Altor;940900 wrote:Almost any CongressCritter who voted for that and was up for re-election in 2012 (all of the House, 1/3 of the Senate) would have been hung by the same $450B rope.

Why? The CBO estimates that the American Jobs Act would reduce the deficit by $6 billion over 6 years if accompanied by Harry Reid's surtax ($3 billion without it) and has been estimated to increase GDP by as much as 1.5% and lower unemployment by 1%. On the other hand, allowing the payroll tax cut to expire, preventing an extension of unemployment benefits and scheduled reductions in government spending would reduce GDP by 1.7%. Nevermind that over half the dollar value of the American Jobs Act is tax cuts which Republicans often say cannot add to the deficit and historically support. So, it is disingenuous to say it costs $450 billion when the conservatives on this site always say that "tax cuts don't cost money because then that presupposes that the government owns your money" etc.

And the direct spending, most of it is to prevent states from engaging in more contractionary fiscal policies which as we have learned over the last 4 years, contractionary fiscal policies contract gdp. period. end of story.

So again, you say they will be hung by rope if they will vote for something would reduce the deficit over 10 years while also boosting GDP and lowering unemployment in the short term according to non-partisan experts.

tk421;404821 wrote:This is completely bat shit insane. If Obama thinks that the American people are going to go for this idea, he has truly lost all sense of reality. We all can agree that immigration needs reformed, and quickly, but the ideas that the Obama administration are going to try to pass are way outside the realities of most Americans.

How can they possibly look Americans in the eyes, those who have lost their jobs and are struggling, and try to pass a bill like this crap? Amazing.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100629/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_immigration

Maybe it's time you come to the realization that your views do not align with the majority of Americans. For instance, allowing illegal immigrants to attend U.S. colleges was a major tenant of the DREAM Act (which didn't pass of course) and a majority of Americans supported that bill.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145136/slim-majority-americans-vote-dream-act-law.aspx


Now I'm not saying that's definitive by any means, but the point is that it is you who is out of the mainstream and not these immigration bills.

Never mind that he has dramatically increased the deportation of illegal immigrants to the chagrin of the left which you and other conservatives should support and commend him for but we know that would never happen. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/11/barack-obama/obama-says-deportation-criminals-70-percent-under-/

BoatShoes;940937 wrote:And the direct spending, most of it is to prevent states from engaging in more contractionary fiscal policies which as we have learned over the last 4 years, contractionary fiscal policies contract gdp. period. end of story.

If this is the case why are Obama and Biden running around out there telling us it is to keep the air/water clean and to keep us from being murdered and our women raped? Surely if it was as simple as this they would just tell us.

BoatShoes;940937 wrote:So again, you say they will be hung by rope if they will vote for something would reduce the deficit over 10 years while also boosting GDP and lowering unemployment in the short term according to non-partisan experts.

I never said I would hang them. Get off your high horse.

BoatShoes;940937 wrote:Why? The CBO estimates that the American Jobs Act would reduce the deficit by $6 billion over 6 years if accompanied by Harry Reid's surtax ($3 billion without it) and has been estimated to increase GDP by as much as 1.5% and lower unemployment by 1%. On the other hand, allowing the payroll tax cut to expire, preventing an extension of unemployment benefits and scheduled reductions in government spending would reduce GDP by 1.7%. Nevermind that over half the dollar value of the American Jobs Act is tax cuts which Republicans often say cannot add to the deficit and historically support. So, it is disingenuous to say it costs $450 billion when the conservatives on this site always say that "tax cuts don't cost money because then that presupposes that the government owns your money" etc.

And the direct spending, most of it is to prevent states from engaging in more contractionary fiscal policies which as we have learned over the last 4 years, contractionary fiscal policies contract gdp. period. end of story.

The CBO...the same turds that scored ObamaKare as having the magical ability to reduce the deficit. Funny...the CLASS portion, which was the main deficit-reducer is now going down the drain because...well...not enough people are purchasing this pig-in-a-poke program. The CBO are soooooo smart!! :rolleyes:

As far as this "jobs act". I don't know why the Dems are such pussies. If, as you detail above and in other posts throughout the OC, why do they stop at a measly $450,000,000,000? Hell...go for $2,500,000,000,000 I say. If, as you detail above and in other posts, deficit spending is the antidote to what ails us, then more is better! If they want to steal more from unborn taxpayers and finally give the Chinese the keys to America, why stop at such a stupidly low number? I'm sure Glory Days would appreciate another million cops on street corners to catch all the jay-walkers, people going 66 in a 65, and keeping the donut industry in high profitability.

And...for about the 3rd time I think I've asked you, why don't you susplain to all us neanderthal, redneck, Bible-totin, clingers here in fly-over country how confiscating $450,000,000,000 from the wealth-producers and job-creators, give it to unions, Dem-party contributors, the Solyndras of the world, and don't forget the 25% to 50% cut Uncle Sam will get for his cut, will stimulate the economy to sustainable growth in the 4%+ range?

Here...I'll start your first sentence: Inefficiently moving money from the "1%" to the "99%" will create growth and reduce unemployment because..

The CBO estimated that I would reduce the deficit by $11 billion. I have yet to do so. They also said that we could reduce the deficit by selling enough gerbils to local pet shops. This hasn't worked either.

I Wear Pants;942041 wrote:The CBO estimated that I would reduce the deficit by $11 billion. I have yet to do so. They also said that we could reduce the deficit by selling enough gerbils to local pet shops. This hasn't worked either.

+1 This sums up the credibility of the CBO.

"The CBO estimates that the American Jobs Act would reduce the deficit by $6 billion over 6 years if accompanied by Harry Reid's surtax ($3 billion without it) "

Once again I question the OC's math capabilities. Taken at face value that is $1B/year, in other words about twice what we pissed down the drain with Solyndra.

We might as well start pouring water down anthills.
Our budget deficit is over a trillion, the zero on the end means something.

BGFalcons82;941779 wrote:Here...I'll start your first sentence: Inefficiently moving money from the "1%" to the "99%" will create growth and reduce unemployment because..

...because although Keynesian economics has proven time and again that it never works, the CBO and the White House believe that if we try it just one more time, it'll definitely work. We are absolutely convinced that our initial $800 Billion Porkulus Sammich that failed miserably was simply not large enough. Had we spent just a little more, we'd all be living in economic utopia.

Taking money from the private sector wealth producers and redistributing it to our public sector cronies will create tens of thousands of new gubmint jobs with benefits packages most private sector employees can only dream about. Plus it will grow the Federal government into its rightful position as the Great Nanny State and secure additional votes for the Democratic Party.

The CBO estimates that the American Jobs Act would reduce the deficit by $6 billion over 6 years if accompanied by Harry Reid's surtax ($3 billion without it)

Did you just say this as some kind of thing to be proud of? 6 BILLION? Really? A 14.5 TRILLION dollar deficit and you are arguing that this American Jobs Act is going to reduce the deficit 1 BILLION per year? That's fucking pitiful, that's not even worth bothering.

Manhattan Buckeye;942089 wrote:We might as well start pouring water down anthills.
Our budget deficit is over a trillion, the zero on the end means something.

The word trillion gets thrown around so much people never stop and think just how big that number is. If you put it in terms of seconds:

Million = 12 days
Billion = 31 years
Trillion = 31,688 years

That zero on the end definitely means something.

President Obama said today he will start issuing executive orders to forge new economic policies because "we can't wait for an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to do its job."

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/10/obama-calls-congress-increasingly-dysfunctional/1

Excellent. It's about time his majesty nipped this "free country" nonsense in the bud once and for all.

Cleveland Buck;944002 wrote: President Obama said today he will start issuing executive orders to forge new economic policies because "we can't wait for an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to do its job."
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/10/obama-calls-congress-increasingly-dysfunctional/1

Excellent. It's about time his majesty nipped this "free country" nonsense in the bud once and for all.

FDR would be proud.

Congress acting as a check on an out of control president is doing its job exactly as outlined in the Constitution.

jhay78;944066 wrote:Congress acting as a check on an out of control president is doing its job exactly as outlined in the Constitution.

They can stop him quite easily: Shut it down the next time they run out of money. I believe the next date is in November as the last "patch" was quite temporary.

"we can't wait for an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to do its job." "Where they won't act, I will,"

Spoken like a true dictator. Sorry Obama our government does not work that way. Your powers are limited too. You do not make law. The “executive order” in this case is simply the power to put into effect those Acts of Congress which are within Congress's enumerated powers under article 1 section 8. There is only one way the president can defy the will of congress constitutionally. If he believes congress has passed a law that is in violation of the constitution. He can refuse to execute that law(he has sworn an oath to protect it) and take his case to the American people as to why he believes it to be unconstitutional.

Congress can act in three ways. Pass a bill as is, compromise/amend a bill then pass, or refuse to pass a bill. Sometimes congress's answer is no. A Dictator will not take no for an answer. None of these three scenarios represent a failure of congress. Where congress has failed is standing up to the executive branch when it usurps their power becuase they want to put party before country and the constitution. Or in the case of the big government republicans in the house they covet that executive power being preserved for them when their party holds the executive branch.

Manhattan Buckeye;942089 wrote:"The CBO estimates that the American Jobs Act would reduce the deficit by $6 billion over 6 years if accompanied by Harry Reid's surtax ($3 billion without it) "

Once again I question the OC's math capabilities. Taken at face value that is $1B/year, in other words about twice what we pissed down the drain with Solyndra.

We might as well start pouring water down anthills.
Our budget deficit is over a trillion, the zero on the end means something.

While I agree $1 billion a year is certainly not a very large reduction of the deficit if the bill manages to not make things worse I don't see why we wouldn't do it and rebuild our poor infrastructure which will certainly be a benefit to us economically.

Assuming the math is correct, which we all know isn't always the case.

Manhattan Buckeye;942089 wrote:"The CBO estimates that the American Jobs Act would reduce the deficit by $6 billion over 6 years if accompanied by Harry Reid's surtax ($3 billion without it) "

Once again I question the OC's math capabilities. Taken at face value that is $1B/year, in other words about twice what we pissed down the drain with Solyndra.

We might as well start pouring water down anthills.
Our budget deficit is over a trillion, the zero on the end means something.

Obviously it is not much in the big picture as our long term fiscal problems will only be fixed with changes to SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and Defense, etc. but the point is that...

1. It is projected to reduce the deficit (however slight) even without the surtax on millionaires

2. It is projected to increase GDP and lower unemployment

3. It is riddled with measures that the GOP has supported in the recent past

4. Allowing things like unemployment benefits to stop and the payroll tax cut to expire will contract gdp and increase unemployment.

It should be a no brainer to pass.

majorspark;940949 wrote:If this is the case why are Obama and Biden running around out there telling us it is to keep the air/water clean and to keep us from being murdered and our women raped? Surely if it was as simple as this they would just tell us.

Well in his original speech President Obama did mention how it would lower unemployment and boost GDP in the short term. Surely you would also agree that politics often involves emotional appeals when other reasoning fails. For instance I have cited expert opinions on the matter on this forum and it does little to sway beliefs.

Obviously Biden does not have a way with words. But, fwiw, sociologists largely agree that the propensity for crime increases in areas affected by persistently high unemployment and the problem is exacerbated when there is fewer law enforcement personnel. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/fs000166.pdf

I'm sure you've noticed the rioting in the streets taking place in Greece as unemployment soars into the upper teens and crippling budget cutting continues. Of course, that's making things worse because....contractionary fiscal policies contract gdp making recessions become depressions and deficits worse! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/21/greek-austerity-budget-cuts_n_1025743.html

believer;942095 wrote:...because although Keynesian economics has proven time and again that it never works

You know, and I don't mean to be rude, but you often comment about your lack of economic literacy. That is no big deal. But, then you go on to make this statement which is not supported by the last 70 years of economic thought nor real world experiments run by the IMF in east asia and the late nineties and then Argentina. I just find it strange.

BoatShoes;944514 wrote:You know, and I don't mean to be rude, but you often comment about your lack of economic literacy. That is no big deal. But, then you go on to make this statement which is not supported by the last 70 years of economic thought nor real world experiments run by the IMF in east asia and the late nineties and then Argentina. I just find it strange.

Argentina? uh huh

I'm not an economic expert but I'm pretty good at general common sense.

This just about sums it for me:

[video=youtube;VoxDyC7y7PM][/video]

BGFalcons82;941779 wrote:
Here...I'll start your first sentence: Inefficiently moving money from the "1%" to the "99%" will create growth and reduce unemployment because..

Well your sarcasm aside, let's suppose you're unemployed. I believe you're in housing or a contractor of some kind? businesses and banks are sitting on cash and consumers are saddled with debt. In a recent wall street journal survey 65% of economists said that lack of demand for goods and services and NOT government policy is the reason for a lack of hiring http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303661904576452181063763332.html

Thus, a person with $1million on hand, already has the cash to spend for most of the goods and services he desires, and if he puts it in a business or a bank, the money isn't invested or lent or spent on goods and services because there are so many others unemployed or strapped with debt.

So, the government can borrow at incredibly low rates and hire you, a person who's skills and talent are being wasted right now to say, build a great wall of america to prevent illegals from getting in. This will allow you to have a paycheck which you can in turn spend on other goods and services. Obama's proposal to raise taxes on millionaires to account for a loss in revenue coming from a payroll tax cut, can have a similar affect because it leaves more disposable income in the hands of middle and lower income workers while not taking money out of the economy that will likely be spent on goods an services thereby having a lesser impact on gdp.

The reason Obama can't ask for an appropriately large stimulus is because Republicans are in a dark age of macroeconomics repeating the same moralizations and falsities that Joseph Schumpeter and Andrew Mellon were in the 1930's. Obama is offering something that he mistakenly believes the GOP will agree to.

Thus far, your predictions about runaways inflation have been devastatingly wrong. We have tripled the monetary base and yet the modest headline inflation we experienced due to commodities has receded. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-25/inflation-peaking-in-u-s-with-prices-tumbling-in-bear-market-commodities.html

Perhaps it might be time to rethink things? You argue that it's an "inefficient transfer" and sure there is always waste but you say that as if the private sector is not wasting ample amount of skilled labor as we speak. Government investments in technology, education and infrastructure almost always outweigh the cost of capital and that is likely certainly true now with the very low rates at which we're able to borrow.

believer;944520 wrote:Argentina? uh huh

I'm not an economic expert but I'm pretty good at general common sense.

This just about sums it for me:

[video=youtube;VoxDyC7y7PM][/video]

LOL...wow in the first 2 minutes of the video the narrator reveals that he doesn't understand how government borrowing and spending works under a fiat currency...But hey it's Cato and they're obsessed with Gold and ending the FED too so what can you expect eh?

But oh well as Einstein said about common sense ""Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

And that's just it. There are a lot of things about economics that aren't "common sense" on its face. Take comparative advantage for instance. It may not sound right on it's face that if a country A has an absolute advantage in producing everything over country B that it would make sense to trade with country B because country B will have a comparative advantage in producing something. It is not intuitive that even if one country is more efficient in the production of all goods than the other, both countries will still gain by trading with each other, as long as they have different relative efficiencies.

Keynesian economics takes existing wealth and simply redistributes it but it never creates new wealth.

Shifting wealth from one section of the economy to another may temporarily mask the symptoms of a stagnant economy, but it never cures the disease.

believer;944527 wrote:Keynesian economics takes existing wealth and simply redistributes it but it never creates new wealth.

Shifting wealth from one section of the economy to another may temporarily mask the symptoms of a stagnant economy, but it never cures the disease.

This is not true. Again, I've demonstrated why this is a false assertion in a previous post. First of all, when you have a fiat currency you don't have to "take" money out of the economy and two, even if you did, if you took it out and put it to a better and more productive use that would dramatically increase GDP in the short, medium and long term like the Erie Canal did and the interstate highway system did, the government creates new and better wealth than would have been created by the private sector.

believer;944527 wrote:Keynesian economics takes existing wealth and simply redistributes it but it never creates new wealth.

Shifting wealth from one section of the economy to another may temporarily mask the symptoms of a stagnant economy, but it never cures the disease.

The highway system, rural electrification, etc disagree.