[quote]100meters wrote:
On similarities to the Japanese “stimulus” if we don’t take bold and decisive action on these big banks, then we are headed down that road. [/quote]
I agree. One bold step that we need to take it to quit protecting them.
[quote]valiance. wrote:
orion wrote:
milod wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
You have your notions completely bassackward.
With all due respect, I’m not the one using a criminal term to describe a perfectly legal activity.
I’ve shown how taxation is not theft - that is, it’s not theft by definition. Would you care to explain why you think taxation by a representative government is either unlawful or immoral?
You could start by building an ethical justification for a state in general and taxation in particular.
Hint: Unless you believe in divine right, both has never successfully been done before. what we spend on is as important as how much; to spend on “infrastructure” is not enough
The reason why taxation is theft is that the other side has no leg to stand on, i.e. there has never been a successful attempt to prove the opposite and contrary to what you believe the concept of theft existed before the US made it illegal.
And I am not even going into a rant of how ass backwards it is to use a criminals definition to judge the criminality of his acts.
not a fan of hobbes or locke or rousseau? or of any mainstream modern political theory? you’re an anarchist then?
on topic: just because Japan fucked up their stimulus doesn’t mean we will… but the more pork in the bill the worse things get[/quote]
If you could point me in the direction where they justify taxes?
I would be especially interested in the justification of an income tax by any writer you mentioned above.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Dinan, the editorial author you incredibly posted is a hack.
He’s badly misrepresenting the CBO’s findings, which you could simply read yourself, but then you’d come back here supporting the stimulus right?
But for a laugh look how Dinan fooled you (yes I know you want to be fooled, but that’s another story)
The CBO (if you read the report!!!) says that the GDP will but up in 2010-11 by 1 to 3.6 percent!
But Dinan focused on a .1 to .3 drop. In 2019! And you posted this! What a hoot.[/quote]
I don’t think that he misrepresented the letter in question for what it’s worth, here it is right here:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/96xx/doc9619/Gregg.pdf
BTW, what is it that you do for a living and do you have any children? It’s fair game since you want to call Steven Dinan a “hack.”
I never said that the article in question offered the best critique of the bill. I think it downplays the significance of piling up more debt and being fiscally irresponsible.
Here is a better one:
How Will America Pay for this Stimulus Plan?
Stimulating the Economy
Top Headline:
1
Author:
David Cameron
In the debate over the federal “stimulus” plan, few are asking?and no proponent is answering?the important questions: Who will finance the debt? What are the opportunity costs for this financing? Can we afford to take on more national debts?
When my children were young, they did not understand money is limited. ?Just go to the ATM,? they?d say. Likewise, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke does not have access to a magical ATM, although some ostensibly think so.
To simply print money would be catastrophic. It was the mistake the Weimar Republic made, which inflated prices by 1.5 trillion times from 1921 to 1923. The monetary system collapsed, peoples? savings were eliminated, and Hitler and the National Socialists German Workers? Party (NAZIs) rose to power.
Thanks to undisciplined Congresses and presidents with a legacy of structural deficits, we have only one option to fund the economic stimulus: we must borrow.
There are two costs to borrowing: the financing costs and the opportunity costs. The former is obvious. Interest payments on $800 billion could require another $400 to $600 billion from taxpayers. Does it make sense to spend $1.3 trillion over 30 years to fund four million jobs?the number President Barack Obama claims will be created?for 2-3 years? That?s $325,000 per job.
We might be able to finance this debt if China continues buying U.S. securities. The interest payments, however, would count the same as imports from China. Our debt service payments must return to China, slowing economic growth in the long run. This also assumes that China will continue to have the financial capacity and willingness to buy our debt?a tenuous proposition given the global nature of the current economic downturn.
The opportunity cost of the stimulus is more troubling. Whoever lends us money must divest elsewhere. American investors buying debt would do so at the expense of other investments, thus reducing money available for private economic activity, contrary to the goal of the stimulus plan. If banks buy U.S. securities, there is less money available for lending, also contrary to the plan?s purpose.
The Fed?s purchase of debt pumps more liquidity into the already well-liquefied system. This would have to be carefully managed because once economic activity picks up the Federal Reserve would have to balance between allowing inflation and raising interest rates?a trade-off that is sure to manifest itself considering the trillions of dollars pumped into the economy.
None of the potential scenarios for paying for this debt are good. To the extent that foreigners will purchase the bonds, it will drain resources through interest payments, thus suppressing economic growth in the long-term. To extent that the American public purchases the bonds, it will take money away from private sector investments, thus slowing economic recovery and growth. To the extent that banks buy the debt, it will reduce lending and perpetuate a stagnant economy. Finally, to the extent that the Federal Reserve will purchase the debt, it will lead to either higher interest rates?thus reducing private economic activity?or more inflation?thus reducing everyone’s wealth and hitting seniors and others on fixed incomes the hardest.
Adding to the national debt is very troubling considering our fiscal situation. For a family of four, the per capita debt burden is $140,989, but the median income is just $61,223. This, of course, is just the federal government debt; it does not include state government debt, local government debt, or personal debt, which is uncomfortably high for many families.
Today, our national debt is equal to about 75% of our GDP. The national debt-to-GDP ratio?a standard way economists measure the burden of national debts?is now higher than what it was in 1943, after the New Deal programs of the 1930s and the beginning of World War II. The current fiscal year?s deficit plus the ?stimulus? plan increases the ratio to 84%. The cost of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner?s recently announced Financial Stability Plan plus our deficits will put us over 100% in as little as a year.
Since the beginning of available GDP data in 1929, the U.S. national debt-to-GDP ratio has exceeded 100% in only three years: 1944-1946. Of course, World War II was an unprecedented war mobilization effort to defeat Germany and Japan. Yet, if we continue down this path of borrowing, we will soon match these national debt-to-GDP levels with no justifiably comparable reason.
According to the CIA?s World Factbook, only five countries have national debt-to-GDP ratios in excess of 100%: Zimbabwe, Lebanon, Japan, Jamaica, and Italy. These countries are not on this list because they did something right. They are on it because they mismanaged their finances. Unfortunately, we?ll soon be on the list.
[quote]100meters wrote:
On similarities to the Japanese “stimulus” if we don’t take bold and decisive action on these big banks, then we are headed down that road. [/quote]
Actually the similarity might be that they won’t work here either.
[quote]phil_leotardo wrote:
100meters wrote:
Dinan, the editorial author you incredibly posted is a hack.
He’s badly misrepresenting the CBO’s findings, which you could simply read yourself, but then you’d come back here supporting the stimulus right?
But for a laugh look how Dinan fooled you (yes I know you want to be fooled, but that’s another story)
The CBO (if you read the report!!!) says that the GDP will but up in 2010-11 by 1 to 3.6 percent!
But Dinan focused on a .1 to .3 drop. In 2019! And you posted this! What a hoot.
I don’t think that he misrepresented the letter in question for what it’s worth, here it is right here:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/96xx/doc9619/Gregg.pdf
BTW, what is it that you do for a living and do you have any children? It’s fair game since you want to call Steven Dinan a “hack.”
I never said that the article in question offered the best critique of the bill. I think it downplays the significance of piling up more debt and being fiscally irresponsible.
Here is a better one:
How Will America Pay for this Stimulus Plan?
Stimulating the Economy
Top Headline:
1
Author:
David Cameron
In the debate over the federal “stimulus” plan, few are asking?and no proponent is answering?the important questions: Who will finance the debt? What are the opportunity costs for this financing? Can we afford to take on more national debts?
When my children were young, they did not understand money is limited. ?Just go to the ATM,? they?d say. Likewise, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke does not have access to a magical ATM, although some ostensibly think so.
To simply print money would be catastrophic. It was the mistake the Weimar Republic made, which inflated prices by 1.5 trillion times from 1921 to 1923. The monetary system collapsed, peoples? savings were eliminated, and Hitler and the National Socialists German Workers? Party (NAZIs) rose to power.
Thanks to undisciplined Congresses and presidents with a legacy of structural deficits, we have only one option to fund the economic stimulus: we must borrow.
There are two costs to borrowing: the financing costs and the opportunity costs. The former is obvious. Interest payments on $800 billion could require another $400 to $600 billion from taxpayers. Does it make sense to spend $1.3 trillion over 30 years to fund four million jobs?the number President Barack Obama claims will be created?for 2-3 years? That?s $325,000 per job.
We might be able to finance this debt if China continues buying U.S. securities. The interest payments, however, would count the same as imports from China. Our debt service payments must return to China, slowing economic growth in the long run. This also assumes that China will continue to have the financial capacity and willingness to buy our debt?a tenuous proposition given the global nature of the current economic downturn.
The opportunity cost of the stimulus is more troubling. Whoever lends us money must divest elsewhere. American investors buying debt would do so at the expense of other investments, thus reducing money available for private economic activity, contrary to the goal of the stimulus plan. If banks buy U.S. securities, there is less money available for lending, also contrary to the plan?s purpose.
The Fed?s purchase of debt pumps more liquidity into the already well-liquefied system. This would have to be carefully managed because once economic activity picks up the Federal Reserve would have to balance between allowing inflation and raising interest rates?a trade-off that is sure to manifest itself considering the trillions of dollars pumped into the economy.
None of the potential scenarios for paying for this debt are good. To the extent that foreigners will purchase the bonds, it will drain resources through interest payments, thus suppressing economic growth in the long-term. To extent that the American public purchases the bonds, it will take money away from private sector investments, thus slowing economic recovery and growth. To the extent that banks buy the debt, it will reduce lending and perpetuate a stagnant economy. Finally, to the extent that the Federal Reserve will purchase the debt, it will lead to either higher interest rates?thus reducing private economic activity?or more inflation?thus reducing everyone’s wealth and hitting seniors and others on fixed incomes the hardest.
Adding to the national debt is very troubling considering our fiscal situation. For a family of four, the per capita debt burden is $140,989, but the median income is just $61,223. This, of course, is just the federal government debt; it does not include state government debt, local government debt, or personal debt, which is uncomfortably high for many families.
Today, our national debt is equal to about 75% of our GDP. The national debt-to-GDP ratio?a standard way economists measure the burden of national debts?is now higher than what it was in 1943, after the New Deal programs of the 1930s and the beginning of World War II. The current fiscal year?s deficit plus the ?stimulus? plan increases the ratio to 84%. The cost of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner?s recently announced Financial Stability Plan plus our deficits will put us over 100% in as little as a year.
Since the beginning of available GDP data in 1929, the U.S. national debt-to-GDP ratio has exceeded 100% in only three years: 1944-1946. Of course, World War II was an unprecedented war mobilization effort to defeat Germany and Japan. Yet, if we continue down this path of borrowing, we will soon match these national debt-to-GDP levels with no justifiably comparable reason.
According to the CIA?s World Factbook, only five countries have national debt-to-GDP ratios in excess of 100%: Zimbabwe, Lebanon, Japan, Jamaica, and Italy. These countries are not on this list because they did something right. They are on it because they mismanaged their finances. Unfortunately, we?ll soon be on the list.
[/quote]
Uh, clearly Dinan is misleading. The CBO thinks the stimulus will significantly boost GDP and longterm may cause a teeny tiny hit on the still higher GDP.
Dinan says: Stimulus hurts economy longterm.
That’s just hilariously misleading! And he surely must know this, because it takes effort to frame it, hence he’s a hack.
And what does my job/kids have to do with fact-checking? I don’t get the connection.
[quote]100meters wrote:
phil_leotardo wrote:
100meters wrote:
Dinan, the editorial author you incredibly posted is a hack.
He’s badly misrepresenting the CBO’s findings, which you could simply read yourself, but then you’d come back here supporting the stimulus right?
But for a laugh look how Dinan fooled you (yes I know you want to be fooled, but that’s another story)
The CBO (if you read the report!!!) says that the GDP will but up in 2010-11 by 1 to 3.6 percent!
But Dinan focused on a .1 to .3 drop. In 2019! And you posted this! What a hoot.
I don’t think that he misrepresented the letter in question for what it’s worth, here it is right here:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/96xx/doc9619/Gregg.pdf
BTW, what is it that you do for a living and do you have any children? It’s fair game since you want to call Steven Dinan a “hack.”
I never said that the article in question offered the best critique of the bill. I think it downplays the significance of piling up more debt and being fiscally irresponsible.
Here is a better one:
How Will America Pay for this Stimulus Plan?
Stimulating the Economy
Top Headline:
1
Author:
David Cameron
In the debate over the federal “stimulus” plan, few are asking?and no proponent is answering?the important questions: Who will finance the debt? What are the opportunity costs for this financing? Can we afford to take on more national debts?
When my children were young, they did not understand money is limited. ?Just go to the ATM,? they?d say. Likewise, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke does not have access to a magical ATM, although some ostensibly think so.
To simply print money would be catastrophic. It was the mistake the Weimar Republic made, which inflated prices by 1.5 trillion times from 1921 to 1923. The monetary system collapsed, peoples? savings were eliminated, and Hitler and the National Socialists German Workers? Party (NAZIs) rose to power.
Thanks to undisciplined Congresses and presidents with a legacy of structural deficits, we have only one option to fund the economic stimulus: we must borrow.
There are two costs to borrowing: the financing costs and the opportunity costs. The former is obvious. Interest payments on $800 billion could require another $400 to $600 billion from taxpayers. Does it make sense to spend $1.3 trillion over 30 years to fund four million jobs?the number President Barack Obama claims will be created?for 2-3 years? That?s $325,000 per job.
We might be able to finance this debt if China continues buying U.S. securities. The interest payments, however, would count the same as imports from China. Our debt service payments must return to China, slowing economic growth in the long run. This also assumes that China will continue to have the financial capacity and willingness to buy our debt?a tenuous proposition given the global nature of the current economic downturn.
The opportunity cost of the stimulus is more troubling. Whoever lends us money must divest elsewhere. American investors buying debt would do so at the expense of other investments, thus reducing money available for private economic activity, contrary to the goal of the stimulus plan. If banks buy U.S. securities, there is less money available for lending, also contrary to the plan?s purpose.
The Fed?s purchase of debt pumps more liquidity into the already well-liquefied system. This would have to be carefully managed because once economic activity picks up the Federal Reserve would have to balance between allowing inflation and raising interest rates?a trade-off that is sure to manifest itself considering the trillions of dollars pumped into the economy.
None of the potential scenarios for paying for this debt are good. To the extent that foreigners will purchase the bonds, it will drain resources through interest payments, thus suppressing economic growth in the long-term. To extent that the American public purchases the bonds, it will take money away from private sector investments, thus slowing economic recovery and growth. To the extent that banks buy the debt, it will reduce lending and perpetuate a stagnant economy. Finally, to the extent that the Federal Reserve will purchase the debt, it will lead to either higher interest rates?thus reducing private economic activity?or more inflation?thus reducing everyone’s wealth and hitting seniors and others on fixed incomes the hardest.
Adding to the national debt is very troubling considering our fiscal situation. For a family of four, the per capita debt burden is $140,989, but the median income is just $61,223. This, of course, is just the federal government debt; it does not include state government debt, local government debt, or personal debt, which is uncomfortably high for many families.
Today, our national debt is equal to about 75% of our GDP. The national debt-to-GDP ratio?a standard way economists measure the burden of national debts?is now higher than what it was in 1943, after the New Deal programs of the 1930s and the beginning of World War II. The current fiscal year?s deficit plus the ?stimulus? plan increases the ratio to 84%. The cost of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner?s recently announced Financial Stability Plan plus our deficits will put us over 100% in as little as a year.
Since the beginning of available GDP data in 1929, the U.S. national debt-to-GDP ratio has exceeded 100% in only three years: 1944-1946. Of course, World War II was an unprecedented war mobilization effort to defeat Germany and Japan. Yet, if we continue down this path of borrowing, we will soon match these national debt-to-GDP levels with no justifiably comparable reason.
According to the CIA?s World Factbook, only five countries have national debt-to-GDP ratios in excess of 100%: Zimbabwe, Lebanon, Japan, Jamaica, and Italy. These countries are not on this list because they did something right. They are on it because they mismanaged their finances. Unfortunately, we?ll soon be on the list.
Uh, clearly Dinan is misleading. The CBO thinks the stimulus will significantly boost GDP and longterm may cause a teeny tiny hit on the still higher GDP.
Dinan says: Stimulus hurts economy longterm.
That’s just hilariously misleading! And he surely must know this, because it takes effort to frame it, hence he’s a hack.
And what does my job/kids have to do with fact-checking? I don’t get the connection.
[/quote]
Actually I don’t think he’s a hack, but this is besides the point, because the other article that I posted was actually a better critique of his stimulus package.
I asked if you have kids or a job because it seems like jobless losers who don’t have kids would most likely be the biggest fanatics of his package. People who have kids would think it was immoral to pass on this much debt to posterity. People who don’t have either a job, or a good paying one would be less likely to worry about higher future taxes or think that they can benefit from being the recipient of one of these “stimulus jobs.”
[quote]100meters wrote:
Uh, clearly Dinan is misleading. The CBO thinks the stimulus will significantly boost GDP and longterm may cause a teeny tiny hit on the still higher GDP.
Dinan says: Stimulus hurts economy longterm.
That’s just hilariously misleading! And he surely must know this, because it takes effort to frame it, hence he’s a hack.
And what does my job/kids have to do with fact-checking? I don’t get the connection.
[/quote]
you have no idea what you are talking about. We simply cannot pay back the money we are spending. It’s simple match.
Another aspect idiots fail to acknowledge is the process in which “stimulus” money enters the market. There is $8B commited to telecom that no one has been able to get and spend yet. What has this done? Completely stalled the market. Nobody wants to spend a dime until they can figure out if they can get stimulus money.
This will probably happen in about 3 or 4 months. Then they have to do the paperwork. When thinking of USF and NECA, think tax code and the farm bill. Insanely expensive and complicated. It will be a year before telecom starts to rebound to where it was during the recession.
Companies are already thinning out staff. The stimulus package results in telecom are 180deg off from the intended purpose. They have compounded the effects of the recession to an enormous degree. It is slower in telecom now than it was during the telecom bust. You think telecom is unique? The stimulus is a terrible idea on so many levels, it’s amazing even idiots can see through the smoke screen.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Tell me exactly how buying more Chinese goods is going to get people out of debt.
Nevermind, just do whatever the government tells you to do. I am so going to profit off of a bunch of stupid fucks.
[/quote]
We need to put America on a level playing field with China
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
100meters wrote:
On similarities to the Japanese “stimulus” if we don’t take bold and decisive action on these big banks, then we are headed down that road.
I agree. One bold step that we need to take it to quit protecting them.[/quote]
We need to collect heir taxes also