar..... Just sayin...........

 

[percysunshine]

The chart above shows a deeply depressed economy. The US still produce about 1 trillion less in annual GDP than they are capable of. Not only it results in a lot of human suffering, but it also starves the government of tax revenues, creating huge budget deficits.

Therefore we need more stimulus to help the economy closing the gap (which basically means creating more jobs) -- because it will also reduce the deficits.

You have been seduced by a graphic named Fred?

Good luck with that.

 

[ilia25]

Absolutel no proof of that.

There is even less proof that it didn't.

However when the stimulus was announced the gov't set unemployment goals that the stimulus would produce.

The government clearly underestimated the depth of the crisis and the size of an adequate stimulus. But it does not mean that the stimulus we had was useless.

Yes. Here we go. When a lib's argument runs out of gas, demand that the opposing viewpoint prove a negative....Around here, it doesn't work that way.
You make a claim, you'd better damned well be prepared to provide factual support for the claim. Failing that, your argument is mere opinion and conjecture.

The economy had stopped contracting 4 months after the stimulus was announced. You may suggest that the two events are unrelated, but the you'd be better prepared to provide the factual support for the claim.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You are just making things up.

You don't know that there was a depression in the 20's. The government did nothing and it was over in a year.

fdr was a tyrant that made things worse to keep himself in power. It was our entrance into the war that brought us out of the GD

If WWII brought us out of the great depression, as you claim, then it was an unprecedented government spending program (for the war) financed with borrowed money that did it.

That, by definition, is what a stimulus is.

Government spending with a purpose on national defense is Constitutionally mandated.
It was hire the defense contractors or be over run by the Japanese Empire or Germany.
Again, it was not until the early 50's the US economy actually began to grow at substantial and sustainable rates. WHY? Because the private sector was doing the heavy lifting.
Government spending which needs tax increases in order to be funded, removes cash from the economy and that cash never returns 100%. In fact, more times than not government spending results in a negative return to the taxpayers.

 

[Full-Auto]

There is even less proof that it didn't.



The government clearly underestimated the depth of the crisis and the size of an adequate stimulus. But it does not mean that the stimulus we had was useless.

Yes. Here we go. When a lib's argument runs out of gas, demand that the opposing viewpoint prove a negative....Around here, it doesn't work that way.
You make a claim, you'd better damned well be prepared to provide factual support for the claim. Failing that, your argument is mere opinion and conjecture.

The economy had stopped contracting 4 months after the stimulus was announced. You may suggest that the two events are unrelated, but the you'd be better prepared to provide the factual support for the claim.

You better be able to provide the specifics that allegedly saved us.

I will tell you even the white house admitted failure.

 

[Full-Auto]

There is even less proof that it didn't.



The government clearly underestimated the depth of the crisis and the size of an adequate stimulus. But it does not mean that the stimulus we had was useless.

Yes. Here we go. When a lib's argument runs out of gas, demand that the opposing viewpoint prove a negative....Around here, it doesn't work that way.
You make a claim, you'd better damned well be prepared to provide factual support for the claim. Failing that, your argument is mere opinion and conjecture.

The economy had stopped contracting 4 months after the stimulus was announced. You may suggest that the two events are unrelated, but the you'd be better prepared to provide the factual support for the claim.

Before you open your mouth post the definition of stimulus.

This will be fun!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The chart above shows a deeply depressed economy. The US still produce about 1 trillion less in annual GDP than they are capable of. Not only it results in a lot of human suffering, but it also starves the government of tax revenues, creating huge budget deficits.

Therefore we need more stimulus to help the economy closing the gap (which basically means creating more jobs) -- because it will also reduce the deficits.

In George W. Bush's first cabinet meeting Dick Cheney said,"The Debt Doesn't Matter, Raegan Proved That!" Bush cut taxes twice and proceeded to double the total debt from $5.7 to nearly $12 trillion. Why are we all of a sudden cupposed to be worrying about it if it doesn't matter

Bush cut taxes twice and proceeded to double the total debt from $5.7 to nearly $12 trillion

Debt was $10.6 trillion when Bush left, compared to $5.7 trillion when he took office.
Almost a $5 trillion increase in 8 years.
$10.6 trillion when Obama took office compared to $15.4 trillion now.
An increase of $4.8 trillion in 37 months.
Not a very good comparison.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I fail to see any "facts" showing improvement due to the stimulus, based upon these economic trends.

That is because you are an idiot. You keep complaining about the misery index -- although you've been told many times that it would be much worse if the stimulus was never enacted.

Ahh yes. Let the name calling and insults begin.

 

[ilia25]

You don't know that there was a depression in the 20's. The government did nothing and it was over in a year.

fdr was a tyrant that made things worse to keep himself in power. It was our entrance into the war that brought us out of the GD

If WWII brought us out of the great depression, as you claim, then it was an unprecedented government spending program (for the war) financed with borrowed money that did it.

That, by definition, is what a stimulus is.

Government spending with a purpose on national defense is Constitutionally mandated.

Do you think it's kind of silly to demand that the steps needed to for economic recovery were Constitutionally mandated?

 

[ilia25]

Yes. Here we go. When a lib's argument runs out of gas, demand that the opposing viewpoint prove a negative....Around here, it doesn't work that way.
You make a claim, you'd better damned well be prepared to provide factual support for the claim. Failing that, your argument is mere opinion and conjecture.

The economy had stopped contracting 4 months after the stimulus was announced. You may suggest that the two events are unrelated, but the you'd be better prepared to provide the factual support for the claim.

Before you open your mouth post the definition of stimulus.

A temporary increase in the government spending.

 

[thereisnospoon]

if wwii brought us out of the great depression, as you claim, then it was an unprecedented government spending program (for the war) financed with borrowed money that did it.

That, by definition, is what a stimulus is.

government spending with a purpose on national defense is constitutionally mandated.

do you think it's kind of silly to demand that the steps needed to for economic recovery were constitutionally mandated?

what?!!!!!

 

[Full-Auto]

The economy had stopped contracting 4 months after the stimulus was announced. You may suggest that the two events are unrelated, but the you'd be better prepared to provide the factual support for the claim.

Before you open your mouth post the definition of stimulus.

A temporary increase in the government spending.

I rest my case.


Where is that correlation?

 

[thereisnospoon]

The economy had stopped contracting 4 months after the stimulus was announced. You may suggest that the two events are unrelated, but the you'd be better prepared to provide the factual support for the claim.

Before you open your mouth post the definition of stimulus.

A temporary increase in the government spending.

Oy vey..Facepalm.