Presidential address last night

[FayeforCure]

You know...I honestly thought that after the epic fail that was the stimulus, that ideas like "high government spending multipliers" would be banished back to the hell they came from. So much for that hope...

60% of the stimulus was tax cuts, which amounted to negative multiplier effects!

Obama wanted to please the right wng extremists by making the stimulus mostly about tax cuts, to his own and our country's detriment!!!

[Dog Walker]

BT, You DO understand that for a business to grow sometimes it is necessary for it to borrow money and NOT live within its means.

Borrowing money for ongoing expenses is bad for a business or a family or a country.  W and the Republicans didn't seem to understand that.

This country is in a liquidity crunch.  Consumers aren't spending so companies are not.  Common sense says that the government must spend MORE at a time like this to get the economy moving again.  Where are our infrastructure projects?  Where is our WPA?  Where is our CCC.  We need to put people to work again and right now only the Federal government can do it.

Federal and State spending cannot be cut enough to pay back the money that Bush borrowed.  We're going to have to grow our way out of this by stimulating the economy even if it raises the national debt in the short term.  We are stagnating now with an "official" unemployment rate of over 10%.  Unless fresh money is injected we are going to stay stagnant.  If government spending is cut we will go back into recession or depression.

[tufsu1]

You know...I honestly thought that after the epic fail that was the stimulus, that ideas like "high government spending multipliers" would be banished back to the hell they came from. So much for that hope...

epic fail? 

Perhaps you have some data on how things would have been without the stimulus...do share please

[Sigma]

You know...I honestly thought that after the epic fail that was the stimulus, that ideas like "high government spending multipliers" would be banished back to the hell they came from. So much for that hope...

epic fail? 

Perhaps you have some data on how things would have been without the stimulus...do share please

do nothing.  that's right. let the markets recover on their own without government interference. (IT WAS GOVERMENT INTERFERENCE AND POLICIES THAT CONTRIBUTED MOST TO THE EPIC CRASH IN THE FIRST PLACE)

You can debate supply side and demand side but it has never been proven that governmental programs can direct the economy for the better. The economy arises from the energies of the millions of citizens working, saving, and investing. Most governmnetal actions get in the way of that process; many have unintended consequences, and all are based on rather complex unproven theories relying on faulty data.

One of the main reasons supply side economics can be beneficial is that it sometimes removes some of the burden of government from the backs of the participants. I think it would be better to argue for clearer objectives: encourage saving, reward investment, and limit the burden of taxation, regulation, reporting, and compliance. And never establish programs that reward bad behavior! Those are simple common sense rules and trump most all "economic theories."

Instead of trying to manipulate the people, and engineer abstract goals, the best economics would be to empower and liberate the people--enhance their opportunity to pursue their own prosperity and happiness.

[Sigma]

Before you get all "BUT HE'S JUST BLAMING BUSH!"

There are plenty of issues with this dubious NYT's chart, but let’s start with the notion that the “Bush tax cuts” cost the static-analysis price listed here.  Absent those tax cuts, we would not have had the recovery from 2003-7, which generated a rather hefty increase in federal revenues.

The actual revenue listed in this chart was what static analysis of the recovery would have brought into federal coffers, which is one of the main problems with static analysis.  It also conflates tax cuts with federal spending, which only makes sense if one starts from the premise that the people owe their government all of their income less any that the government arbitrarily allows them to keep.

The chart then tries to claim that Obama’s spending increases over the next 8 years (projected) will amount to just $1.44 trillion â€" less than the annual deficit these days. It doesn’t mention that the last Republican annual budget passed in Congress (FY2007) only had a $160 billion deficit, which tends to interfere with the bias that the NYTs wants to portray here.

The war costs used by the NYTs appears to contain mainly costs that would have been incurred by the Department of Defense whether or not we went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

It also fails fails to include the costs of both wars under Obama for the first two years.  Similarly, the chart correctly notes the first tranche of TARP under Bush, but skips the second tranche under Obama.  Also, the category of “2008 Stimulus and Other Changes” seems pretty suspect, since the 2008 stimulus was scored at $150 billion, or less than one-fifth of the $773 billion the NYTs claims.

[Dashing Dan]

You know...I honestly thought that after the epic fail that was the stimulus, that ideas like "high government spending multipliers" would be banished back to the hell they came from. So much for that hope...

epic fail? 

Perhaps you have some data on how things would have been without the stimulus...do share please

do nothing.  that's right. let the markets recover on their own without government interference.

In the Thirties the financial industry realized that nobody would invest again unless rules were set by th government that everyone could understand and follow.  In the post-Reagan era most of those government rules were undermined or eliminated, with the 2008 meltdown as a direct outcome. 

Now, instead of asking the government to straighten things out like in the Thirties, the financial industry would rather blame the government for its own greed and corruption.

The fundamental problem today is that we still want more from the government than we are willing to spend to support the government. 

In times of past economic prosperity taxes were very high compared to now.  For nearly all of us to better off in the future than we are today, the government simply needs more revenue.

[Sigma]

I think this was already posted on another thread - inflation-adjusted spending and revenue over the last 50 years.



Note the slope of the increase from 2001-6, when Republicans controlled Congress and the White House.  The rate of spending increases goes up significantly in that period, which is one reason that fiscal conservatives largely abandoned the GOP in the 2006 midterm elections, allowing Democrats to take control again after 12 years. 

However, look at the revenue from 2003 to 2007; the Bush tax cuts very obviously didn’t cut into Treasury revenue, but sparked economic growth that restored it to its highest level ever.

Now look at what happens after Democrats take control of Congress.  For the FY2008 budget, federal spending increased at a rate higher than that of the GOP budgets from FY2002-2007.

For FY2009, Democrats ended up playing keep-away from George Bush and passed continuing resolutions until Barack Obama took office and signed the omibus bill that increased spending at a mindblowing rate.

[FayeforCure]

You know...I honestly thought that after the epic fail that was the stimulus, that ideas like "high government spending multipliers" would be banished back to the hell they came from. So much for that hope...

epic fail? 

Perhaps you have some data on how things would have been without the stimulus...do share please

do nothing.  that's right. let the markets recover on their own without government interference. (IT WAS GOVERMENT INTERFERENCE AND POLICIES THAT CONTRIBUTED MOST TO THE EPIC CRASH IN THE FIRST PLACE)

You can debate supply side and demand side but it has never been proven that governmental programs can direct the economy for the better. The economy arises from the energies of the millions of citizens working, saving, and investing. Most governmnetal actions get in the way of that process; many have unintended consequences, and all are based on rather complex unproven theories relying on faulty data.

One of the main reasons supply side economics can be beneficial is that it sometimes removes some of the burden of government from the backs of the participants. I think it would be better to argue for clearer objectives: encourage saving, reward investment, and limit the burden of taxation, regulation, reporting, and compliance. And never establish programs that reward bad behavior! Those are simple common sense rules and trump most all "economic theories."

Instead of trying to manipulate the people, and engineer abstract goals, the best economics would be to empower and liberate the people--enhance their opportunity to pursue their own prosperity and happiness.

No, it was government deregulation that contributed most to the EPIC crash: the repeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act

I see meaningless right wing jargon all over your post:

- without government interference ( ie government is bad)

- government gets in the way (ie government is bad)

- unintended consequences (ie government is bad)

- unproven theories and faulty data (don't believe the scientists, government is bad)

- burden of government from the backs of participants ( government is bad)

- burden of taxation, regulation, reporting, and compliance (government is bad)

- common sense rules and trump most all "economic theories." (laisez faire, government is bad)

- establish programs that reward bad behavior (laisez faire, social programs are bad, government is bad)

- manipulate the people, and engineer abstract goals (laisez faire, government is bad)

So why pray tell, don't you rather live in a third world country with no "government interference"?

Let me tell you.........in countries with a strong safety net, entrepreneurship flourishes because entire families don't have to be subjected to excessive risk taking:



Using data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United States has the lowest level of self-employment (except Luxembourg).

An important part of our national identity is built around the idea that â€" thanks to low taxes, limited
regulation, unfettered labor markets, and a national spirit of entrepreneurship â€" the United States
offers an environment for small business that is unmatched anywhere else in the world.

The international economic data, however, tell a different story about the state of U.S. small
business. By every measure of small-business employment, the United States has among the world’s
smallest small-business sectors (as a proportion of total national employment).

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/small-business-2009-08.pdf

[Sigma]

So why pray tell, don't you rather live in a third world country with no "government interference"?

why, pray tell, don't you go live in a country that has even more government interference - Greece perhaps?  I hear they are doing a jam up job over there.  you don't like this country, that's obvious - the whole risk/reward and being the beacon of the world is too much for you.  life is easier somewhere elsewhere.  go for it. someone will take care of you. places where their government economists are scratching their heads right now.

[FayeforCure]

So why pray tell, don't you rather live in a third world country with no "government interference"?

why, pray tell, don't you go live in a country that has even more government interference - Greece perhaps?  I hear they are doing a jam up job over there.  you don't like this country, that's obvious - the whole risk/reward and being the beacon of the world is too much for you.  life is easier somewhere elsewhere.  go for it. someone will take care of you. places where their government economists are scratching their heads right now.

You are the one that hates government, I don't hate government and I believe in what the US used to stand for:

Equal opportunity and prosperity for all

That is no longer the case due to the coup of corporatism and the protection of the ultra-wealthy at the expense of THE PEOPLE.

[Sigma]

I don't hate government and I believe in what the US used to stand for

me as well - what the US used to stand for - limited government, controlled by the people - a US that does not spend more than it takes in and the majority is self-reliant and does not depend on hand-outs and redistribution.

A US that perhaps pays attention to what is going on rather than obsessing over American Idol and True Blood.

[avs]

When the wealthy and corporations control most of the money, there isn't enough to go around for everybody else to not need a hand out.

Every man for himself leads third world economies. 

[BridgeTroll]

BT, You DO understand that for a business to grow sometimes it is necessary for it to borrow money and NOT live within its means.

Borrowing money for ongoing expenses is bad for a business or a family or a country.  W and the Republicans didn't seem to understand that.

This country is in a liquidity crunch.  Consumers aren't spending so companies are not.  Common sense says that the government must spend MORE at a time like this to get the economy moving again.  Where are our infrastructure projects?  Where is our WPA?  Where is our CCC.  We need to put people to work again and right now only the Federal government can do it.

Federal and State spending cannot be cut enough to pay back the money that Bush borrowed.  We're going to have to grow our way out of this by stimulating the economy even if it raises the national debt in the short term.  We are stagnating now with an "official" unemployment rate of over 10%.  Unless fresh money is injected we are going to stay stagnant.  If government spending is cut we will go back into recession or depression.

Yes I do DW.  You yourself say that.  ("Borrowing money for ongoing expenses is bad for a business or a family or a country. ")

This is EXACTLY what we are doing.  If I thought for a minute that we were simply borrowing money so we could build bridges, wind turbines and solar panels for the entire country...IE WPA or CCC more people might support it.  But when our resident "economist" suggests we should follow the lead of Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain... I get a bit skeptical.

[buckethead]

Debt...debt...what do so many not understand...under democratic rule we had no debt and jobs were aplenty...post republicans= debt and no jobs.....the debt is at the feet of the republicans...where is the confusion and why are we still listening to any republican when it comes to money...why? They fucked up...someone tell them to shut the hell up and go serve water or something constructive.

HUH?

We talkin Jimmy Carter? Clinton?

Oh... N/M. It's Garden Guy.

This is theater. Look at it like TARP II. Just a bailout for bond holders and banksters.

The greedy rich and the greedy poor will put an end to the middle class. Captain has the right idea. You could also do well to find stocks with good numbers but declining prices due to the current semi-panic in the market. Buy gold and silver at the dips. You should already have the guns/ammo. You're American, right?

[ChriswUfGator]

I don't hate government and I believe in what the US used to stand for

me as well - what the US used to stand for - limited government, controlled by the people - a US that does not spend more than it takes in and the majority is self-reliant and does not depend on hand-outs and redistribution.

A US that perhaps pays attention to what is going on rather than obsessing over American Idol and True Blood.

Huh? The U.S. borrowed to finance the Revolutionary War, and has continued to borrow for pretty much everything since.

At what point in time did this country reflect what you're claiming it stands for? I don't get this revisionist history.