[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Try again, although the comedy you think passes for arguments are priceless. Almost as funny as Obama’s cabinet picks.
[/quote]
But, Hedo, can’t you see that the country is in the very best of hands?
In 50 years, nothing has changed.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
100meters wrote:
You can only be bi-partisan so much with members of a party who are nearly insane. For example almost all senate republicans voted for an amendment turning the stimulus totally into tax cuts. I think 36 of the nuts out of 40 voted for it! So how far do you reach out to bat-shit insane republicans?
About 20 years ago, Japan faced a situation similar to the one we are facing right now, and they undertook a course of action that was similar to the one we are undertaking right now. They carried on with this ‘solution’ for over ten years.
About 20 years later, that period is remembered as “Japan’s Lost Decade”.
Explain to me why the outcome will be different for us than it was for them. Pretend that I’m as stupid as you think I am, and use small words and simple ideas.
You claim that doing the opposite of what didn’t work for the Japanese is “bat-shit insane”, so it must be a pretty obvious reason that following the Japs’ lead will work for us this time around.[/quote]
He doesn’t like to let facts get in his way. As long as it’s a left wing Democratic proposal he will support it. What it actually says or is supposed to do isn’t important.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
The republican aren’t doing anything positive here. It’s all for show.
Part of their suggestion was to restructure mortgages, encourage more lending, and guarentee a market for these loans through Freddie and Fannie. This is exactly what got in to this. Amazing.
They are all liberals at this point.[/quote]
Well said dhickey.
hedo,
1st) I hope you have finally stopped claiming that “[quote]we are probably at the end of the recession. [/quote]” as you did in the other thread. The crisis is real. period.
[quote]hedo wrote:
It’s not a stimulus package it’s a spending package. Calling it what it is would go along way towards a real debate.
[/quote]
2nd) (to borrow from a recent op ed):
[hedo] was too busy yesterday to explain this radical departure from standard theory and practice. Where does the [poster] think the $800 billion will go? Down a rabbit hole? Even if the entire sum were to be stolen by federal employees and spent entirely on fast cars, fancy homes, gambling junkets and fancy clothes, it would still be an $800 billion increase in the demand for goods and services – a pretty good working definition for economic stimulus. The only question is whether spending it on other things would create more long-term value, which it almost certainly would.
[quote]Jeff R wrote:
Hello, there.
Haven’t run across you here (unless you have used a different screen name in the past.)
I hope you realize that the Republican Party was slapped around in 2006 and 2008 because our Representatives weren’t acting like Conservatives. Bush did poorly domestically because he was a bad party leader.
Unfortunately for everyone, the American People turned over the keys to the current democratic party. The characters in the leadership positions are quite frightening.
I can only speak for myself, but, I’ll bet there are many more like me out here who are thrilled the Republicans are standing against this disgusting spending bill.
This bill was nothing more than foisting a liberal wish list on our country under the guise of the current crisis.
Almost a million dollars for A GOLF COURSE?
This is the time for any liberals on this board to state their opposition to this bill. If you don’t, then it’s safe to assume that you cannot deviate one iota from the party line. Therefore, you shall be simple to ignore.
Suprise me,
JeffR
[/quote]
Hello there yourself,
I think your post exemplifies the biggest failure of this current bill. By allowing some pork projects (like the golf course you mentioned above) the dems have allowed minor issues in the bill to take over the debate. While these are just criticisms, they should not be central to the debate. Now, unfortunately, we have people talking about golf courses and re-sodding rather than asking questions like, “what would be the correct policy mix between tax cuts and spending”.
(I believe the current mix is something like tax cuts 42%, spending 58%)
Let’s try to move the conversation on to the big questions while keeping the little things alive, but on the periphery where they belong.
Surprise me,
Gambit_Lost
The IMF’s view on economic stimulus. (I posted this in another thread, but I think it’s appropriate here as well). Notice that they believe BOTH spending AND tax cuts should be used.
[i]2. Macroeconomic stimulus?both monetary and fiscal?to support demand.
On monetary policy, many central banks have taken strong actions to cut interest rates and improve credit provision. The IMF still sees some room to lower interest rates, as inflation pressures are subsiding, but the room is diminishing rapidly, and has disappeared altogether in some countries. Moreover, deflation is now a risk. In present circumstances, the effectiveness of low interest rates to support activity is likely to be constrained as long as financial conditions remain disrupted. Therefore, central banks will need to rely increasingly on unconventional measures to unlock key (high-spread, low-liquidity) credit markets.
On fiscal policy, many countries have announced and are already implementing sizeable stimulus. The key here is to design packages that provide maximum boost to demand, which argues for measures to increase spending. However, fiscal deficits are widening sharply because of the cyclical downturn and the impact of asset price declines on revenues, as well as stimulus measures and the cost of financial sector rescues. To prevent an adverse market reaction, the IMF says policymakers need to strengthen fiscal frameworks and commit to credible longer-term policies that reverse the deficit buildup as economies recover.
Space for easing
Blanchard also stressed that there is no “one-size-fits-all” policy mix. Some countries have more fiscal and monetary space than others. “In this respect, it is welcome that some emerging economies now have more space for policy easing than in previous downturns and are making use of it,” he said.
As for the balance between spending increases and tax cuts, we think that there are two arguments why spending increases should be part of the package, probably more so than in the past.
"Consumers who are credit constrained are likely to spend any extra money derived from a lower tax bill."
First, the decline in private sector demand is likely to be prolonged. This implies that fiscal policy can rely more than in the past on spending measures, including investment in infrastructure, because we don’t need to worry so much about implementation lags.
Second, we believe that, in the current circumstances, the marginal propensity of consumers to spend tax cuts or transfers may be low, leading to low multipliers. That said, selectivity is needed in raising spending: direct purchases of goods by the government?investment spending in particular?has a direct effect on demand and will also have positive supply-side effects. In contrast, increasing public sector wages is unlikely to help and may be difficult to reverse. [/i]
[/i]
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Wrong. This is the same fear-mongering that got us the TARP in the first place.
Our fundamental problem as a nation is that we have been borrowing against the future, and thinking there will never be consequences, for decades now.
So at a time when a severe recession could cause a realignment and actually make people SAVE MONEY, the solution is to kick the problem down the road by encouraging more spending and consumption?! Please tell me how this makes sense.[/quote]
1st) TARP was FAR from perfect and you are just in criticizing it. However, let’s not forget what it DID do: It prevented a run on the banks and a complete collapse of the system. It was/is an emergency measure, and things done quickly in an emergency are never going to be perfect. Hopefully the second part is used much better than the first, and we should all watch to ensure that it is.
2nd) Borrowing against the future IS a huge deal, and yes, we’ve been doing it for decades now without the collapse you’d expect to see. Most I’ve read theorize we haven’t collapsed because of the interconnected nature of the US with the other economies (i.e. if the US fails, so does the rest of the world) this prevents others from letting us fail (e.g. China calling it’s loans).
However, we’re still in an emergency situation. If you’re arguing that the economy NEEDS to crash, I respect that, but I disagree. Monetary policy has been used quite effectively in the last 20+ years to “smooth” the peaks and valleys of business cycle. We’re in a unique situation where we’ve exhausted our monetary options. I believe that fiscal and unconventional monetary options can boost the economy and prevent a deeper recession.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
Hello, there.
Haven’t run across you here (unless you have used a different screen name in the past.)
I hope you realize that the Republican Party was slapped around in 2006 and 2008 because our Representatives weren’t acting like Conservatives. Bush did poorly domestically because he was a bad party leader.
Unfortunately for everyone, the American People turned over the keys to the current democratic party. The characters in the leadership positions are quite frightening.
I can only speak for myself, but, I’ll bet there are many more like me out here who are thrilled the Republicans are standing against this disgusting spending bill.
This bill was nothing more than foisting a liberal wish list on our country under the guise of the current crisis.
Almost a million dollars for A GOLF COURSE?
This is the time for any liberals on this board to state their opposition to this bill. If you don’t, then it’s safe to assume that you cannot deviate one iota from the party line. Therefore, you shall be simple to ignore.
Suprise me,
JeffR
Hello there yourself,
I think your post exemplifies the biggest failure of this current bill. By allowing some pork projects (like the golf course you mentioned above) the dems have allowed minor issues in the bill to take over the debate. While these are just criticisms, they should not be central to the debate. Now, unfortunately, we have people talking about golf courses and re-sodding rather than asking questions like, “what would be the correct policy mix between tax cuts and spending”.
(I believe the current mix is something like tax cuts 42%, spending 58%)
Let’s try to move the conversation on to the big questions while keeping the little things alive, but on the periphery where they belong.
Surprise me,
Gambit_Lost [/quote]
I think the “periphery” makes up about twice the size it needs to be, at least. The periphery is more like the main course. We’ve got a half pound slice of cheesecake but only 2 ounces of beef and broccoli.
“How can you have any pudding if don’t eat your meat?”
[quote]msd0060 wrote:
I think the “periphery” makes up about twice the size it needs to be, at least. The periphery is more like the main course. We’ve got a half pound slice of cheesecake but only 2 ounces of beef and broccoli.
“How can you have any pudding if don’t eat your meat?”[/quote]
Nice metaphor, but could you please be specific? What would you like to see? Please be specific. More spending on infrastructure? Larger tax cuts? I’m assuming by your metaphor that you think the size is appropriate but the composition is off, is that correct? Please, let us know what you are thinking.
The numbers I heard were 42% tax cuts, 58% spending…I’m looking forward to seeing more specific numbers in the coming hours and days.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
msd0060 wrote:
I think the “periphery” makes up about twice the size it needs to be, at least. The periphery is more like the main course. We’ve got a half pound slice of cheesecake but only 2 ounces of beef and broccoli.
“How can you have any pudding if don’t eat your meat?”
Nice metaphor, but could you please be specific? What would you like to see? Please be specific. More spending on infrastructure? Larger tax cuts? I’m assuming by your metaphor that you think the size is appropriate but the composition is off, is that correct? Please, let us know what you are thinking.
The numbers I heard were 42% tax cuts, 58% spending…I’m looking forward to seeing more specific numbers in the coming hours and days. [/quote]
Personally, I think it needs to be about 70:30 tax cuts to pet projects. And I think the total needs to be significantly less than where it is now.
[quote]msd0060 wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
msd0060 wrote:
I think the “periphery” makes up about twice the size it needs to be, at least. The periphery is more like the main course. We’ve got a half pound slice of cheesecake but only 2 ounces of beef and broccoli.
“How can you have any pudding if don’t eat your meat?”
Nice metaphor, but could you please be specific? What would you like to see? Please be specific. More spending on infrastructure? Larger tax cuts? I’m assuming by your metaphor that you think the size is appropriate but the composition is off, is that correct? Please, let us know what you are thinking.
The numbers I heard were 42% tax cuts, 58% spending…I’m looking forward to seeing more specific numbers in the coming hours and days.
Personally, I think it needs to be about 70:30 tax cuts to pet projects. And I think the total needs to be significantly less than where it is now.[/quote]
Well, I respect your opinion and thank you for sharing it openly. Personally, I think the tax cuts are at an appropriate level, but I would like to see more investments in infrastructure than what I understand the plan to have now. I do strongly disagree with your argument that the bill should be smaller. I have heard a lot of economists pushing for a much larger stimulus package, from all sides of the political spectrum. Paul Krugman seems to be the loudest I’ve heard at present.
Here’s an article from the economist.com that deals with size:
Big government fights back | The Economist
Despite the different compositional desires that we both have, despite that this bill is not, and cannot be, perfect, can we both agree that this bill should be passed in a timely fashion?
Compromise is the hallmark of democracy. If you cannot agree with the bill, how does it need to change in order for it to be palpable to you?
PS Cute video sloth
Governor Tim Kaine Answers Economic Recovery Questions
I’m quite surprised that www.recovery.gov is going to go up as soon as the senate passes the bill…this looks like it will be unprecedented transparency.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Well, I respect your opinion and thank you for sharing it openly. Personally, I think the tax cuts are at an appropriate level, but I would like to see more investments in infrastructure than what I understand the plan to have now. I do strongly disagree with your argument that the bill should be smaller. I have heard a lot of economists pushing for a much larger stimulus package, from all sides of the political spectrum. Paul Krugman seems to be the loudest I’ve heard at present.
Here’s an article from the economist.com that deals with size:
Big government fights back | The Economist
Despite the different compositional desires that we both have, despite that this bill is not, and cannot be, perfect, can we both agree that this bill should be passed in a timely fashion?
Compromise is the hallmark of democracy. If you cannot agree with the bill, how does it need to change in order for it to be palpable to you?
PS Cute video sloth[/quote]
Tax cuts are great if they corrispond with cut spending. Tax cuts are OK without spending cuts as they tend to raise tax revenue. Tax cuts with insane increases in spending just doesn’t make long term economic sense. Our debt is absolutly out of control. That will have to be paid off at some point. The paying off of this debt will induce market contractions much worse than what we are seeing now. The beauty of this is that by the time it happens we will have conveniently forgotten who or what was responsible.
solutions in order of positive effect:
Cut spending and taxes - best but never happen
Cut taxes - Ok but never happen
Spend more and cut taxes - long term catastrophy
spend more - near term catastrophy
[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Here is the much talked about letter from the CBO to congress. Draw your own conclusions.
http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2009-02/cboletter.pdf
Draw your own conclusions:
“would have a noticeable impact on economic growth and employment in the next few years.”
The actual CBO report:
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=199
hedo, you don’t know what you’re talking about, hence moronic statements like “Obama will NEVER win Pennsylvania” (actual quote from a PA resident!) You have no credibility. None.
But if we’re going by the CBO, let’s go by their actual full report that says yes the spending/stimulus (same you dolt) will have the intended effect.
Yes and you called the election for Kerry in 2004. (actual quote from a MA resident). Fucking loser.
You need to actually read the report you dumbfuck before you speakout of turn.
The silly part is the letter the CBO is posted so anyone else here can read it too.
Try again, although the comedy you think passes for arguments are priceless. Almost as funny as Obama’s cabinet picks.
[/quote]
Never called the election for Kerry. Never. So next lie…
Again, if you’re basis for supporting/not supporting the stimulus is the CBO, they are for it. READ THE ACTUAL REPORT. Then come back apologize, and declare your support for the stimulus,or move on to a new made up reason.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
100meters wrote:
You can only be bi-partisan so much with members of a party who are nearly insane. For example almost all senate republicans voted for an amendment turning the stimulus totally into tax cuts. I think 36 of the nuts out of 40 voted for it! So how far do you reach out to bat-shit insane republicans?
About 20 years ago, Japan faced a situation similar to the one we are facing right now, and they undertook a course of action that was similar to the one we are undertaking right now. They carried on with this ‘solution’ for over ten years.
About 20 years later, that period is remembered as “Japan’s Lost Decade”.
Explain to me why the outcome will be different for us than it was for them. Pretend that I’m as stupid as you think I am, and use small words and simple ideas.
You claim that doing the opposite of what didn’t work for the Japanese is “bat-shit insane”, so it must be a pretty obvious reason that following the Japs’ lead will work for us this time around.[/quote]
Mostly because we aren’t following their lead. Them: spending and tax raise. US: spending and tax cuts.
See the difference?
[quote]hedo wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
100meters wrote:
You can only be bi-partisan so much with members of a party who are nearly insane. For example almost all senate republicans voted for an amendment turning the stimulus totally into tax cuts. I think 36 of the nuts out of 40 voted for it! So how far do you reach out to bat-shit insane republicans?
About 20 years ago, Japan faced a situation similar to the one we are facing right now, and they undertook a course of action that was similar to the one we are undertaking right now. They carried on with this ‘solution’ for over ten years.
About 20 years later, that period is remembered as “Japan’s Lost Decade”.
Explain to me why the outcome will be different for us than it was for them. Pretend that I’m as stupid as you think I am, and use small words and simple ideas.
You claim that doing the opposite of what didn’t work for the Japanese is “bat-shit insane”, so it must be a pretty obvious reason that following the Japs’ lead will work for us this time around.
He doesn’t like to let facts get in his way. As long as it’s a left wing Democratic proposal he will support it. What it actually says or is supposed to do isn’t important.
[/quote]
Facts: you keep citing the CBO, but the actual CBO report supports the stimulus, saying it will do EXACTLY what dems/all credible economists/Obama say it will do.
So what you and republicans keep doing is to cite a CBO report of a partial analysis of an incomplete stimulus proposal to make fake points. (That report is addressed and nullified in the actual report–but of course this doesn’t stop liars/republicans from still citing it—thereby proving they have ZERO credibility)
Your logic of course makes no sense? Stop citing the CBO to make up your fake points.
[quote]100meters wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
100meters wrote:
You can only be bi-partisan so much with members of a party who are nearly insane. For example almost all senate republicans voted for an amendment turning the stimulus totally into tax cuts. I think 36 of the nuts out of 40 voted for it! So how far do you reach out to bat-shit insane republicans?
About 20 years ago, Japan faced a situation similar to the one we are facing right now, and they undertook a course of action that was similar to the one we are undertaking right now. They carried on with this ‘solution’ for over ten years.
About 20 years later, that period is remembered as “Japan’s Lost Decade”.
Explain to me why the outcome will be different for us than it was for them. Pretend that I’m as stupid as you think I am, and use small words and simple ideas.
You claim that doing the opposite of what didn’t work for the Japanese is “bat-shit insane”, so it must be a pretty obvious reason that following the Japs’ lead will work for us this time around.
Mostly because we aren’t following their lead. Them: spending and tax raise. US: spending and tax cuts.
See the difference?
[/quote]
So the spending is irrelevant? If both gov’t’s spent, but one failed and one, according to you, will succeed, we can only conclude that tax cuts make the difference, and spending is irrelevant.
Yet you called the 36 Republicans who voted to amend the “stimulus” bill into 100% tax cuts “bat-shit insane”.
Care to justify your “bat-shit insane” comment? Or perhaps redirect it towards a different group of people in Congress?
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
100meters wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
100meters wrote:
You can only be bi-partisan so much with members of a party who are nearly insane. For example almost all senate republicans voted for an amendment turning the stimulus totally into tax cuts. I think 36 of the nuts out of 40 voted for it! So how far do you reach out to bat-shit insane republicans?
About 20 years ago, Japan faced a situation similar to the one we are facing right now, and they undertook a course of action that was similar to the one we are undertaking right now. They carried on with this ‘solution’ for over ten years.
About 20 years later, that period is remembered as “Japan’s Lost Decade”.
Explain to me why the outcome will be different for us than it was for them. Pretend that I’m as stupid as you think I am, and use small words and simple ideas.
You claim that doing the opposite of what didn’t work for the Japanese is “bat-shit insane”, so it must be a pretty obvious reason that following the Japs’ lead will work for us this time around.
Mostly because we aren’t following their lead. Them: spending and tax raise. US: spending and tax cuts.
See the difference?
So the spending is irrelevant? If both gov’t’s spent, but one failed and one, according to you, will succeed, we can only conclude that tax cuts make the difference, and spending is irrelevant.
Yet you called the 36 Republicans who voted to amend the “stimulus” bill into 100% tax cuts “bat-shit insane”.
Care to justify your “bat-shit insane” comment? Or perhaps redirect it towards a different group of people in Congress?[/quote]
The spending is the opposite of irrelevant. It’s the most critical thing, the tax cuts don’t do that much, but get 2 senators to vote for the stimulus.
But yes, while stimulating you don’t want to then suck money back out with tax hikes. That doesn’t mean you need to emphasize the opposite, just emphasize the spending.
And clearly voting for tax-cuts only is bat-shit insane, but again, your party not know for success at economics, and hopefully after the last 8 years they never have to be taken seriously again.
[quote]100meters wrote:
But yes, while stimulating you don’t want to then suck money back out with tax hikes. That doesn’t mean you need to emphasize the opposite, just emphasize the spending.
[/quote]
If you’ve decided that the free market can’t be trusted to spend money, and that gov’t must do the spending, what’s the difference if you raise taxes?
If you think individuals deciding to spend money on what they think they need is the best solution, just cut taxes. If you believe individuals don’t know what’s best for them and how to spend their own hard earned money, why not tax more?
Please explain why tax cuts only are not sufficient. Please explain how Republicans economic policy was harmful?