According to Keynesianists, gubmint programs work best when they run in the red because it's good for the economy.sleeper;1009148 wrote:I'd personally like to know if there are any federal programs that operate in the black.
You don't leave a surplus in any of those programs or you face a budget reduction (read: reduced increase in govt terms) in the next fiscal year.sleeper;1009148 wrote:I'd personally like to know if there are any federal programs that operate in the black. I fear I may already know the answer to this question.
That's really a bastardization of the theory. Keynesian economics doesn't really call for "stimulus" spending, but rather consistent govt spending maintained, which results in deficit spending in lean times and then surpluses in good times. We never run the surpluses, though, and it's probably why it's failing so miserably this time around because people have finally wisened up to the reality that future tax increases as a result of the deficit spending are inevitable. Why it has arguably worked in the past is because people did not behave rationally as predicted - i.e. offsetting the deficit spending by further reducing their own in anticipation of future tax increases.believer;1009370 wrote:According to Keynesianists, gubmint programs work best when they run in the red because it's good for the economy.
Understood. I was hoping there was an obvious hint of sarcasm in my original post.gut;1010271 wrote:That's really a bastardization of the theory. Keynesian economics doesn't really call for "stimulus" spending, but rather consistent govt spending maintained, which results in deficit spending in lean times and then surpluses in good times.
I'm not sure that tax cuts are "liberal" views, but this would be my preferred option. I still believe that supply-side economics is the commonsensical approach. Tax relief is more likely to assist in growing the economy than direct stimulus IMHO. A sustained, growing economy ultimately returns more revenues to the tax coffers.gut;1010271 wrote:A more liberal view would say tax cuts or stimulus spending expands economic growth (the multiplier effect) creating value into future years, but again a fundamental necessary component of the theory is that at some point those resulting gains have to go to footing the bill extended in prior years. Year after year after year of deficit spending is not something you can find justification for in any economic theory.
No matter how well we’re steering the ship,...
That's right. If the economy continues to suck maybe enough more people will quit looking for work to give the appearance Obama got something done with a dropping unemployment rate.I Wear Pants;1011170 wrote:Employment under Bush's first term when up a higher percentage than it has under Obama's first term and conservatives were okay with the "well it would have been worse if not for the tax cuts" argument back then what is now so different with the "it would have been worse without the stimulus" argument?
Prove your statement: "it would have been worse without the stimulus".I Wear Pants;1011170 wrote:Employment under Bush's first term when up a higher percentage than it has under Obama's first term and conservatives were okay with the "well it would have been worse if not for the tax cuts" argument back then what is now so different with the "it would have been worse without the stimulus" argument?
BGFalcons82;1011307 wrote:Prove your statement: "it would have been worse without the stimulus".
C'mon......the unemployment rate at the time Bush ran for re-election was 5.5%. Granted it was at 6.3% in 2003 but dropped to 5.5% in a year.I Wear Pants;1011170 wrote:Employment under Bush's first term when up a higher percentage than it has under Obama's first term and conservatives were okay with the "well it would have been worse if not for the tax cuts" argument back then what is now so different with the "it would have been worse without the stimulus" argument?
BGFalcons82;1011411 wrote:Put a thousand graphs up, BoatShoes. Put a million up. Fact is, you can't prove squat. What would happen if...
Buckner fielded the ball?
Kennedy doesn't turn down Dealey Plaza?
King doesn't stay in Memphis?
GM was allowed to go under further bankruptcy protection, re-organize, are re-emerge as a non-union car maker?
I can write more if you like, but you get the point. You can't prove a hypothetical situation. Truth is, we'll never know how much it hurt, harmed, saved, or torched our future. Why not try and answer my question before attempting to answer an impossible question? What is Barry's economic plan for the next 4 years? Is it...
Submitting more budgets like he did the first quarter? You remember, the one that the Senate rejected 97-0.
Submitting more budgets like he did the second quarter? You remember, the one he had to re-submit after Rep Ryan made him look like a mental midget.
The Pass this Bill...Pass this Bill...Pass this Bill plan? You remember, the one that would slay the evil rich and create millions of jobs overnight.
Stimulus 4? Why stop at a measley $800,000,000,000 and go for a real "crowd-pleaser"?
Cap and Trade? You remember, the legislation he promised in 2008 that would necessarily cripple energy prices.
What's it going to be? Why won't somebody with a microphone and a camera aks him? Why won't the press rake his economic skull through the hot bed of coals like they've done to Ryan, Cain, Gingrich, Paul, and on and on?
I suppose you can state with irrefutable fact what a "saved job" is too, right? You know...where the government statisticians can get inside 1,000,000 CEO's minds and determine whom got to keep their job and whom was laid off due exclusively and only because of Obama's divine stimulus plan. You know, if it worked as well as your graphs show, then he should be trumpeting this from the highest mountaintop to the lowest form of communication (A/K/A MSNBC). Where is the love of the plan from those that perpetuated it on all of us?BoatShoes;1011491 wrote:Your standard of proof is insurmountable. If Christ himself told you that the stimulus worked you would not believe. Your suggestion that we cannot know with very reasonable certainty things about the world, including economic policy, is nothing short of ridiculous.
The simple fact is you don't care if it worked. You would be against it anyways.
I never said I thought either was a good argument. Just wondering why no one said "prove your statement" when it was said that the tax cuts are what stopped even more job losses.BGFalcons82;1011307 wrote:Prove your statement: "it would have been worse without the stimulus".
If you can't, then what is Obama's economic strategy for the next 4 years, hmmm? More of the same? What would that be....$1,500,000,000,000 deficit spending for 4 more years so he can get the national debt over $20,000,000,000,000.00??? How's that workin out for everyone? Oh wait...I forgot...it's all the fault of the weather and earthquakes and Greece and Italy and BP and everything else NOT part of the Obama Administration's policies.
If you listen to the idiot-boy, Bush is STILL President and he just needs more time to fix 8 years of Bushdom.
believer;1011417 wrote:C'mon......the unemployment rate at the time Bush ran for re-election was 5.5%. Granted it was at 6.3% in 2003 but dropped to 5.5% in a year.
The Bammer has been riding back and forth between 9 and 10% for 3 years and counting. I have a hunch he'd give up his leftist testicle to be at 5.5% this coming fall. :rolleyes:
More important questions for me would be "why are we still in Iraq?", "why are we still in Afghanistan?", "why did it take you so long to man up and state your position about protecting net neutrality?", "verify that you will veto SOPA please", etc.BGFalcons82;1011411 wrote:Put a thousand graphs up, BoatShoes. Put a million up. Fact is, you can't prove squat. What would happen if...
Buckner fielded the ball?
Kennedy doesn't turn down Dealey Plaza?
King doesn't stay in Memphis?
GM was allowed to go under further bankruptcy protection, re-organize, are re-emerge as a non-union car maker?
I can write more if you like, but you get the point. You can't prove a hypothetical situation. Truth is, we'll never know how much it hurt, harmed, saved, or torched our future. Why not try and answer my question before attempting to answer an impossible question? What is Barry's economic plan for the next 4 years? Is it...
Submitting more budgets like he did the first quarter? You remember, the one that the Senate rejected 97-0.
Submitting more budgets like he did the second quarter? You remember, the one he had to re-submit after Rep Ryan made him look like a mental midget.
The Pass this Bill...Pass this Bill...Pass this Bill plan? You remember, the one that would slay the evil rich and create millions of jobs overnight.
Stimulus 4? Why stop at a measley $800,000,000,000 and go for a real "crowd-pleaser"?
Cap and Trade? You remember, the legislation he promised in 2008 that would necessarily cripple energy prices.
What's it going to be? Why won't somebody with a microphone and a camera aks him? Why won't the press rake his economic skull through the hot bed of coals like they've done to Ryan, Cain, Gingrich, Paul, and on and on?
My original post said that in the past, the incumbent POTUS would worry about his re-election hopes if unemployment was above 5%. You, in turn, mention Bush's high unemployment rate. I remind you of Bush's unemployment rate at the time of his re-election bid (5.5%) and you show me a graph?I Wear Pants;1011690 wrote:
If you are strictly talking unemployment rate then under Bush's first term it started at 4.3% and rose to a maximum of 6.3%.I Wear Pants;1011170 wrote:Employment under Bush's first term when up a higher percentage than it has under Obama's first term and conservatives were okay with the "well it would have been worse if not for the tax cuts" argument back then what is now so different with the "it would have been worse without the stimulus" argument?
How are you going to compare Obama's numbers from when "he went for re-election" when the general campaign hasn't started yet? You predicting numbers into the future?I Wear Pants;1012605 wrote:No, I didn't mean to play that game. I meant that if you look at the rate when they took office and the rate when the reelection was it was a bigger increase. (IE if Bush took office at 1% and then at reelection it was 3%, vs Obama taking office at 4% and reelection campaign at 5%. Clearly fabricated numbers but it's to illustrate the point).
I wasn't playing games with the percentage. I meant it went up more.
It's sort of obvious that's what I mean and that's my point. It's about the same and yet people were cool with the "it would have been worse if not for..." argument in 2004 why is it now not an acceptable argument?jmog;1012903 wrote:How are you going to compare Obama's numbers from when "he went for re-election" when the general campaign hasn't started yet? You predicting numbers into the future?
Even if you compare from when they took office to right now, December of 3 years in...they both went up about 1-1.2%.
Your graphs prove the opposite of your intentions. If any sort of "stimulus" has any effect at all, it doesn't take effect immediately as you would want your graphs to have us believe.BoatShoes;1011491 wrote:Your standard of proof is insurmountable. If Christ himself told you that the stimulus worked you would not believe. Your suggestion that we cannot know with very reasonable certainty things about the world, including economic policy, is nothing short of ridiculous.
The simple fact is you don't care if it worked. You would be against it anyways.
Jedi mind trick...aimed at the segment of you people too dumb to actually read the numbers on the graph.I Wear Pants;1012760 wrote:
Excellent job Fox.
