Why we want stimulus now and worry about deficits later

[ilia25]

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?

What correlation?

 

[Full-Auto]

A temporary increase in the government spending.

I rest my case.


Where is that correlation?

What correlation?

You cant follow the thread either?

Damn.

Go back a few skippy it might hit ya.

 

[ilia25]

Before you open your mouth post the definition of stimulus.

A temporary increase in the government spending.

Oy vey..Facepalm.

Did I miss something, or is it just a symptom of your mental condition?

 

[Listening]

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.

It's never been proven and you will never be able to prove this assertion. It is simply one of the articles of faith put forward by the dems in an effor to cover for a failed stimulus.

 

[Listening]

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.

Nobody has to prove anything. There is no single variable correlation in an economy that is complex as this one.

You've never been able to prove the two are related.

 

[ilia25]

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.

Nobody has to prove anything. There is no single variable correlation in an economy that is complex as this one.

You've never been able to prove the two are related.

I am so tired of you the dump people! Can you suggest a model in which the stimulus would NOT improve a depressed economy? When you claim that the stimulus did not work, you have to prove it because otherwise there is no single reason to believe that it didn't!

Government places orders, companies respond by stopping the lay-offs -- what other outcome could you possibly expect?

 

[Oddball]

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.

Nobody has to prove anything. There is no single variable correlation in an economy that is complex as this one.

You've never been able to prove the two are related.

I am so tired of you the dump people! Can you suggest a model in which the stimulus would NOT improve a depressed economy? When you claim that the stimulus did not work, you have to prove it because otherwise there is no single reason to believe that it didn't!

You don't prove negatives...Moreover, your claim that the succubus worked is - like the vast majority of neo-Keynesian voodoo economics- entirely unfalsifiable.

Government places orders, companies respond by stopping the lay-offs -- what other outcome could you possibly expect?

Gubmint has no money of its own, therefore it either has to drain it from the private sector (destroy production in order to produce production) or inflate the currency...All you've been doing is reframing the old parable of the broken window...And doing a piss poor job of it at that.

 

[Listening]

I am so tired of you the dump people! Can you suggest a model in which the stimulus would NOT improve a depressed economy? When you claim that the stimulus did not work, you have to prove it because otherwise there is no single reason to believe that!

Government places orders, companies respond by stopping the lay-offs -- what other outcome you could possibly expect?

Review & Outlook:Why the Stimulus Failed - WSJ.com

and

Why Obama's Stimulus Failed: A Case Study of Silver Spring, Maryland - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

So the stimulus money was like icing on the cake. Take Palladian Partners, a communications firm in Silver Spring that's received $97.5 million dollars in government contracts over the past 12 years. The National Insitutes of Health (NIH), which is Palladian's biggest client, tacked $363,760 stimulus dollars on to an existing contract, and then followed it with two more awards totaling $431,333. Palladian was to spend the money collecting and disseminating information about how the NIH was spending stimulus money.

Palladian was well paid for its work, but with the project 80 percent complete, its main activities have included building a website, and publishing 29 short articles for the site. The stimulus grant went to hire two new employees, neither of whom was unemployed before coming to Palladian. That's no way to jumpstart the economy.

and

Many states simply took stimulus money and used it to replace money they were going to spend.....which would have put them further in debt....hence....no net increase.

and, of course...here is the best....

Why the Stimulus Failed by Brian Riedl - National Review Online

The simple reason government spending fails to end recessions is that Congress does not have a vault of money waiting to be distributed. Every dollar Congress “injects” into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. No new income, and therefore no new demand, is created. They are merely redistributed from one group of people to another. Congress cannot create new purchasing power out of thin air.

This is intuitively clear in the case of funding new spending with new taxes. Yet funding new spending with new borrowing is also pure redistribution, since the investors who lend Washington the money will have that much less to invest in the economy. The fact that borrowed funds (unlike taxes) must later be repaid by the government makes them no less of a zero-sum transfer today.

.......

which, of course, the left will say....but they were all hiding their money under their pillows waiting for a better time.....sorry. Investors just change investments.....only little old ladies keep their money in a mattress.

and on
and on
and on
and on.....

 

[ilia25]

I am so tired of you the dump people! Can you suggest a model in which the stimulus would NOT improve a depressed economy? When you claim that the stimulus did not work, you have to prove it because otherwise there is no single reason to believe that!

Government places orders, companies respond by stopping the lay-offs -- what other outcome you could possibly expect?

So the stimulus money was like icing on the cake. Take Palladian Partners, a communications firm in Silver Spring that's received $97.5 million dollars in government contracts over the past 12 years.

OK, but there are plenty of shovel-ready projects, so that is not an argument against the stimulus in principle.

Many states simply took stimulus money and used it to replace money they were going to spend.....which would have put them further in debt....hence....no net increase.

I did not quite get how can you replace money with money (where did the first money go?). But -- if I guessed right -- the stimulus on federal level was offset by the cuts at the state and local levels. That is true, so the net stimulus was much less that the official 700 millions number, much less a trillion, which the rights are complained about.

And BTW, that makes the aid to the states a shovel-ready project -- it lets them hire back the teachers and fire fighters they had to lay off.

The simple reason government spending fails to end recessions is that Congress does not have a vault of money waiting to be distributed. Every dollar Congress “injects” into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. No new income, and therefore no new demand, is created. They are merely redistributed from one group of people to another. Congress cannot create new purchasing power out of thin air.

And that is an obvious fallacy. The reason the economy went into recession is the drop in the private sector demand. Which means a lot of money in private sector are neither spent, nor invested -- rather they are sit as idle cash.

Thus, borrowing those idle money by the government has zero effect on the economy. And when the government spends those borrowed money, it increases the aggregate demand.

And the fact that there are huge sums of idle cash in the US economy is just that -- a fact, not a theory:
U.S. Companies Sitting On Cash Choose Stock Buybacks Over Jobs
Banks Are Swimming in Cash - Graphic - NYTimes.com

Also the owners of that idle cash are begging the government to borrow it because even 0.5% interest is better than 0. That is why the interest on the government debt is at record lows. This would be a perfect time to repair our highways, hire teachers, build a particle accelerator or more f-22s fighters that are "too expensive". If only the Republicans were not a mass of stupid morons.

 

[Cammmpbell]

the mythical balanced budget and fake "surplus".

Like we needed another proof that you are a right wing nut in a denial of reality.

The disingenuously dubbed OASI and Medicare "trust funds" were brought on budget and their excess funds siphoned off to the "balance the budget"...Do this in the real world and you go to prison...Do it as a politician and neo-Keynesian socialist party man hacks laud you as a great steward of gubmint finances.

Like we needed any more proof that you are a blind authoritarian socialist central controller lemming.

For your information Red is Republican....Blue is Democrat. Kind of tells the story when Bush took over a surplus, cut taxes in 2001, 2003 and ran us in the hole again. Are You Ignorant or Stupid Everyone else seems to understand:

 

[saveliberty]

The wages WERE rising fast during stagflation. And no, the only thing that can drive a sustained inflation is the growing wages resulting from low unemployment.

In economics, stagflation is a situation in which the inflation rate is high and the economic growth rate slows down and unemployment remains steadily high.

Stagflation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why would wages rise if unemployment is high ilia? You are talking trash now.

Note: Looks like desperation time, better call me an idiot quick.

Unemployment was not all that high in the 70s, although they marked an era of low productivity growth (which continued well into 90s). The terms stagflation is misleading. It refers to a period when the policy makers made unsuccessful attempts to lower the unemployment below its natural level with higher inflation -- which, of course, did not work well.

And it has nothing to do with the current situation.

No, you clearly stated wages were the sole determiner in inflation increasing. Stagflation show that is not the case. You lose. Just like the rest of your silly economic theory.

 

[saveliberty]

All government spending does is increase the dependence of Americans on their government. It is economic slavery of the first order. We don't want to play thank you.

 

[Cammmpbell]

All government spending does is increase the dependence of Americans on their government. It is economic slavery of the first order. We don't want to play thank you.

Kinda hurts doesn't it. If your party talks about changing social security, Medicare, Food Stamps or unemployment benefits they will automatically effect the possibility of losing tens of millions of votes. I think they had better be careful what they say. All of us aren't members of the T Party

If you people are serious talk about cutting the defense budget. Our military is stronger than that of the next ten country's combined. We don't need hand held flying robots and people in Denver flying drones over Pakistan by remote control....military toys. One of your own presidents, Dwight Eisenhower warned of the pending military-industrial complex over fifty years ago but nobody paid any attention to him.

 

[NYcarbineer]

All government spending does is increase the dependence of Americans on their government. It is economic slavery of the first order. We don't want to play thank you.

And you don't think the average American in the private sector isn't dependent on corporate spending?

 

[NYcarbineer]

All government spending does is increase the dependence of Americans on their government. It is economic slavery of the first order. We don't want to play thank you.

Kinda hurts doesn't it. If your party talks about changing social security, Medicare, Food Stamps or unemployment benefits they will automatically effect the possibility of losing tens of millions of votes. I think they had better be careful what they say. All of us aren't members of the T Party

If you people are serious talk about cutting the defense budget. Our military is stronger than that of the next ten country's combined. We don't need hand held flying robots and people in Denver flying drones over Pakistan by remote control....military toys. One of your own presidents, Dwight Eisenhower warned of the pending military-industrial complex over fifty years ago but nobody paid any attention to him.

It's funny how the Right will rant about being dependent on the government, and then the minute you mention cutting defense spending you'll start hearing, from the same people,

about how many American jobs in the defense industry will be lost.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'll help the libs here. Here is definite proof Obama's stimulus program helped the economy. Notice how the graph goes up after he's elected:

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

There is absoutely nothing in the Constitution that mandates how much we have to spend on defense.

And nothing you said refutes my point.

 

[Cammmpbell]

All government spending does is increase the dependence of Americans on their government. It is economic slavery of the first order. We don't want to play thank you.

Kinda hurts doesn't it. If your party talks about changing social security, Medicare, Food Stamps or unemployment benefits they will automatically effect the possibility of losing tens of millions of votes. I think they had better be careful what they say. All of us aren't members of the T Party

If you people are serious talk about cutting the defense budget. Our military is stronger than that of the next ten country's combined. We don't need hand held flying robots and people in Denver flying drones over Pakistan by remote control....military toys. One of your own presidents, Dwight Eisenhower warned of the pending military-industrial complex over fifty years ago but nobody paid any attention to him.

It's funny how the Right will rant about being dependent on the government, and then the minute you mention cutting defense spending you'll start hearing, from the same people,

about how many American jobs in the defense industry will be lost.

The idea of soldiers of fortune who work for Blackwater or Halliburton losing their jobs is to me a good thing. They're knocking down six figures plus ha ardous duty pay and that's the only reason they do what they do. phuck 'em!

 

[NYcarbineer]

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 CBO has thoroughly analyzed the effects of the stimulus on GDP and UE.

You can find them here:

Congressional Budget Office (CBO)


All of their analysis shows GDP increases and UE decreases as a result of the stimulus.

If you wish to disprove the validity of their analysis, with your own, by all means, post it.

 

[Cammmpbell]

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 CBO has thoroughly analyzed the effects of the stimulus on GDP and UE.

You can find them here:

Congressional Budget Office (CBO)


All of their analysis shows GDP increases and UE decreases as a result of the stimulus.

If you wish to disprove the validity of their analysis, with your own, by all means, post it.

They should have been around during the late 30's when Roosevelt's WPA, CCC, RFD, TVA etc. kicked in. You could measure the progress Americans were making by the decreasing numbers of beggers knocking on the back door asking for food for work. As if anybody living in a three room shack with a tenth of an acre lot would have anything for them to do. After my Dad got his first regular job which paid with a regular check as timekeeper on the WPA he always told my Mom to keep warm beans and some corn bread on the stove to give to beggers. He always said, "If A Man Will Humiliate Himself By Asking For Food I Will Not Be The One Who Humiliates Himself By Refusing." My dad used to say he would steal before he would ask.