Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
what? I'm not the one who said the president "swore" anything.. you just inferred that they speculated and spent a trillion dollars!!! keep avoiding the real issue though, you are good at it!
oh, and I answer YES, they did speculate, and spent a trillion dollars on pure speculation, which is shameful..
Shouldn't the real issue be what the short term effect on the economy has been, since that was the whole point of stimulus? As I posted a few posts up, most analysts that have looked at this estimate that the economy has between 1-2 million more jobs now than it would have in absence of the stimulus. No one disagrees that the current number is too high, but that in and of itself really doesn't speak the gross effectiveness of the stimulus. It speaks to the net effect against the economic conditions. You can look at the current unemployment numbers and also come to the conclusion that the stimulus was too small.what? I'm not the one who said the president "swore" anything.. you just inferred that they speculated and spent a trillion dollars!!! keep avoiding the real issue though, you are good at it!oh, and I answer YES, they did speculate, and spent a trillion dollars on pure speculation, which is shameful..
the great thing about this "saved job" nonsense, is there is absolutely no way to prove it one way or the other.. perfect political strategy..anyway, how'd that "stimulus" work with the unemployment numbers?Shouldn't the real issue be what the short term effect on the economy has been, since that was the whole point of stimulus? As I posted a few posts up, most analysts that have looked at this estimate that the economy has between 1-2 million more jobs now than it would have in absence of the stimulus. No one disagrees that the current number is too high, but that in and of itself really doesn't speak the gross effectiveness of the stimulus. It speaks to the net effect against the economic conditions. You can look at the current unemployment numbers and also come to the conclusion that the stimulus was too small.what? I'm not the one who said the president "swore" anything.. you just inferred that they speculated and spent a trillion dollars!!! keep avoiding the real issue though, you are good at it!
YAY!! Let's speculate some more and throw more money away!!! Why not just send every citizen a check??Shouldn't the real issue be what the short term effect on the economy has been, since that was the whole point of stimulus? As I posted a few posts up, most analysts that have looked at this estimate that the economy has between 1-2 million more jobs now than it would have in absence of the stimulus. No one disagrees that the current number is too high, but that in and of itself really doesn't speak the gross effectiveness of the stimulus. It speaks to the net effect against the economic conditions. You can look at the current unemployment numbers and also come to the conclusion that the stimulus was too small.what? I'm not the one who said the president "swore" anything.. you just inferred that they speculated and spent a trillion dollars!!! keep avoiding the real issue though, you are good at it!
Can you divide that number by the cost of the stimulus? How much is that spent on a per job basis?
the great thing about this "saved job" nonsense, is there is absolutely no way to prove it one way or the other.. perfect political strategy..anyway, how'd that "stimulus" work with the unemployment numbers?Shouldn't the real issue be what the short term effect on the economy has been, since that was the whole point of stimulus? As I posted a few posts up, most analysts that have looked at this estimate that the economy has between 1-2 million more jobs now than it would have in absence of the stimulus. No one disagrees that the current number is too high, but that in and of itself really doesn't speak the gross effectiveness of the stimulus. It speaks to the net effect against the economic conditions. You can look at the current unemployment numbers and also come to the conclusion that the stimulus was too small.what? I'm not the one who said the president "swore" anything.. you just inferred that they speculated and spent a trillion dollars!!! keep avoiding the real issue though, you are good at it!
Better yet........when the bill for the stimulus comes due and taxes have to be raised........will people acknowledge all the jobs that have been lost from the tax increases?It is easy to only talk about the benefits of the stimulus but not the costs. The fact is that when government spends money, it has to come from somewhere. For every dollar the government spends that is one less dollar spent in the private sector. Sometimes I think liberals fail to grasp that and think the money is coming out of thin air.
How many of those jobs are permanent? Stimulus is designed to be a shot in the arm to create a more shallow downturn and an incentive/boost for jobs growth. If the private sector doesn't pick up the ball and run with it the stimulus simply delayed the inevitable. Likewise, these handouts to the states are worthless without a boost in tax revenues to support them long-term.Shouldn't the real issue be what the short term effect on the economy has been, since that was the whole point of stimulus? As I posted a few posts up, most analysts that have looked at this estimate that the economy has between 1-2 million more jobs now than it would have in absence of the stimulus. No one disagrees that the current number is too high, but that in and of itself really doesn't speak the gross effectiveness of the stimulus. It speaks to the net effect against the economic conditions. You can look at the current unemployment numbers and also come to the conclusion that the stimulus was too small.what? I'm not the one who said the president "swore" anything.. you just inferred that they speculated and spent a trillion dollars!!! keep avoiding the real issue though, you are good at it!oh, and I answer YES, they did speculate, and spent a trillion dollars on pure speculation, which is shameful..
To me that 1-2 million number highlights what a collosal waste of money it was. It was supposed to "save or create" far more jobs than that, and it was even questionable whether 700 billion was worth the number of jobs it was supposed to create. Now that we see that it was only 1-2 million, it's really not even debatable that this was a huge waste. Like I said in another thread, you could have just erected a giant fan and used it to spray 20's randomly across the nation and it would have had a far better stimulus effect than this did. Random >>> government targeted.Shouldn't the real issue be what the short term effect on the economy has been, since that was the whole point of stimulus? As I posted a few posts up, most analysts that have looked at this estimate that the economy has between 1-2 million more jobs now than it would have in absence of the stimulus. No one disagrees that the current number is too high, but that in and of itself really doesn't speak the gross effectiveness of the stimulus. It speaks to the net effect against the economic conditions. You can look at the current unemployment numbers and also come to the conclusion that the stimulus was too small.what? I'm not the one who said the president "swore" anything.. you just inferred that they speculated and spent a trillion dollars!!! keep avoiding the real issue though, you are good at it!oh, and I answer YES, they did speculate, and spent a trillion dollars on pure speculation, which is shameful..
You're being far too generous here. Only 1-2 million jobs saved at that long term cost is enough to label this a complete and total failure.
The only analysis I've seen was the one that Zandi put together. Much like the analysis he did that was used to build a case for the stimulus in the first place, it's based off of economic models and just a guess. The important thing here is that it's FAR less than the guess he made before the stimulus, which the Democrats used to bolster their case in the first place. It was spun up as something else, but it was pretty much an admission of failure if you look at the before and after guesses.I'd really like to see a list of these "saved jobs".. surely there has to be a list somewhere, right? otherwise, how are they counted?
Obama #####es about bank lending, yet he's issuing $1.4 Trillion in new bonds each year in competition for the bank's investment dollars!
the fact that we spend a trillion dollars on speculation and guesses is unbelievable..The only analysis I've seen was the one that Zandi put together. Much like the analysis he did that was used to build a case for the stimulus in the first place, it's based off of economic models and just a guess. The important thing here is that it's FAR less than the guess he made before the stimulus, which the Democrats used to bolster their case in the first place. It was spun up as something else, but it was pretty much an admission of failure if you look at the before and after guesses.
Alternative energy isn't new or innovative. It's a pretty old technology, and all they're doing right now is tinkering with it. How about they come up with something really new rather than pushing technologies we already know can't compete economically with what's out there. Make a fusion reactor - that's innovative. Or colonize the moon or mars - that's new and innovative to
f course, when Bush tried to restart the star wars program or work towards landing men on mars, true innovation, all you lefties cried that it wasn't worth the money.
If we want to do that, we should offer a $1 billion reward to the first 4 companies that can demonstrate that they can power a moderate sized town (say 50k-100k) at prices competitive with long-term fossil fuel costs. With a guaranteed potential return, you'll see all kinds of venture and private capital attack the problem. Our problem today is that there's the risk that the price of oil will fall to $10/bbl and render your project temporarily not economical. I'd much rater see us invest in winners rather than throwing billions down rat holes through some government employee trying to pick winners.
Sure, when the bill that is twice as high comes from the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts comes due will you people acknowledge the same?Oh wait, it has come due.ETA: I'll also acknowledge all the job loses that resulted from the taxes being raised from 1982 through 1993 or s
h wait, employment pretty steadily improved after each of those.Apparantly is hasn't come due. The current administration can still print trillions out of thin air.
What do you think is the source of these deficits? I missed all but two, soon to be possibly three bills that added to spending since 1/20/2009? Those add up to between 1 and 2 trillion depending on who you trust over the next decade. I think we would all be happy if the deficits the next decade were just a trillion or two.
Same thing with the stimulus. And most people are fine with these expiring. Problem is, it doesn't make any real difference when Obama and clan print trillions out of thin air and keep increasing the size of the federal government. Are you serious about balancing the budget, or is this just about advancing the democrat agenda? It's pretty clear from the stimulus that any money that feeds through the federal government is targeted poorly and wasted to some extent.
getting back to the thread topic, will letting these tax cuts expire help or hurt unemployment?
Between the time the federal budget for 2010 and 2011 came out, Obama and clan had added 1.7 trillion in new spending over the next decade. That's from his own budget. And the stimulus was already accounted for in the 2010 budget. The tax cuts will make no difference when things grow at this rate.
Wait, are we supposed to be trusting the CBO again? Damn, I can never keep up.
Alternative energy isn't new or innovative. It's a pretty old technology, and all they're doing right now is tinkering with it. How about they come up with something really new rather than pushing technologies we already know can't compete economically with what's out there. Make a fusion reactor - that's innovative. Or colonize the moon or mars - that's new and innovative to
lemming.We want innovation! Oh, not that innovation.Alternative energy isn't new or innovative. It's a pretty old technology, and all they're doing right now is tinkering with it. How about they come up with something really new rather than pushing technologies we already know can't compete economically with what's out there. Make a fusion reactor - that's innovative. Or colonize the moon or mars - that's new and innovative to
well, he's got that going for him
Didn't I say that Obama would be responsible for a trillion or two of the deficit depending on who you trust over the next decade? Now how relevant is that compared to 10 to 20 trillion of debt that will be run up during that time? Debt that is a direct result of the economy, the aging population that is retiring earlier than planned because of the economy, and eventually though the economy is saving us now interest on the debt. And of that 1.7 trillion, how much of that was a response to the economy?And since when did you guys count tax expenditures as spending? Christ you are acting like the money belonged to the government and not those who earned it.
For at least 60 years the only time spending has been cut or more accurately its growth contained (as opposed to shifted around) has been during times of higher taxes. Something I have been posting for years was explained to the senate about a month or two ago - Consumers of government need to appreciate the cost of government or they will just demand more. Only when taxpayers are paying the full freight (or at least close to it) do they demand actual rather than merely rhetorical spending cuts. It is those saying "Why can't we ever cut spending first" that aren't being at least realistic.
I didn't say first, I said in conjunction. And correct me if I'm wrong, but Democrats aren't proposing that all of the consumers of these services pay extra taxes. Just a very small percentage of them.
I'm not counting tax expenditures as spending. I'm counting outlays as spending. There is 1.7 trillion in additional outlays between the budgets. And I'd say very little of this was in response to the economy. Those stimulus outlays/tax cuts were already planned when the 2010 budget rolled out. Most of it probably comes from the health care plan that they lied about and said wouldn't cost anything.
Ok, I'm guessing your are taking this claim from the Heritage.org. None of this comes from the health care plan because that wasn't in place when this nonsense was being put together. But since you want to use this analysis lets look at the actual changes in spending as listed here.Where is the growth in spending relative to GDP between 2008 and 2020? SS, Medicare, Medicaid.
OK so it's not Obama's fault. At some point we still need a President who will address the 500 lb gorilla. If it isn't Obama, hopefully it's the next President. Someone is going to have to stand up and be a leader.
No, I'm taking this from the actual budgets. Here's the 2010 Budget: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/fy10-newera.pdf
Well I repeated the Heritage.org exercise as a check, but your linked FY10 and their S1 deficits are different. Since the one you linked makes things worst, I think it is OK to utilize that one. Please correct me where my spreadsheet text to cell conversions is letting me down.Deficit fy10 fY11 Diff 2010 1171 1556 3852011 912 1267 3552012 581 828 2472013 533 727 1942014 570 706 1362015 583 752 1692016 637 778 1412017 636 778 1422018 634 785 1512019 712 908 196 6969 9085 2116Outlays fy10 fY11 Diff 2010 3552 3721 1692011 3625 3834 2092012 3662 3755 932013 3856 3915 592014 4069 4161 922015 4258 4386 1282016 4493 4665 1722017 4678 4872 1942018 4868 5084 2162019 5158 5415 257 42219 43808 1589But this uses the S-1 table, you claim that the difference that will show that Obama's policy changes create 1.7 trillion comes from the S-4 table.
Total outlays fy10 fy11 Diff 2010 3552 3721 1692011 3623 3834 2112012 3662 3755 932013 3856 3915 592014 4069 4161 922015 4258 4386 1282016 4493 4665 1722017 4678 4872 1942018 4868 5084 2162019 5158 5415 257 42217 43808 1591Discretionary programs: Mandatory programs: Net interest fy10 fy11 Diff fy10 fy11 fy10 fy11 Diff 2010 1368 1408 40 2010 2009 2123 114 2010 164 188 242011 1286 1415 129 2011 2040 2165 125 2011 283 251 -322012 1257 1301 44 2012 2009 2107 98 2012 378 343 -352013 1269 1267 -2 2013 2132 2208 76 2013 434 436 22014 1286 1283 -3 2014 2287 2364 77 2014 474 510 362015 1313 1310 -3 2015 2412 2500 88 2015 509 571 622016 1341 1337 -4 2016 2587 2696 109 2016 539 627 882017 1370 1371 1 2017 2717 2815 98 2017 564 681 1172018 1401 1405 4 2018 2848 2942 94 2018 590 733 1432019 1434 1442 8 2019 3073 3182 109 2019 622 786 164 13325 13539 214 24114 25102 988 4557 5126 569plus Disaster Cost was reduced by 184That is called to economy being in a recession. And has nothing to do with your specific claim that Obama policy changes are responsible new debt in the form of $1.7 trillion in new spending in the FY11 budget that wasn't there in the FY10 budget above and beyond the stimulus and the appropriation bills which I counted, and Health Care Reform which I mentioned as a "remains to be seen". You claimed that all of these were already accounted for in the FY10 budget which I don't believe to be true anyway.
Sure in a down economic time revenue goes down, spending goes up even if there are zero policy changes.
You mean other than the line labeled "Allowance for health reform" under receipts on the page you claimed to have used to crunch the numbers?
What? How does going from 14.8 % to 19.5% equate to being about the same? I'm done with this hi-jacking of this thread. Your claims, just like your global warming claims all collapse under a minimal level of actual scrutiny. I stand by the assertion that the deficits this coming decade are mostly interest on debt, the aging population, and the economy. That the $10 trillion in new debt is mostly not a result of new policies. You correctly point out we need to be somewhat lucky to have a somewhat normal recovery where there is a nice "catch up" bump to get the require GDP growth for even these insanely high number (have you looked at 2021-2040 projections?). I attribute a number between $1 and $2 trillion to Obama for the stimulus and the bumps in funding non defense departments. I also blame Obama for continuing too many existing policies. And I take a "it remains to be seen" about Health Care Reform because in part I know it counts on specific savings that DC won't have the political will to achieve, but historically have been accounted for with cuts elsewhere.
Sure. Let’s say there are 1.5 million more jobs than there would’ve been. That is at the price tag of a mere $900 billion. Let’s assume that we’ve only spent half of that money. That means for the bargain price of $450 billion, we saved 1.5 million jobs. What does that equate out to? $3 million per job? Just a thought, but if we took the $900 billion and we simply picked unemployed Americans and said that we were going to give them a $50K a year job picking up trash or planting flowers or painting bridges or building high speed railroads or any other manual labor job there is, and paid them each $50K a year on a one year contract, we could’ve put 18 million people back to work, right? So if I could’ve created 18 million jobs for $900 billion and the Government saved 1.5 million, then what should people be excited about. The Fed just spent $3 million per job to save $40-50K a year jobs.Shouldn't the real issue be what the short term effect on the economy has been, since that was the whole point of stimulus? As I posted a few posts up, most analysts that have looked at this estimate that the economy has between 1-2 million more jobs now than it would have in absence of the stimulus. No one disagrees that the current number is too high, but that in and of itself really doesn't speak the gross effectiveness of the stimulus. It speaks to the net effect against the economic conditions. You can look at the current unemployment numbers and also come to the conclusion that the stimulus was too small.what? I'm not the one who said the president "swore" anything.. you just inferred that they speculated and spent a trillion dollars!!! keep avoiding the real issue though, you are good at it!oh, and I answer YES, they did speculate, and spent a trillion dollars on pure speculation, which is shameful..
Except we didn't spend $900 billion in one year, but will over the course of a decade. And that $900 billion wasn't just structured as short term stimulus but as a head start to achieving other policy goals with long term implications. In fact much of the early criticism of the stimulus was that it wasn't stimulus at all but just spending. This is also why there are calls by those that disagreed with these policy priorities to be arguing that we should cancel the rest of the stimulus because "it didn't create the job". So $3 million per $40-50K job is not a very complete way to look at it.Now of course you can disagree that the spending as structured is not really an investment in the infrastructure of this nation and won't pay off in the future having these projects completed sooner rather than later- but that was one of the stated goals of the package.
Yup, BHO lied to us but most of us knew this.What this package accomplished was a transfer of wealth. And they can't figure out why the economy is stalled.
Even at one tenth of that price, the taxpayers still got screwed.The bottom line: I'm still seeing an awful lot of For Sale/Real Estate Auction signs popping up on a regular basis, and there are still a whole lot of well qualified people looking for full time work that can't find it and haven't been able to find it for well over a year and a half now.Anyone defending the Stimulus as any kind of success is clearly jaded and grasping at straws. It's mind boggling that despite this clear failure that there are actually people in power clammoring for a second Stimulus (which some of us knew was coming before the 2010 elections when we saw how the first Stimulus was geared).
This is exactly right. Setting aside the fact that using Spidey's numbers comes out to 300K per job, not 3 million, it's still a bad way to evaluate stimulus. The intent isn't just hire people in the short term, but to boost economic activity in a way that ultimately spurs natural growth. Much of the money goes out not directly to consumers, but to businesses that fund jobs and purchase materials or do research. Eventually that results in those inventories being replaced or new goods and services entering the market, creating future demand and growth.
