Login

BT · 02-11-2009, 12:22 PM

Hemis, I won't quote your entire point about the 80's being worse, but you are COMPLETELY missing mine. I didn't say things were worse now. I said, according to just about anyone who knows anything, it WILL be worse. Of course we don't KNOW for certain what will happen. But that's a complete copout. I don't KNOW that the Cubs will finish ahead of the Pirates, but it's not unreasonable for me to look at the facts and still say with some certainty they will.

Your point would be much more reasonable if Obama was the lone voice screaming in the wilderness that things could be worse than the 80's. He's not. Pretty much everyone agrees with him. Maybe Sean Hannity doesn't, but as I stated in other posts, please find me a respectable economist who doesn't agree exactly with what Obama is saying. which to me, says that Obama isn't so much peddling fear, as he is telling the truth.

QUOTE After Bush was in office on 9/11, 9 months into his presidency and we were attacked by foriegn invaders for only the second time in modern history........How many times were we attacked after 9/11?

Ok, this is the kind of "logic" that really fucking frosts my ass. Let me respond by asking you a series of questions.

After Clinton was in office for 2 months in February 1993, we were attacked by foreign invaders when the WTC was bombed by foreign terrorists. My questions:

1: How many times, under Clinton, were we attacked on domestic soil after that?
2: To reach this number (zero), did Clinton have to tap our phones illegally?
3: Did Clinton have to lock up anyone without trial?
4: Did Clinton have to torture anyone?
5: Did Clinton have to invade any countries which posed no specific threat to the United States?

If we are to assume the lack of an attack is proof that the person in charge "kept us safe", then isn't Clinton's Administration proof that it can be done without raping the constitution and involving us in a costly and unpopular war?

QUOTE What the true comparision is, is direct spending : tax cuts. Democrats want 2:1 in favor of direct spending, Republians want 2:1 in favor of tax cuts. Now we can go round and round on this subject but the bottom line is that none of us know and I will concede that it's just as much opinion and conjecture as anything else. To think that any political party is anymore or less informed than their counter-party constituants sir is blatantly absurd.

That is exactly the true comparison and EXACTLY why the Republicans are wrong. This is not ideology. This is fact. I might have the numbers somewhat wrong, but according to studies done by Moodys and the CBO, tax cuts are a TERRIBLE stimulus. I believe that the figures are something along the lines of the fact that a one dollar tax cut will bring about $1.02 of stimulus. One dollar of direct spending will bring about $1.73 of stimulus. These are facts, not opinions. We DO know. So if one party is advocating a policy which brings in $1.73 per dollar, and one is advocating a policy which brings in $1.02, the latter party is WRONG. Misguided. Ignorant. Whatever term you want to use. This is not my opinion. This is provable mathematics.

Put it another way, maybe both parties are filled with idiots. But if the Dems generic response is to spend money, and the Repubs is to cut taxes, the Dems generic response is the CORRECT one, if you are talking about a stimulus. plan.

Lastly, what would you call McCain, if the consensus is we need spending, we need it now, we need it to stimulate the economy, and he calls for LESS spending, put it out farther in the future, and wants to use the least effective way to do it? That's BAD policy. And it would indicate to me someone who is either so blindly partisan he can't see the facts on the ground, or he is less informed than he needs to be on the subject. You pick one.

ayang · 02-11-2009, 01:04 PM

Thread closed. Obviously the man with the most formatting tags wins, so gg Hemisfear.

Is unemployment your own metric of whether we are better or worse off now than in the 80s? (or headed there?) What about the real estate market, or the amount of bad debt floating around? Do you understand what unemployment even measures? Here, I'll help you out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment#...abor_Statistics

Your referenced figures of not include U4, U5, U6. It's ok though, as long as you get a tax cut and everyone laid off can find a job bagging groceries or washing your car?

QUOTE (HemisFear @ Feb 11 2009, 09:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Finally, a well thought out, articulate point...however .. please.. allow me to retort!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE The fact is we haven't come close to reaching the bottom yet, so if we haven't reached the level of the 1980's recession, it's only a matter of time. The idea that things were MUCH worse in the 80's is laughable. I suppose it's possible we could pull out of this before things get as bad as the 80's, but I've yet to hear ONE sensible economist who believes that.

Really? And you know this how? Please, tell me exactly where we are going in the stock market, and unemployment, please also tell me when we'll see recovery. This is part of the problem, the bottom line is WE DONT KNOW....NO ONE KNOWS...AND OBAMA PRETENDING LIKE HE DOES KNOW ISN'T LEADERSHIP! What crystal ball do you have that we don't have? What FACTUAL evidence rather than conjecture do you have to support such a claim? Other than someone telling you that we're in the worst situation we could be in (and yes I agree with you that it's bad out there). The bottom line remains sir, that things were WORSE in the early 1980's than they are RIGHT now.

Here are some facts rather than stated opinions:

TODAY's Unemployement Rate: 7.6%
Early 1980's unemployement Rate: High Marker 10.8% (80's were worse)
SOURCE: [http]http://www.miseryindex.us/URbymonth.asp[/http]

GDP: [http]http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2008/1/30/gdpannualized1_2.png[/http]

As you'll see the 80's were worse than things are currently.....once again...Gross Domestic Product losses were worse then, than they currently are so the statement that it's "since the great depression" are false. Could it get there? Sure, probably, maybe, but we just dont know. What we do know are the facts and the facts are, he's lying......or simply isn't doing his homework.

Couple that with current home ownership rates, average income, personal wealth, and you pretty much realize that not only are we in a much better situation currently than we were then but oh yah, what was that thing we were going through at the time....um...oh that's right The Cold War.

Bottom line, the only way to say this correctly is that we THINK this COULD get as bad as the Great Depression if something isn't done. Unfortunately he didn't say that, he said it IS ... much different statement and only supports my claim that he's using fear to quickly get his bill passed. Congratulations Obama, you now have your near 1 trillion dollars.

QUOTE After living through 8 years of Bush explaining that if we don't elect him/invade Iraq/let him listen to our phone conversations/lock people up indefinitely/lock people up without trial/torture people/ etc etc/ then we are ALL GOING TO DIE, I find it hard to believe that someone is going to accuse the evil Liberals of having a fear based agenda.

The statement I made sir, was that the Liberals were pointing fingers at Bush for using fear, and now they are doing the same thing....please don't misquote me and frame your statements in a manner in which you feel is appropriate for you....that being said.

Yes, I've heard this arguement over and over. While I agree with you that Bush had MANY problems, as ALL presidents do, I was never a fan of the Patriot act but I do have one simple question for you...just one.

After Bush was in office on 9/11, 9 months into his presidency and we were attacked by foriegn invaders for only the second time in modern history........How many times were we attacked after 9/11?

Hate the guys policies, hate the way he was smug and treated the media, hate how he was VASTLY too lax on regulation.....but as with all things...taking a step back....seems to me that he defended our way of life pretty god damn well..which is any presidents #1 priority.

QUOTE NO, that's not what he said. In fact, it's nowhere close to what he said. He said "tax cuts alone can't solve all of our economic problems". That's a reasonable statement. And it's pretty much supported by most economists.

You're right, I should have qualified my interperitation of the statement better. I concede your point.

QUOTE The rest of his statement mostly consists of him swearing at Obama, and calling him a fear monger. To that, let me just make some points I find glaringly obvious.

1. He has been in power less than a month, and in that month he has done far more than just talk pretty.
2. It IS a very FUCKING SCARY time. Obama has every right to be trying to scare us.
3. If the stimulus isn't passed, and passed soon, things will get much worse. THAT is why he is scaring us. Waiting does us no good.
4. The Republicans don't know their heads from their asses on this particular subject. If we listen to John McCain, he will make the stimulus smaller, which by definition, would provide less stimulus, and he would make it with more tax cuts, which any economist will tell you is about the most inefficient way possible to stimulate the economy. Listening to them is a spectacularly bad idea.

Actually I'm not calling him a fear monger, again, don't frame your statements. I was simply making the point that he campaigned on Bush's use of fear to drive policy...and he's doing the same thing.

1. I'll concede that he hasn't been in office long enough yet to see any sort of recovery. That however doesn't mean that I have to like the way that he is handling the situation. To your point however, I agree, it'll take far more time than this. But you must be willing to concede that he's only going to be able to blame someone else for this for about a year. He's pinning everything on this stimulous working, and if it does...he'll get reelected..and if it doesn't..he won't.

2. Yes, absolutely, it's a very scary time....but please tell me where in the constitution his job is to scare the American people? Justification of his actions after he specifically campaigned against it makes him a hypocrit....or just a standard politician. That's what worries me most about this guy. People actually believe that he's not a typical politicain, when he is. Please don't hide behind the term "right" because what you mean is it's his job to do what he's doing.

Funny, I always thought the job of a leader was to A. Formulate plans and a way to execute them B. Avoid disaster C. Instill CONFIDENCE and many other attributes that come along with such a vast position of power and responsibility. The point remains however that he critisized the Bush administration for using fear as a political tactic to get his agenda through and he's doing the SAME exact thing (by your own admission!)

3. The stimulous was passed yesterday.....I think both sides can agree on one thing..that something must be done. What we don't agree on is HOW it's done. I do find it a bit curious though that you're speaking on an item in that was already passed as if it hasn't been.

4. McCain proposed a smaller incremental approach to stimulous. You're framing your statement where McCain was clear that what he wanted was to start out smaller, and come back as the need arises. What the true comparision is, is direct spending : tax cuts. Democrats want 2:1 in favor of direct spending, Republians want 2:1 in favor of tax cuts. Now we can go round and round on this subject but the bottom line is that none of us know and I will concede that it's just as much opinion and conjecture as anything else. To think that any political party is anymore or less informed than their counter-party constituants sir is blatantly absurd. I do not think you are less informed or more informed than me because you may or may not be Jewish, and I certainly don't think that you are or are not as informed as me because I'm a Republican. Statements like that only lend credo to biggotry.

To address my rant relative to Geithner, TurboTax Tim is obviously a bright guy but a man preaching transparency and showing up to a press conference (which I think we can agree are mostly left leaning) with such a small amount of detail was foolish and short sighteted. That's why the media lit into him yesterday.

Keep in mind, this is the same guy that presided over the Lehman Brothers debacle....
</div>

Gad · 02-11-2009, 01:08 PM

See what you've done Butch?

The Dude · 02-11-2009, 01:10 PM

So, when do the hats come out?

hPOD · 02-11-2009, 01:14 PM

I like discussions such as these, if they are kept tame, but quite often discussions of religion or politics blow up into natural forum disasters and nickpick fests.

It's ok to disagree with people, and it's ok for them to disagree with you, too.

HemisFear · 02-11-2009, 01:15 PM

QUOTE (BT @ Feb 11 2009, 10:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Hemis, I won't quote your entire point about the 80's being worse, but you are COMPLETELY missing mine. I didn't say things were worse now.

Your point would be much more reasonable if Obama was the lone voice screaming in the wilderness that things could be worse than the 80's.

BT I was commenting directly to what President Obama was saying, not you. Of course I'm going to draw a comparison on him because my entire arguement was based off of what HE (not you) said. The conclusion is simple, he's a hypocrit who said that on his campaign over and over again how the Bush administration used fear to get their bills passed and he is doing the EXACT same thing. You aren't hearing just one party screaming alone in the woods either, we both agree that something has to be done, but both Bush and now Obama are rushing through this and ultimately it's OUR money that they are rolling the dice with!

Let's look at this from a simple point of view, while I concede that both sides agree something must be done. We're essentially saying at root, that the answer to a crisis that is based on borrowing too much money, is....to borrow more & as much as we can! Does that make sense to you?

Now perhaps we are in over our heads and doing nothing simply isn't a logical answer, and I'm not in the camp that thinks that we shouldn't do anything, I am however in the camp of let's do what makes sense and NOT rush through this.

QUOTE Ok, this is the kind of "logic" that really fucking frosts my ass. Let me respond by asking you a series of questions.

While your counter question is sound, and could be used to support your thesis, answering a question with another question isn't a valid way to debate this. However, allow me to respond.

QUOTE After Clinton was in office for 2 months in February 1993, we were attacked by foreign invaders when the WTC was bombed by foreign terrorists. My questions:

1: How many times, under Clinton, were we attacked on domestic soil after that?
2: To reach this number (zero), did Clinton have to tap our phones illegally?
3: Did Clinton have to lock up anyone without trial?
4: Did Clinton have to torture anyone?
5: Did Clinton have to invade any countries which posed no specific threat to the United States?

If we are to assume the lack of an attack is proof that the person in charge "kept us safe", then isn't Clinton's Administration proof that it can be done without raping the constitution and involving us in a costly and unpopular war?

The size and scale of both attacks aren't even remotely on the same footing. You have a nationalized, militant group whom fully took credit and basically had a failed single attack with a couple of numbskull's who decided to try and set off a couple of bombs.

In comparison, you had a highly coordinated attack which cost us 3,000 lives, hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue, and directly attacked (or tried to attack) 1. The White House 2. The Pentagon 3. Both World Trade Centers. You then had the head of the organization say that he was going to continue to attempt to end our way of life after taking full credit for the attacks.

The response that Clinton had to it however, which essentially accounted for an investigation and no reduction in aggesssor threat is where I can hold him accountable. It became public that not only did Clinton know about the serious threat that was mounting and getting stronger, he brought hardly anyone to justice over it and essentially passed this problem off to the next administration.

One could argue that Clinton's lack of taking this issue head on allowed for these terrorists to gain strength, favor, political backing and most importantly funding to come back in 2001. Compare that to Al Queda and other organizations having HOW many leaders being placed in jail and how many funds being reduced? The differential is not only judged on the actions taken by the government and it's leaders at the time of the incidents, but the reactions and RESULTS of those administrations while in power.

Not only do I think you're grossly over simplifying the question, but you flat out didn't answer it directly and decided to dodge the question and pair it with an example that isn't even remotely close to the size, scope, scale, or costs.

Now, I want to be clear on complete and utter failure of Bush in this, he failed COMPLETELY at getting Bin Laden to justice...something that he will never live down and that the American people should never forgive him for. That point I concede completely.

TAXS vs SPENDING

QUOTE That is exactly the true comparison and EXACTLY why the Republicans are wrong. This is not ideology. This is fact. I might have the numbers somewhat wrong, but according to studies done by Moodys and the CBO, tax cuts are a TERRIBLE stimulus. I believe that the figures are something along the lines of the fact that a one dollar tax cut will bring about $1.02 of stimulus. One dollar of direct spending will bring about $1.73 of stimulus. These are facts, not opinions. We DO know. So if one party is advocating a policy which brings in $1.73 per dollar, and one is advocating a policy which brings in $1.02, the latter party is WRONG. Misguided. Ignorant. Whatever term you want to use. This is not my opinion. This is provable mathematics.

Lastly, what would you call McCain, if the consensus is we need spending, we need it now, we need it to stimulate the economy, and he calls for LESS spending, put it out farther in the future, and wants to use the least effective way to do it? That's BAD policy. And it would indicate to me someone who is either so blindly partisan he can't see the facts on the ground, or he is less informed than he needs to be on the subject. You pick one.

So your arguement is that you believe that government controlled spending of our tax dollars on pet projects that they control (be it at the federal or state level) rather than putting more of that money back into the hands of the rightful owners of that money at a 2:1 ratio is the right way to handle this? We're fundementally disagreed on that subject.

The number that you're looking for is relative to which area do we get the most bang for our buck in terms of stimulous and the direct answer is food stamps. I don't have a link to support this but essentially the bottom line is we get the most value in food stamps. I don't know about you, but I'm not looking forward to a day in which I ever have to use foodstamps again (and I came from a single mother who was on wealfare for a few years of my childhood). Lastly, we aren't disagreeing that we need to have both spending and tax cuts, the arguement is relative to the age old question of:

Government spending vs Individual spending

You won't get an arguement from me that some form of spending is required, but again we are talking about scale and scope and I simply do not agree with you that the very organization that got us into this mess in the first place is somehow magically going to dig us out.

Also, the other metric that you're not dealing with here is timing. There is no quicker way to get money into people's hands than by tax cuts. This is non-debatable. If we are truly in the worst position possible since the great depression and swift action is required, than doesn't it make sense to ensure that spending happens as quickly as possible?!

You want one other final fact? Ask those SAME economist experts that were advising FDR on his stimulous plan to get us out of the great depression for "the new deal" which is nearly the same template that is being used by the Obama administration, and you will read over and over again that they feel that that it was a total failure...

There is no way to borrow your way out of a credit crisis.

Finally, thanks for engaging on an intellectual level. People whom claim a 'greater understanding' without participating in the conversation to back up their points with candid communication and factual links and have the gaul to throw stones rather than participate truly shouldn't open their mouths in the first place.

I could sit around all day going 'you're an idiot' 'this is over your head' 'you just don't understand' bla bla bla but if you aren't going to lend something to the conversation .... at minimum...be kind and just stay out of it.

Anyone who thinks they can fully understand this is lying to themselves or even worse, delusional.

***Butcher*** · 02-11-2009, 01:17 PM

QUOTE (Gad @ Feb 11 2009, 11:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>See what you've done Butch?
My bad.

By the way, welcome to the boards, woyaokafei.

Tell us about yourself. Do you like baseball and stuff?

hPOD · 02-11-2009, 01:24 PM

I have but two things to add to this conversation.

1.

[Image: lk0203d__1233759236_5369.jpg]

2.

[Image: 20090205edhan-b__1233935630_2639.jpg]

Maybe this can lighten the mood around here. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif[/img]

HemisFear · 02-11-2009, 01:45 PM

QUOTE (woyaokafei @ Feb 11 2009, 11:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Thread closed. Obviously the man with the most formatting tags wins, so gg Hemisfear.

Is unemployment your own metric of whether we are better or worse off now than in the 80s? (or headed there?) What about the real estate market, or the amount of bad debt floating around? Do you understand what unemployment even measures? Here, I'll help you out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment#...abor_Statistics

Your referenced figures of not include U4, U5, U6. It's ok though, as long as you get a tax cut and everyone laid off can find a job bagging groceries or washing your car?

I realize that unemployment only measures people whom are claiming unemployment and that it's a flawed metric, but as metrics go it's a fair measure in relative terms by today's standards when it's coupled with items such as GDP, Housing ownership, Personal Wealth, all of which were brought up and left (conviniently) out of your statement.

Hey I don't mean to imply that I'm looking specifically for personal gain here. I still have a job, 2 children, a wife, a home to manage and I'm just as scared as the next guy. That being said however, I also didn't lever myself up with an ARM, I put down a hefty sum on my house, I have no debt, my children have college savings accounts, I have worked for 7 straight years, I've paid more in taxes than most (but not all of) my friends and family. I am not a part of the social problem here. I'm just another middle class, suburbanite, average American who cares about where the future is headed.

What gets me most out of this isn't the fact that, at worst, I may have to sacrifice my personal way of life, it's that I have no honest way to look in my two young children's eyes (Kyle-5 | Luke-3) and with any certainty tell them that they are in control of their own destiny, or that they can be afforded a chance at the American dream IF the bottom falls out of this thing.

So if I come off as angry, and I come off as scared, and I'm not at all convinced that the same government that told our banks to change their lending standards, completely removed any measure of risk, tolerated 30:1 leverage, and encouraged people who have no business owning a home, to own one....you'll have to find it in your heart to forgive me.

Jody · 02-11-2009, 01:58 PM

So....how about those Chicago Cubs?

***rok*** · 02-11-2009, 02:05 PM

Let me just add a few points. This notion of $1.73 of output per $1 of govt spending vs $1.02 of output per $1 tax cut is misleading, and I'm not sure I can buy it without seeing the studies. This would imply that all govt spending is created equal or that all tax cuts are created equal. That couldn't be farther from the truth. Infrastructure spending is more stimulative than education spending or welfare spending. Capital gains tax and corporate tax cuts are more stimulative than income tax cuts. Etc etc. I think the jury is still out on a lot of these issues, especially when you consider the burden on the US taxpayer in terms of deficit spending and debt servicing as a result. The size of the current govt is unprecedented, even by the New Deal standards, so I think we need to refrain from assuming what has been proven and what has not until we see this current situation play out and see what the govt and corresponding economy looks like in another 10 years. Again, I'm not advocating doing nothing, but these blanket statements that this will work and that will not, bother me a bit. We are in uncharted territory. Politicians admit this. Economists admit this. I just hope our govt doesn't do anything that is irreversible, because in the end it won't simply be the current generation that ends up paying for this, but our children and grandchildren.

ayang · 02-11-2009, 02:11 PM

QUOTE (HemisFear @ Feb 11 2009, 11:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>his thing.

So if I come off as angry, and I come off as scared, and I'm not at all convinced that the same government that told our banks to change their lending standards, completely removed any measure of risk, tolerated 30:1 leverage, and encouraged people who have no business owning a home, to own one....you'll have to find it in your heart to forgive me.

Actually, that was the Clintons... Although that probably helps your point by blaming the Democrats [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif[/img]
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...+mae&st=nyt (make sure you check that date line)

As for this...

QUOTE (HemisFear @ Feb 11 2009, 11:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>The size and scale of both attacks aren't even remotely on the same footing. You have a nationalized, militant group whom fully took credit and basically had a failed single attack with a couple of numbskull's who decided to try and set off a couple of bombs.

In comparison, you had a highly coordinated attack which cost us 3,000 lives, hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue, and directly attacked (or tried to attack) 1. The White House 2. The Pentagon 3. Both World Trade Centers. You then had the head of the organization say that he was going to continue to attempt to end our way of life after taking full credit for the attacks.

What do you mean by "nationalized, militant group"? You do realize those that KSM, the Al Qaeda 9/11 'Mastermind', was also involved in funding and planning the 1993 WTC bombing? So I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

BT · 02-11-2009, 02:12 PM

QUOTE Let's look at this from a simple point of view, while I concede that both sides agree something must be done. We're essentially saying at root, that the answer to a crisis that is based on borrowing too much money, is....to borrow more & as much as we can! Does that make sense to you?

I think you are framing the argument incorrectly. While the crisis was instigated by too much borrowing, the problem now is clearly one of spending. There isn't enough of it. And, again, a lack of spending causes a spiral into enormous problems. While borrowing more money will create it's own set of problems, it pales in comparison to the results of a lack of spending.

QUOTE Not only do I think you're grossly over simplifying the question, but you flat out didn't answer it directly and decided to dodge the question and pair it with an example that isn't even remotely close to the size, scope, scale, or costs.

I'm not going to go point by point with you on this (although I will add I think your view of Clinton's anti terrorism stance is skewed), suffice to say I DID answer the question. My points about Clinton were not to paint him as our protector, but rather to point out that the idea that Bush's actions are automatically justified because "he kept us safe" is flawed. There are a million reasons why we haven't been attacked (I believe the CIA's view is that Al-Quada simply turned their attention elsewhere), and it is quite possible Bush's actions had nothing to do with it. So asking "how many times were we attacked" gets us nowhere in discussing the validity of his actions.

QUOTE So your arguement is that you believe that government controlled spending of our tax dollars on pet projects that they control (be it at the federal or state level) rather than putting more of that money back into the hands of the rightful owners of that money at a 2:1 ratio is the right way to handle this? We're fundementally disagreed on that subject.

My argument is that the point of a STIMULUS package is to stimulate the economy. Spending our tax dollars on pet projects does a MUCH better job of that than tax cuts. That is essentially a fact. Is that the best way to run an economy? No. Is it the best way to create a stimulus package? YES.

QUOTE Also, the other metric that you're not dealing with here is timing. There is no quicker way to get money into people's hands than by tax cuts. This is non-debatable.

WRONG. This is completely and totally debatable. And pretty simply dispelled. Let's say you get a tax cut of 500 dollars. You can get it in one of 2 ways. You can pay less taxes over the course of the year, at which point you would have 500 dollars in your pocket at the end of the year. Or you can get a rebate. At which point you would have 500 dollars in your pocket almost immediately. In either case, and this is crucial, there is absolutely NO guarantee you will do anything with that money other than put it in the bank. Or under your mattress. This does NOTHING to help the economy.

On the other hand, if the spending programs are OK'd, within 3 months you have programs created to spend that money. Jobs are immediately created. The people with jobs now have money to spend. By it's very nature, a SPENDING bill guarantees spending. Tax relief does not.

QUOTE You want one other final fact? Ask those SAME economist experts that were advising FDR on his stimulous plan to get us out of the great depression for "the new deal" which is nearly the same template that is being used by the Obama administration, and you will read over and over again that they feel that that it was a total failure...

Again, WRONG. The only people saying this either have an after their name, or write for a right wing blog. PLENTY of economists will tell you over and over that the New Deal was a success. Paul Krugman, who just won a Nobel prize in Economics will tell you the only time the New Deal stopped working was when FDR STOPPED spending, to balance the budget. The idea that the New Deal failed, while arguable, is a Right wing meme that started pretty recently. It's possible they are right, but they are in the minority on this one, and I certainly would not have any problem finding an economist who thinks it worked.

***rok*** · 02-11-2009, 02:17 PM

Actually, that isn't true about the notion that rebates that go directly into the bank and aren't spent immediately doing nothing for the economy. Money deposited in banks is multiplied many times over by banks lending that money out (the whole point of the banking system), under normal credit circumstances of course. That's banking 101.

BT · 02-11-2009, 02:17 PM

QUOTE (rok @ Feb 11 2009, 12:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Let me just add a few points. This notion of $1.73 of output per $1 of govt spending vs $1.02 of output per $1 tax cut is misleading, and I'm not sure I can buy it without seeing the studies. This would imply that all govt spending is created equal or that all tax cuts are created equal. That couldn't be farther from the truth. Infrastructure spending is more stimulative than education spending or welfare spending. Capital gains tax and corporate tax cuts are more stimulative than income tax cuts. Etc etc. I think the jury is still out on a lot of these issues, especially when you consider the burden on the US taxpayer in terms of deficit spending and debt servicing as a result. The size of the current govt is unprecedented, even by the New Deal standards, so I think we need to refrain from assuming what has been proven and what has not until we see this current situation play out and see what the govt and corresponding economy looks like in another 10 years. Again, I'm not advocating doing nothing, but these blanket statements that this will work and that will not, bother me a bit. We are in uncharted territory. Politicians admit this. Economists admit this. I just hope our govt doesn't do anything that is irreversible, because in the end it won't simply be the current generation that ends up paying for this, but our children and grandchildren.

Here is the Moody study. And it does differentiate between types of tax cuts and types of spending. It's just easier to throw out one number than create a chart when we are arguing this stuff. Regardless of the tax cut, and regardless of the spending, the lowest spending creates more stimulus than the highest tax cut

Moody

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me