Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Investors Business Daily)   Memo to Obama: Actually, it's government that's doing fine   (news.investors.com ) divider line 166
    More: Interesting, President Obama, Bureau of Economic Analysis, austerities, state governments, local governments  
•       •       •

2499 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Jun 2012 at 12:36 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



166 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-06-12 10:09:38 AM  
img855.imageshack.us
 
2012-06-12 10:13:55 AM  
I can't think of any publication more willing to take private industry to task for dishonesty than Investors Business Daily.
 
2012-06-12 10:19:36 AM  
dailydish.typepad.com

Hm.
 
2012-06-12 10:23:43 AM  
And Stephen Hawking would be dead by now if he was a citizen of the UK.
 
2012-06-12 11:31:46 AM  
This wasn't authored by Andrew Malcolm? They're really mixing it up over at Investor's.
 
2012-06-12 11:35:04 AM  
If you still have your job as a government employee, you're doing fine, maybe.
 
2012-06-12 12:37:32 PM  
I'm getting tired of seeing poor Math so brutally sodomized over and over.
 
2012-06-12 12:38:44 PM  
What percentage of their readers directly benefited from the bailout again?
 
2012-06-12 12:38:45 PM  
That must be who there is so little money being privately donated to both campaigns.


OH WAIT....
 
2012-06-12 12:39:14 PM  
Excuse me if I don't believe Investors.com.
 
2012-06-12 12:44:10 PM  
How exactly can pundits rail against the assertion "private industry is doing fine" as a gaffe when private industry is making record profits? Shouldn't the entire conversation come to a screeching halt with that fact alone? Sure, unemployment is a problem for the economy, but it's not a problem for private industry. Because again, and I cannot stress this enough: they are making record profits.
 
2012-06-12 12:45:48 PM  

EyeballKid: That must be who why there is so little money being privately donated to both campaigns.


OH WAIT....


ftfm
goddamitsomuch
 
2012-06-12 12:45:51 PM  
IBD. For when you need your racism and insanity masked as business reports. Where you go when you pledge not to make any more than $250k a year if you have to pay an extra 3 % of the excess in taxes.
 
2012-06-12 12:47:44 PM  

Lost Thought 00: What percentage of their readers directly benefited from the bailout again?


0%. IBD is for muppets.
 
2012-06-12 12:48:33 PM  
Well, better give more tax-cuts to corporations so they can hire more minimum-wage workers and take all their assets to tax havens outside of the United States. Yeah! Job creators!

Make sure the banking systems that make it all happen can't fail.

Eliminating regulations and regulation agencies will help keep government off the backs of all the poor, burdened, billionaires so the wealth they earned through the sweat of their employees brows can finally start to trickle down and then we'll all be rich!
 
2012-06-12 12:49:04 PM  
Damnation, but the modmin trolls are out in force today
 
2012-06-12 12:53:22 PM  
Obama's complaint that it's the government that's hurting these days.

Obama sounds like a Community Activist wanting a bigger budget.
 
2012-06-12 12:54:21 PM  
Memo to IBD: Removing the Stephen Hawking thing from your site did not remove it from reality.
 
2012-06-12 01:00:19 PM  
They know govermnet is doing fine because they are paying a lot of money to various governnent campaigns and lobbyists.
 
2012-06-12 01:02:38 PM  

smitty04: Obama's complaint that it's the government that's hurting these days.

Obama sounds like a Community Activist wanting a bigger budget.


When in reality, under Obama, government spending has grown the least amount in 50 years.
 
2012-06-12 01:03:49 PM  

Mentat: [img855.imageshack.us image 555x394]


I'll see you your x-axis-definition-less graph and raise you one with actual, you know, data points:

www.nationalreview.com
 
2012-06-12 01:03:53 PM  

thurstonxhowell: Memo to IBD: Removing the Stephen Hawking thing from your site did not remove it from reality.


You don't quite understand how the conservative brain works.
 
2012-06-12 01:09:14 PM  

Garet Garrett: Mentat: [img855.imageshack.us image 555x394]

I'll see you your x-axis-definition-less graph and raise you one with actual, you know, data points:

[www.nationalreview.com image 630x378]


Which... shows exactly the same thing.
 
2012-06-12 01:09:39 PM  
FTFA:

State spending: Despite the deep recession and the slow recovery, annual state spending overall hasn't dropped once. In fact, by fiscal 2011, total outlays at the state level were 14% higher than they were in 2008, according to the National Association of State Budget Officers. (See nearby chart.)

State general-fund spending: Meanwhile, states' spending from their general funds - which is more than a third of total state spending - climbed in 2011 and 2012, and is expected to rise again in 2013. While still not back to 2008 levels, general-fund spending in 2012 will be slightly higher than 2007, NASBO reports.


So, state spending has increased every year, but general fund spending has declined? What does it mean? Oh, it means that the state is having to shell out more and more for benefits to its constituents, and is having to slash its own costs in order to divert more money to helping out people in trouble. If more money is being spent, but you have to cut back on the general fund spending, that means that the money being spent isn't part of the general fund. And the money that isn't part of the general fund is usually stuff like Medicaid, unemployment insurance, and other welfare programs.

And the study they link to back up their points refutes the point they're trying to make. From the NASBO link: "While the overall fiscal situation of states has improved from the depths of the recent recession, [our 2011 report] underscores the constrained fiscal situation facing states [for FY2012]." So no, states aren't doing fine - they're doing better, and they're not all the way back yet.
 
2012-06-12 01:12:25 PM  
Really, when all of objective reality shows that the state and local governments are shrinking and that federal government growth has slowed to a point not seen in 40 years, with programs being cut and this half assed psuedo-austerity imposed by a do nothing Congress hurting our recovery?

Really, we're going to say "The government is doing fine"?

www.idealaunch.com
 
2012-06-12 01:20:49 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Garet Garrett: Mentat: [img855.imageshack.us image 555x394]

I'll see you your x-axis-definition-less graph and raise you one with actual, you know, data points:

[www.nationalreview.com image 630x378]

Which... shows exactly the same thing.


Well, no, only if you're myopic. First, it gives you a sense of time. And second, it gives you a sense that the real problems in our economic "recovery" lie in the private sector which is still, thank god, a little bigger than the public sector. Sure there has been a slight dropoff in government employment (though interestingly, this is 100% at the state and local level - the feds are still side-by-each at the public trough) (and, while we're doing parentheticals, I'd note that it's simply a matter of faith that these reductions are a bad thing), but it's a picnic compared to what the private sector has endured. And, given its relative size, that's where our problems lie.
 
2012-06-12 01:24:42 PM  

sabreWulf07: How exactly can pundits rail against the assertion "private industry is doing fine" as a gaffe when private industry is making record profits? Shouldn't the entire conversation come to a screeching halt with that fact alone? Sure, unemployment is a problem for the economy, but it's not a problem for private industry. Because again, and I cannot stress this enough: they are making record profits.


Exactly, but to acknowledge that leads to the next question:if companies are making record profits, and still not hiring, then how the hell are we supposed to affect an employment recovery without some more government intervention? Because if the companies making record profits are not going to hire, then who the hell will?
 
2012-06-12 01:25:09 PM  

Garet Garrett: I'd note that it's simply a matter of faith that these reductions are a bad thing)


Europe would like a word with you on how austerity is working. Specifically Spain and Ireland.
 
2012-06-12 01:25:13 PM  

X-boxershorts: Damnation, but the modmin trolls are out in force today


Surprised one of them didn't delete your comment as "personal attacks/namecalling."

TROLL.COM
 
2012-06-12 01:26:07 PM  
Please explain to me why profits are a bad thing? Profits are what companies use to hire more workers, expand their business, purchase more equipment...all of which is good for the economy. You WANT businesses to make profits. Oh, yeah, and the more profits a company makes, the higher the tax base!

I am not quite sure why the left thinks it is a good idea to demonize companies that actually do good things for the average American worker. They provide jobs, products and services people want. Why is government employment put up on a pedestal and praised by the left exactly?
 
2012-06-12 01:28:08 PM  

Garet Garrett: A Dark Evil Omen: Garet Garrett: Mentat: [img855.imageshack.us image 555x394]

I'll see you your x-axis-definition-less graph and raise you one with actual, you know, data points:

[www.nationalreview.com image 630x378]

Which... shows exactly the same thing.

Well, no, only if you're myopic. First, it gives you a sense of time. And second, it gives you a sense that the real problems in our economic "recovery" lie in the private sector which is still, thank god, a little bigger than the public sector. Sure there has been a slight dropoff in government employment (though interestingly, this is 100% at the state and local level - the feds are still side-by-each at the public trough) (and, while we're doing parentheticals, I'd note that it's simply a matter of faith that these reductions are a bad thing), but it's a picnic compared to what the private sector has endured. And, given its relative size, that's where our problems lie.


The private sector is struggling so much that CEO pay only went up 36% last year.
 
2012-06-12 01:28:18 PM  

k1j2b3: Please explain to me why profits are a bad thing? Profits are what companies use to hire more workers, expand their business, purchase more equipment...all of which is good for the economy. You WANT businesses to make profits. Oh, yeah, and the more profits a company makes, the higher the tax base!

I am not quite sure why the left thinks it is a good idea to demonize companies that actually do good things for the average American worker. They provide jobs, products and services people want. Why is government employment put up on a pedestal and praised by the left exactly?


Account created: 2012-06-05 15:01:33
 
2012-06-12 01:28:50 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Europe would like a word with you on how austerity is working. Specifically Spain and Ireland.


But, Estonia! Also, Krugman's a weenie. I learned it on Fark
 
2012-06-12 01:29:43 PM  

k1j2b3: Please explain to me why profits are a bad thing? Profits are what companies use to hire more workers, expand their business, purchase more equipment...all of which is good for the economy. You WANT businesses to make profits. Oh, yeah, and the more profits a company makes, the higher the tax base!

I am not quite sure why the left thinks it is a good idea to demonize companies that actually do good things for the average American worker. They provide jobs, products and services people want. Why is government employment put up on a pedestal and praised by the left exactly?


Profits only do what you assert when they're re-invested in the business.

Right now, that isn't happening. And it is one of the problems we face.
 
2012-06-12 01:29:55 PM  
Kind of reminds me of an old TV show... Lost in Space

www.conservativedailynews.com

/Danger Will Robinson, Danger!
//or as Obama likes tosay (about the economy) Crush, Kill, Destroy!
 
2012-06-12 01:30:01 PM  

phyrkrakr: And the study they link to back up their points refutes the point they're trying to make. From the NASBO link: "While the overall fiscal situation of states has improved from the depths of the recent recession, [our 2011 report] underscores the constrained fiscal situation facing states [for FY2012]." So no, states aren't doing fine - they're doing better, and they're not all the way back yet.


They also (surprisingly) admit that local government employment is down (though they handwave and minimize it).

Unsurprisingly to anyone with any idea of "how shiat works", firing LaKisha at the DMV doesn't actually take care of most of the spending obligations that your city/county/state have.
 
2012-06-12 01:31:03 PM  

EyeballKid: k1j2b3: Please explain to me why profits are a bad thing? Profits are what companies use to hire more workers, expand their business, purchase more equipment...all of which is good for the economy. You WANT businesses to make profits. Oh, yeah, and the more profits a company makes, the higher the tax base!

I am not quite sure why the left thinks it is a good idea to demonize companies that actually do good things for the average American worker. They provide jobs, products and services people want. Why is government employment put up on a pedestal and praised by the left exactly?

Account created: 2012-06-05 15:01:33


Goddammit so much.....
 
2012-06-12 01:31:04 PM  

k1j2b3: Please explain to me why profits are a bad thing? Profits are what companies use to hire more workers, expand their business, purchase more equipment...all of which is good for the economy. You WANT businesses to make profits. Oh, yeah, and the more profits a company makes, the higher the tax base!

I am not quite sure why the left thinks it is a good idea to demonize companies that actually do good things for the average American worker. They provide jobs, products and services people want. Why is government employment put up on a pedestal and praised by the left exactly?


You created a brand new account to hurl straw? Kill yourself.
 
2012-06-12 01:31:28 PM  

k1j2b3: Please explain to me why profits are a bad thing? Profits are what companies use to hire more workers, expand their business, purchase more equipment...all of which is good for the economy. You WANT businesses to make profits. Oh, yeah, and the more profits a company makes, the higher the tax base!

I am not quite sure why the left thinks it is a good idea to demonize companies that actually do good things for the average American worker. They provide jobs, products and services people want. Why is government employment put up on a pedestal and praised by the left exactly?


Please explain to me why worker wage and benefits are a bad thing? worker wage and benefits are what peoples use to purchase more of everything...which is good for the economy. You WANT workers to make higher wages and benfits. Oh, yeah, and the more wages a person makes, the higher the tax base!

I am not quite sure why the right thinks it is a good idea to demonize unions that actually do good things for the average American worker. They negotiate for wages and benefits people want. Why is corporate employment put up on a pedestal and praised by the right exactly?
 
2012-06-12 01:32:56 PM  
Yep - just cutting federal postal workers, teachers, police, public works laborers - DOING GREAT MAN.

Meawhile, record corporate profits.

//it's republican opposite day?
 
2012-06-12 01:35:29 PM  

Epoch_Zero: Yep - just cutting federal postal workers, teachers, police, public works laborers - DOING GREAT MAN.

Meawhile, record corporate profits.

//it's republican opposite day?


Isn't republican opposite day when they enact legislation to reduce government intrusion in a citizen's daily life and fiscal restraint?
 
MFL
2012-06-12 01:36:12 PM  
If the private sector was doing well we wouldn't be having this conversation.
 
2012-06-12 01:37:00 PM  

ChimpMitten: Epoch_Zero: Yep - just cutting federal postal workers, teachers, police, public works laborers - DOING GREAT MAN.

Meawhile, record corporate profits.

//it's republican opposite day?

Isn't republican opposite day when they enact legislation to reduce government intrusion in a citizen's daily life and fiscal restraint?


Touche.
 
2012-06-12 01:38:03 PM  

k1j2b3: Profits are what companies use to hire more workers,


Then why aren't they doing that, since many companies are sitting on record profits?
 
2012-06-12 01:38:59 PM  

MFL: If the private sector was doing well we wouldn't be having this conversation.


And I'm sure you believe it's the government's fault that the private sector isn't doing well.
 
2012-06-12 01:42:18 PM  
Please explain to me why worker wage and benefits are a bad thing?

Please show me where businesses making profits are denying their workers wages and benefits? If you are working for a large corporation they actually pay you to work and give you benefits. So are you saying that these companies need to pay workers more b/c they have profits? Hire more workers that they don't need?

Worker wage and benefits are what peoples use to purchase more of everything ...which is good for the economy. You WANT workers to make higher wages and benfits. Oh, yeah, and the more wages a person makes, the higher the tax base!

So, are you saying these workers are not getting paid enough? What proof do you have the employees who are part of these profitable businesses are making low wages and have crappy benefits?

I am not quite sure why the right thinks it is a good idea to demonize unions that actually do good things for the average American worker. They negotiate for wages and benefits people want. Why is corporate employment put up on a pedestal and praised by the right exactly?

Unions do good things for union bosses. Unions bankrupt companies and make businesses less competitive, ultimately losing union workers who lose their jobs. Take a look at Hostess. They are going through bankruptcy. And you know why? They have a union that represents most of their workers, and the union refuses to cut a darn thing to save the business. They would rather see the company go bankrupt than become solvent. How is that benefitting the union worker???

And another thing. Do some research on GM. Obama saved the pensions of Union employees over retired salaried workers. Is that fair? How does this show that unions are for the 'little guy' when they just stole 70% of the pension and retirement benefits from retired salaried workers to save their pensions? Do you like thinking about elderly retired secretaries who are now tossed to the curb by the unions who saved their own asses, but not their fellow workers? That is cold.
 
2012-06-12 01:42:29 PM  

k1j2b3: Please explain to me why profits are a bad thing? Profits are what companies use to hire more workers, expand their business, purchase more equipment...all of which is good for the economy. You WANT businesses to make profits. Oh, yeah, and the more profits a company makes, the higher the tax base!

I am not quite sure why the left thinks it is a good idea to demonize companies that actually do good things for the average American worker. They provide jobs, products and services people want. Why is government employment put up on a pedestal and praised by the left exactly?


I'll sum it up for you. The Government will fight for the Almighty FAIRNESS in all aspects of life. FAIRNESS = JUSTICE to Leftists. It would be even BETTER to a Leftist if only the Government could hold and use weapons to enforce their ideals of FAIRNESS and JUSTICE.


Government is the religion that Leftists worship. If Government is good, then more Government is better.

That's how the mental disease that is Leftism operates.

You should read The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture by David Mamet. He was a leftist for all of his life until 2008.
 
2012-06-12 01:44:23 PM  

k1j2b3: Please explain to me why profits are a bad thing? Profits are what companies use to hire more workers, expand their business, purchase more equipment...all of which is good for the economy. You WANT businesses to make profits. Oh, yeah, and the more profits a company makes, the higher the tax base!

I am not quite sure why the left thinks it is a good idea to demonize companies that actually do good things for the average American worker. They provide jobs, products and services people want. Why is government employment put up on a pedestal and praised by the left exactly?


Profits are pretty high right now. Where are those jobs?
 
2012-06-12 01:49:33 PM  

Crude: . FAIRNESS = JUSTICE to Leftists.


DRINK!

Crude: be even BETTER to a Leftist


DRINK!

Crude: the religion that Leftists


DRINK!

Crude: was a leftist


DRINK!

Crude: that is Leftism


ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED: HANNITY VOCABULARY
 
2012-06-12 01:49:58 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: k1j2b3: Profits are what companies use to hire more workers,

Then why aren't they doing that, since many companies are sitting on record profits?


I'm not hiring, simply out of spite. Too many applicant think that I owe them a job.
My profit margins have increased in addition to my profits, too.
I'll stop there, because your comments indicate that you nothing about profit margins.
 
2012-06-12 01:52:01 PM  

Garet Garrett: Mentat: [img855.imageshack.us image 555x394]

I'll see you your x-axis-definition-less graph and raise you one with actual, you know, data points:

[www.nationalreview.com image 630x378]


I don't know what your point is. According to your graph, private industry is hiring more since 2010, and since 2010, government employment is trending downwards.

Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 all raised government employment numbers during their recessions.

But that was back when we didn't have a black President, so it was okay at the time.
 
2012-06-12 01:52:06 PM  

Crude: k1j2b3: Please explain to me why profits are a bad thing? Profits are what companies use to hire more workers, expand their business, purchase more equipment...all of which is good for the economy. You WANT businesses to make profits. Oh, yeah, and the more profits a company makes, the higher the tax base!

I am not quite sure why the left thinks it is a good idea to demonize companies that actually do good things for the average American worker. They provide jobs, products and services people want. Why is government employment put up on a pedestal and praised by the left exactly?

I'll sum it up for you. The Government will fight for the Almighty FAIRNESS in all aspects of life. FAIRNESS = JUSTICE to Leftists. It would be even BETTER to a Leftist if only the Government could hold and use weapons to enforce their ideals of FAIRNESS and JUSTICE.


Government is the religion that Leftists worship. If Government is good, then more Government is better.

That's how the mental disease that is Leftism operates.

You should read The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture by David Mamet. He was a leftist for all of his life until 2008.


I wonder what happened in 2008?

Oh yeah, a lot of people realized you could make a shiat load of money off of rubes terrified of a Democrat with a funny sounding name in office.
 
2012-06-12 01:53:06 PM  

sabreWulf07: How exactly can pundits rail against the assertion "private industry is doing fine" as a gaffe when private industry is making record profits? Shouldn't the entire conversation come to a screeching halt with that fact alone? Sure, unemployment is a problem for the economy, but it's not a problem for private industry. Because again, and I cannot stress this enough: they are making record profits.


THIS. The private sector is doing fine, the economy as a whole isn't.
 
2012-06-12 01:57:57 PM  

mycatisposter: I'm not hiring, simply out of spite. Too many applicant think that I owe them a job.
My profit margins have increased in addition to my profits, too.
I'll stop there, because your comments indicate that you nothing about profit margins.



No you aren't, since literally nothing works that way.
 
2012-06-12 01:58:13 PM  

dlp211: sabreWulf07: How exactly can pundits rail against the assertion "private industry is doing fine" as a gaffe when private industry is making record profits? Shouldn't the entire conversation come to a screeching halt with that fact alone? Sure, unemployment is a problem for the economy, but it's not a problem for private industry. Because again, and I cannot stress this enough: they are making record profits.

THIS. The private sector is doing fine, the economy as a whole isn't.


"The economy" is the wrong metric. "The economy" is doing fine; people aren't. The rightists scored a big victory when they got people to start talking about the economy instead of talking about their paycheque.
 
2012-06-12 01:59:32 PM  
Some hard data on Federal, State, and Local spending, courtesy of the US Treasury and the Bureau of Economic Analysis. You can access the compiled data here.

Federal spending over the last decade:

www.usgovernmentspending.com

State spending over the last decade:

www.usgovernmentspending.com

Local spending over the last decade:

www.usgovernmentspending.com

For those that would prefer to see these combined, here are is the total of Federal, State, and Local spending:

www.usgovernmentspending.com

So yeah, we can't say that low government spending is responsible for the weak economy. Although State and local spending is down, Federal is up, and the combined picture shows that outside of a stimulus spike in 2009 spending has been smoothly trending up. This is clearly not "austerity", it is spending as usual.

What we could argue is that government spending should still be spiking in order to stimulate the weak economy. But essentially the government is doing that, but via a different path. Instead of spiking spending they've slashed tax revenue, which put a lot of additional money in individual's pockets. They did this by extending the Bush tax cuts and adding additional tax cuts on top of that in the stimulus bill (like Obama's "95% of all Americans" tax cut). This translates to roughly $5 trillion in additional cash over the last four years, actually. Given that our GDP is $14.6 trillion, that's staggeringly massive.

So you can't really say we aren't spending massive quantities of cash to stimulate the economy either. Granted, we might not be EFFECTIVELY spending that money, but that's another discussion.

So what's left... Federal, State, and local government spending steady, massive Federal stimulus going on, but private sector jobs haven't recovered yet. So yeah, its weakness in the private sector that's still holding us down.
 
2012-06-12 02:00:02 PM  

BSABSVR: mycatisposter: I'm not hiring, simply out of spite. Too many applicant think that I owe them a job.
My profit margins have increased in addition to my profits, too.
I'll stop there, because your comments indicate that you nothing about profit margins.


No you aren't, since literally nothing works that way.


He's not hiring, because he doesn't actually have a business. His job is trolling Fark.
 
2012-06-12 02:00:28 PM  
You mean the government that's riddled with trillions of dollars worth of debt and cutting jobs/wages across the board?
 
2012-06-12 02:03:21 PM  
The private sector is doing just fine. 2 trillion in cash reserves and not spending it is doing just dandy.
 
2012-06-12 02:03:43 PM  

CorporatePerson: You mean the government that's riddled with trillions of dollars worth of debt and cutting jobs/wages across the board?


They don't mean to be making factual statements. They exist to be contrary because black guy president and socialisms.

If there was a republican president the message would be "Private Sector Continues Record Profit Run" or "Inspired by Leadership: What the Private Sector Learned from (republicanpresident)"
 
2012-06-12 02:04:05 PM  

SomeAmerican: Some hard data on Federal, State, and Local spending, courtesy of the US Treasury and the Bureau of Economic Analysis. You can access the compiled data here.

Federal spending over the last decade:

[www.usgovernmentspending.com image 575x400]

State spending over the last decade:

[www.usgovernmentspending.com image 575x400]

Local spending over the last decade:

[www.usgovernmentspending.com image 575x400]

For those that would prefer to see these combined, here are is the total of Federal, State, and Local spending:

[www.usgovernmentspending.com image 575x400]

So yeah, we can't say that low government spending is responsible for the weak economy. Although State and local spending is down, Federal is up, and the combined picture shows that outside of a stimulus spike in 2009 spending has been smoothly trending up. This is clearly not "austerity", it is spending as usual.

What we could argue is that government spending should still be spiking in order to stimulate the weak economy. But essentially the government is doing that, but via a different path. Instead of spiking spending they've slashed tax revenue, which put a lot of additional money in individual's pockets. They did this by extending the Bush tax cuts and adding additional tax cuts on top of that in the stimulus bill (like Obama's "95% of all Americans" tax cut). This translates to roughly $5 trillion in additional cash over the last four years, actually. Given that our GDP is $14.6 trillion, that's staggeringly massive.

So you can't really say we aren't spending massive quantities of cash to stimulate the economy either. Granted, we might not be EFFECTIVELY spending that money, but that's another discussion.

So what's left... Federal, State, and local government spending steady, massive Federal stimulus going on, but private sector jobs haven't recovered yet. So yeah, its weakness in the private sector that's still holding us down.


Do you have any idea what "over the last decade" means?

It means you use data from 2003-2012, NOT PROJECTED FUTURE DATA.

You have to go by what Obama has actually done if you want to make a point about his record. This is called basic honesty.

And the data shows that growth in government spending has slowed under Obama to levels not seen since Eisenhower.

Good God, when did the right wing lose any ability to present a coherent argument?
 
2012-06-12 02:06:25 PM  

SomeAmerican: So yeah, its weakness in the private sector that's still holding us down.


Your charts only go back seven years, not a decade, and most are absurdly out of date, showing actual amounts not estimated amounts to 2009, three years ago. And that blog sucks.

Anyway, there can be little to no weakness in the private sector when they are making record profits.
 
2012-06-12 02:07:19 PM  

Riothamus: SomeAmerican: Some hard data on Federal, State, and Local spending, courtesy of the US Treasury and the Bureau of Economic Analysis. You can access the compiled data here.

Federal spending over the last decade:

[www.usgovernmentspending.com image 575x400]

State spending over the last decade:

[www.usgovernmentspending.com image 575x400]

Local spending over the last decade:

[www.usgovernmentspending.com image 575x400]

For those that would prefer to see these combined, here are is the total of Federal, State, and Local spending:

[www.usgovernmentspending.com image 575x400]

So yeah, we can't say that low government spending is responsible for the weak economy. Although State and local spending is down, Federal is up, and the combined picture shows that outside of a stimulus spike in 2009 spending has been smoothly trending up. This is clearly not "austerity", it is spending as usual.

What we could argue is that government spending should still be spiking in order to stimulate the weak economy. But essentially the government is doing that, but via a different path. Instead of spiking spending they've slashed tax revenue, which put a lot of additional money in individual's pockets. They did this by extending the Bush tax cuts and adding additional tax cuts on top of that in the stimulus bill (like Obama's "95% of all Americans" tax cut). This translates to roughly $5 trillion in additional cash over the last four years, actually. Given that our GDP is $14.6 trillion, that's staggeringly massive.

So you can't really say we aren't spending massive quantities of cash to stimulate the economy either. Granted, we might not be EFFECTIVELY spending that money, but that's another discussion.

So what's left... Federal, State, and local government spending steady, massive Federal stimulus going on, but private sector jobs haven't recovered yet. So yeah, its weakness in the private sector that's still holding us down.

Do you have any idea what "over the last d ...


My intent was to include the full period of the recession with some additional history. That's what I did, and the data shows what I said it shows. What's your point?
 
2012-06-12 02:15:00 PM  
Riothamus:Do you have any idea what "over the last d ...

To make you happy though, here's combined state, local, and federal spending from the 1970's through 2012, projected to 2015, in 2005 dollars.

www.usgovernmentspending.com

Outside of a spike in 2009, there is no giant slowdown. Feel free to post numbers of your own.
 
2012-06-12 02:15:57 PM  

SomeAmerican: My intent was to include the full period of the recession with some additional history. That's what I did, and the data shows what I said it shows. What's your point?


My point?

Your obsolete data sucks, you don't know what a decade is, you incorrectly label top 1% tax giveaways as "stimulus", and the private sector keeps posting record profits quarter after quarter.

So the private sector is doing pretty all right. Maybe we should increase taxes on corporations to encourage them to reinvest and expand their companies? I mean, that was one of the original purposes of the corporate income tax. Encourage them to hire and pay more. Funny how that works.
 
2012-06-12 02:20:44 PM  

SomeAmerican: Riothamus:Do you have any idea what "over the last d ...

To make you happy though, here's combined state, local, and federal spending from the 1970's through 2012, projected to 2015, in 2005 dollars.

[www.usgovernmentspending.com image 575x400]

Outside of a spike in 2009, there is no giant slowdown. Feel free to post numbers of your own.


Do you not have eyes? Notice how everything slows down for Obama's entire term in office?

And here's a chart. It's from a greenlight from several days ago.

Link

blogs-images.forbes.com


Face it, the facts simply do not support your contentions. You are just wrong.

Is someone paying you to post this drivel or do you honestly believe this? I'm serious.
 
2012-06-12 02:22:11 PM  

RyogaM: SomeAmerican: So yeah, its weakness in the private sector that's still holding us down.

Your charts only go back seven years, not a decade, and most are absurdly out of date, showing actual amounts not estimated amounts to 2009, three years ago. And that blog sucks.


It's not a blog, its just a place to easily access government numbers. The data is all valid, and comes from government sources. This is what the government publishes; it is what it is.

Anyway, there can be little to no weakness in the private sector when they are making record profits.

The private sector could be wealthy but not growing, which would make the source of our economic weakness the private sector, not the public one.
 
2012-06-12 02:22:29 PM  

SomeAmerican: Riothamus:Do you have any idea what "over the last d ...

To make you happy though, here's combined state, local, and federal spending from the 1970's through 2012, projected to 2015, in 2005 dollars.

[www.usgovernmentspending.com image 575x400]

Outside of a spike in 2009, there is no giant slowdown. Feel free to post numbers of your own.


So it's basically a steady, un-alarming rise which makes total sense since population keeps increasing?
 
MFL
2012-06-12 02:26:28 PM  
Sabyen91
Profits are pretty high right now. Where are those jobs?

1. Corporate profits hit new highs all the time in an expanding economy.

2. Nominal profits at a record high doesn't amount to a hill of beans when real profits are still below-peak levels.

.
 
2012-06-12 02:30:15 PM  

Riothamus: SomeAmerican: My intent was to include the full period of the recession with some additional history. That's what I did, and the data shows what I said it shows. What's your point?

My point?

Your obsolete data sucks, you don't know what a decade is, you incorrectly label top 1% tax giveaways as "stimulus", and the private sector keeps posting record profits quarter after quarter.

So the private sector is doing pretty all right. Maybe we should increase taxes on corporations to encourage them to reinvest and expand their companies? I mean, that was one of the original purposes of the corporate income tax. Encourage them to hire and pay more. Funny how that works.


Oh I see the problem. You are thinking in terms of Obama or not Obama, not in terms of public sector and private sector. I'm in the wrong conversation then, as honestly I'm not interested in politics much. Have fun with scoring points, or whatever it is that you politics people do.
 
2012-06-12 02:31:17 PM  

MFL: Sabyen91
Profits are pretty high right now. Where are those jobs?

1. Corporate profits hit new highs all the time in an expanding economy.

2. Nominal profits at a record high doesn't amount to a hill of beans when real profits are still below-peak levels.

.


Let's say we take your below-peak contention at face value.

Those profits are still pretty damn high, especially when you consider our low inflation over the past decade. They amount to a hell of a lot more than a hill of beans. In fact, if those profits were equitably shared out to the same level as they were in the 1950s, our economy would be kicking ass.

So where are the farking jobs, bootlicker?
 
2012-06-12 02:35:29 PM  
FTFA: Despite the deep recession and the slow recovery, annual state spending overall hasn't dropped once. In fact, by fiscal 2011, total outlays at the state level were 14% higher than they were in 2008, according to the National Association of State Budget Officers.

National Association of State Budget Officers:Total enacted general fund speding in fiscal 2012 is still $20 billion, or 3.1 percent, less than the pre-recession high of $687 billion in fiscal 2008.

Usually its more of a twisted fact, but this seems to be an outright lie. And they linked to the source they were lying about. Am I missing something?
 
2012-06-12 02:35:45 PM  

PonceAlyosha: Excuse me if I don't believe Investors.com.


Which is a lazy way of saying "LALALALAL I can't hear contradictory information." Dispute their numbers?

I'm looking for informed Farkers to dissect the claims made, rather than a stream of "Nu-uhs" and "This is poopy head talk."

Also, many Farkers seem to confuse corporate profits with national economic health. Which is like using dental health as a measure of overall fitness.
 
2012-06-12 02:36:21 PM  

SomeAmerican: Riothamus: SomeAmerican: My intent was to include the full period of the recession with some additional history. That's what I did, and the data shows what I said it shows. What's your point?

My point?

Your obsolete data sucks, you don't know what a decade is, you incorrectly label top 1% tax giveaways as "stimulus", and the private sector keeps posting record profits quarter after quarter.

So the private sector is doing pretty all right. Maybe we should increase taxes on corporations to encourage them to reinvest and expand their companies? I mean, that was one of the original purposes of the corporate income tax. Encourage them to hire and pay more. Funny how that works.

Oh I see the problem. You are thinking in terms of Obama or not Obama, not in terms of public sector and private sector. I'm in the wrong conversation then, as honestly I'm not interested in politics much. Have fun with scoring points, or whatever it is that you politics people do.


Oh no, I was thinking along the same terms as you were. Except you tried to wedge all this "private vs. public" crap to show that our President was wrong on this issue when he was actually 100% correct. The private sector is doing very well, but their reluctance to hire due to depressed demand due to overly concentrated wealth is what is really holding us back.

And since just about everybody who white-knights the private sector wants to get rid of Obama and install Romneybot, it's only fair to point out that Bush II (whose advisors have all been hired by Romney) drastically increased government spending on a level not seen since the Great Welfare Queen, Saint Reagan.

Please exit gracefully.
 
2012-06-12 02:37:53 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: I'm looking for informed Farkers to dissect the claims made, rather than a stream of "Nu-uhs" and "This is poopy head talk."


Look right above your post. Tell me what I'm missing.
 
2012-06-12 02:39:50 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: PonceAlyosha: Excuse me if I don't believe Investors.com.

Which is a lazy way of saying "LALALALAL I can't hear contradictory information." Dispute their numbers?

I'm looking for informed Farkers to dissect the claims made, rather than a stream of "Nu-uhs" and "This is poopy head talk."

Also, many Farkers seem to confuse corporate profits with national economic health. Which is like using dental health as a measure of overall fitness.


I agree with your first contention to a point. It's good to be open to new ideas. But the post just after yours kinda shows why people won't trust Investors.com. I won't be clicking on any Breitbart links, no matter how many the modmins slap together and greenlight.

And the focus on corporate profits shows that our economy really isn't as structurally weak as it feels. Wages as a % of GDP are just at an all-time low, so that money must be spread around better.
 
2012-06-12 02:39:50 PM  

SomeAmerican: Riothamus: SomeAmerican: My intent was to include the full period of the recession with some additional history. That's what I did, and the data shows what I said it shows. What's your point?

My point?

Your obsolete data sucks, you don't know what a decade is, you incorrectly label top 1% tax giveaways as "stimulus", and the private sector keeps posting record profits quarter after quarter.

So the private sector is doing pretty all right. Maybe we should increase taxes on corporations to encourage them to reinvest and expand their companies? I mean, that was one of the original purposes of the corporate income tax. Encourage them to hire and pay more. Funny how that works.

Oh I see the problem. You are thinking in terms of Obama or not Obama, not in terms of public sector and private sector. I'm in the wrong conversation then, as honestly I'm not interested in politics much. Have fun with scoring points, or whatever it is that you politics people do.


*Checks the name of the tab he is on*

Wha?....

*Checks again*
 
2012-06-12 02:40:55 PM  

Riothamus: And since just about everybody who white-knights the private sector wants to get rid of Obama and install Romneybot


You are projecting an awful lot of assumptions about what YOU think he means, and rather than addressing his facts, you are spewing some nonsense about assumed party allegiences where non have been presented.

Pro-tip: when discussing fiscal budget and private-public sector spending in a historical perspective, "republicans are poopyheads" is not a meaningful rebuttal.
 
2012-06-12 02:43:43 PM  

itsallgeek2me: SomeAmerican: Riothamus: SomeAmerican: My intent was to include the full period of the recession with some additional history. That's what I did, and the data shows what I said it shows. What's your point?

My point?

Your obsolete data sucks, you don't know what a decade is, you incorrectly label top 1% tax giveaways as "stimulus", and the private sector keeps posting record profits quarter after quarter.

So the private sector is doing pretty all right. Maybe we should increase taxes on corporations to encourage them to reinvest and expand their companies? I mean, that was one of the original purposes of the corporate income tax. Encourage them to hire and pay more. Funny how that works.

Oh I see the problem. You are thinking in terms of Obama or not Obama, not in terms of public sector and private sector. I'm in the wrong conversation then, as honestly I'm not interested in politics much. Have fun with scoring points, or whatever it is that you politics people do.

*Checks the name of the tab he is on*

Wha?....

*Checks again*


It's a common tactic of the ignorant.

Lose an argument badly, claim you were never interested in winning anyway, and imply that anyone who actually cares enough about the subject matter to win said argument must be a loser.

It's not terribly effective, but it succeeds in making an ass of the user.
 
2012-06-12 02:47:23 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: You are projecting an awful lot of assumptions about what YOU think he means, and rather than addressing his facts, you are spewing some nonsense about assumed party allegiences where non have been presented.


Oh, are you one of those liberals who just happens to hate Obama on the internet?
 
2012-06-12 02:47:25 PM  

Riothamus: And the focus on corporate profits shows that our economy really isn't as structurally weak as it feels


The economy can be terribly weak and there can still be corporations with high profits. The two may often be conjoined, but are not dependant. An increase in average corporate profits is not a refutation of the private sector being in trouble.

Further, even if the figure was directly relevant, the majority of the private sector is made up of small bussinesses. Any idea what percentage of those are corporations? Are LLCs, LLP, Sub-S, etc. counted in the "corporate average profits"?

My point is that the private secotr is *NOT* doing fine, the economy is *NOT* OK, and it is not at all clear to me that the fix for this can be found in continuing to spend money in the public sector. (though I am interested in any compelling arguments to that effect).
 
2012-06-12 02:47:42 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Riothamus: And since just about everybody who white-knights the private sector wants to get rid of Obama and install Romneybot

You are projecting an awful lot of assumptions about what YOU think he means, and rather than addressing his facts, you are spewing some nonsense about assumed party allegiences where non have been presented.

Pro-tip: when discussing fiscal budget and private-public sector spending in a historical perspective, "republicans are poopyheads" is not a meaningful rebuttal.


I posted facts showing him how wrong he was. When he backpedaled, I assumed motive, because there's usually some sort of animus involved. And I'm willing to bet that I'm right.

And my argument was never "Republicans are poopyheads", it was pointing out that the current administration has slowed governmental spending to the lowest growth in decades, which makes any sort of attack on Obama for a mythical spending spree outright laughable.

Especially when you compare him to his predecessor, He-Who-Will-Not-Be-Named
 
MFL
2012-06-12 02:49:19 PM  
Riothamus And the data shows that growth in government spending has slowed under Obama to levels not seen since Eisenhower.

huh?

The only government spending that has slowed is at the state level because they were forced to because of the shiatty economy. Federal spending has exploded over the last 4 years.

si.wsj.net

The numbers are mind boggling. From the second quarter of 2007, i.e., the first full quarter of a Pelosi-Reid dominated Congress and a politically weakened President Bush, to the second quarter of 2009 when President Obama assumed office, government spending skyrocketed to 27.3% of GDP from 21.4%. It was the largest expansion of government spending since WWII.....and that is the baseline Obama has been using as a baseline his entire first term.

This talking point that is going around that "federal spending has risen at the lowest pace in nearly 60 years." is misleading at best and a flat out lie at worst.

Either the president doesn't understand how this works or he's banking that you don't.
 
2012-06-12 02:50:13 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: Oh, are you one of those liberals who just happens to hate Obama on the internet?


We weren't talking about me. And I am not talking about Obama at all. The point is that projecting YOUR political assumptions into an economic discusion is... missing the point. (Thanks for providing an unsolicited example though). Go play binary partisan slap fight with someone else.
 
2012-06-12 02:51:40 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: We weren't talking about me.


I'm talking about you. Who you voting for, Mr. Thoughtful Objective Nonpartisan Voter?
 
2012-06-12 02:56:50 PM  
Hey, has any one else noticed that BojanglesPoopyhead said I'm looking for informed Farkers to dissect the claims and then figured out he isn't?
 
2012-06-12 02:57:06 PM  

Riothamus: I posted facts showing him how wrong he was


I'm not sure you did, but that's what the discussion is for. And how do you respond to MFL's post?

si.wsj.net

It seems almost impossible to argue that Federal spending has not increased significantly in the period since the economic crisis began. I don't even think the current Administration is arguing that the federal budget has gone DOWN compared to where it was before the crisis.

But more to the point, how do you argue that increasing federal spending will produce an economic recovery? Haven;t the last few years demonstrated that it hasn't worked?
 
2012-06-12 02:59:42 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Riothamus: And the focus on corporate profits shows that our economy really isn't as structurally weak as it feels

The economy can be terribly weak and there can still be corporations with high profits. The two may often be conjoined, but are not dependant. An increase in average corporate profits is not a refutation of the private sector being in trouble.

Further, even if the figure was directly relevant, the majority of the private sector is made up of small bussinesses. Any idea what percentage of those are corporations? Are LLCs, LLP, Sub-S, etc. counted in the "corporate average profits"?

My point is that the private secotr is *NOT* doing fine, the economy is *NOT* OK, and it is not at all clear to me that the fix for this can be found in continuing to spend money in the public sector. (though I am interested in any compelling arguments to that effect).


Are you talking majority in terms of businesses, total profits, total revenues, or number of employees? Your "small business" response is actually textbook, here. Koch Industries, for instance, is frequently classified as a "small business" because it's an S corp. Lots of laws written to benefit S corps use that same "small business" justification. I'm not gonna look up stats for you when you can't even tell me how you're measuring what a small business is, nor how they make up a majority of anything. Sure, they make up a majority of total businesses, but that's blatantly farking obvious.

And as a general rule, rising aggregate corporate profits do show that the private sector is doing fine. Arguing otherwise is just conterfactual.

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2011-07-29/commentary/30699039_1_prof i ts-gdp-wages-and-salaries

And I just posted all sorts of data detailing how Obama has seriously curtailed public spending yet you say we're "continuing to spend money" on it. Really? Can you name any great infrastructure or public works projects we've put up? Any CCC type programs?


I think someone else nailed you on this. You're one of those "liberals" who just hates Obama on the internet.
 
2012-06-12 03:00:06 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: I'm talking about you. Who you voting for, Mr. Thoughtful Objective Nonpartisan Voter?


That has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion here, but since you asked - Haven't decided yet. Obama's plans aren't working, and I can't figure out what Romney's plan even is.

Also, I am far more concerned about the congress than the President.
 
2012-06-12 03:05:00 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: That has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion here, but since you asked - Haven't decided yet. Obama's plans aren't working, and I can't figure out what Romney's plan even is.


You haven't decided? Are you one of those wishy washy can't figure out what the hell you want independent voters?
 
2012-06-12 03:07:32 PM  

MFL: Riothamus And the data shows that growth in government spending has slowed under Obama to levels not seen since Eisenhower.

huh?

The only government spending that has slowed is at the state level because they were forced to because of the shiatty economy. Federal spending has exploded over the last 4 years.

[si.wsj.net image 262x165]

The numbers are mind boggling. From the second quarter of 2007, i.e., the first full quarter of a Pelosi-Reid dominated Congress and a politically weakened President Bush, to the second quarter of 2009 when President Obama assumed office, government spending skyrocketed to 27.3% of GDP from 21.4%. It was the largest expansion of government spending since WWII.....and that is the baseline Obama has been using as a baseline his entire first term.

This talking point that is going around that "federal spending has risen at the lowest pace in nearly 60 years." is misleading at best and a flat out lie at worst.

Either the president doesn't understand how this works or he's banking that you don't.


Couple things here.

First, Bush set the 2009 FY budget.

Second, Obama took office after a significant economic downturn. Hence, maintaining then-current spending levels (you know, to support a growing population) would therefore, by necessity, use an increased portion of the GDP. This is basic math, so I understand you might not grasp it at first.

Third, Obama also put the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures on the books as opposed to "emergency spending"

Fourth, Medicare Part D didn't take effect until 2008, with most of its spending kicking in after Bush left office. Nice of him to leave that mess for Obama.

And one other thing. Is this one of those graphs that counts the stimulus tax cuts as spending, but doesn't do the same for the Bush tax cuts? Because that's pretty farking relevant.


And I get the feeling I'm being alted.
 
2012-06-12 03:08:40 PM  
The stupid is strong with this crew.

All those charts you're posting makes the case that the public sector is doing better than private industry, but you morons seem to think it shows something different.

The first chart shown shows that in previous recessions the public sector actually *grew* while the private sector sank, and in this recession employment has fallen in the public sector by just over 1%...So if government doesn't continue it's bloated growth and instead experiences a *MUCH* shallower decline than the rest of the economy, that is the death of the public sector? Really?

1% losses...WHOA IS ME!

How will the world survive if the bloated public sector filled with patronage jobs and make-work bureaucracies survive if 1% lose their jobs?

That *HAS* to be the end of the world as we know it.

Meanwhile, the next employment chart posted shows that the private sector lost 8%, and still hasn't even climbed back up to level of slight decline experienced in the public sector.

So, no the private sector *ISN'T* doing fine. The public sector *IS* doing better than the private sector.

And your own charts show it.

Learn to read a graph next time before you post one making the exact opposite point you're trying to argue.
 
2012-06-12 03:10:30 PM  

Riothamus: MFL: Riothamus And the data shows that growth in government spending has slowed under Obama to levels not seen since Eisenhower.

huh?

The only government spending that has slowed is at the state level because they were forced to because of the shiatty economy. Federal spending has exploded over the last 4 years.

[si.wsj.net image 262x165]

The numbers are mind boggling. From the second quarter of 2007, i.e., the first full quarter of a Pelosi-Reid dominated Congress and a politically weakened President Bush, to the second quarter of 2009 when President Obama assumed office, government spending skyrocketed to 27.3% of GDP from 21.4%. It was the largest expansion of government spending since WWII.....and that is the baseline Obama has been using as a baseline his entire first term.

This talking point that is going around that "federal spending has risen at the lowest pace in nearly 60 years." is misleading at best and a flat out lie at worst.

Either the president doesn't understand how this works or he's banking that you don't.

Couple things here.

First, Bush set the 2009 FY budget.

Second, Obama took office after a significant economic downturn. Hence, maintaining then-current spending levels (you know, to support a growing population) would therefore, by necessity, use an increased portion of the GDP. This is basic math, so I understand you might not grasp it at first.

Third, Obama also put the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures on the books as opposed to "emergency spending"

Fourth, Medicare Part D didn't take effect until 2008, with most of its spending kicking in after Bush left office. Nice of him to leave that mess for Obama.

And one other thing. Is this one of those graphs that counts the stimulus tax cuts as spending, but doesn't do the same for the Bush tax cuts? Because that's pretty farking relevant.


And I get the feeling I'm being alted.


Oh, and if I addressed BP's post instead of yours directly, I half-ass apologize.

You're the Fark Independent and he's the "ooh, I don't know who I'm voting for, but that Obama certainly upsets me with his spending spree that I'm sure actually happened!" guy. Easy to get the two of you confused.
 
2012-06-12 03:12:05 PM  

Riothamus: Are you talking majority in terms of businesses, total profits, total revenues, or number of employees?


How important are small businesses to the U.S. economy?
Small firms:
• Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms.
• Employ half of all private sector employees.
• Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll.
• Generated 65 percent of net new jobs over the past 17 years.
• Create more than half of the nonfarm private GDP.
• Hire 43 percent of high tech workers ( scientists, engineers, computer programmers, and others).
• Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises.
• Made up 97.5 percent of all identified exporters and produced 31 percent of export value in FY 2008.
• Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms.

Small firms accounted for 65 percent (or 9.8 million) of the 15 million net new jobs created between 1993 and 2009.
Much of the job growth is from fast-growing high-impact firms, which represents about 5-6 percent of all firms and are on average 25 years old.

Riothamus: ur "small business" response is actually textbook, here


I generally ascribe to the Federal Small Business Administration's definition which can be found HERE..

I don't know that Koch (did you select that one specifically for partisan reasons?) is considered by te SBA as a "small business".

Riothamus: And as a general rule, rising aggregate corporate profits do show that the private sector is doing fine. Arguing otherwise is just conterfactual.


Counterfactual in your mind or not, that is precisely what is happening today. Average corporate profits (again, no details on what excatly that includes or how it is calculated) may be high, but the private sector and the economy are not doing well. And this is factual based on pretty much every other metric used to determine national economic health.

Are you arguing that since a measure of a sector of the private sector is higher than usual, everything is OK? Surely you aren;t arguing that?
 
2012-06-12 03:12:49 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: You haven't decided? Are you one of those wishy washy can't figure out what the hell you want independent voters?


No response is warranted here.
 
2012-06-12 03:16:41 PM  

Riothamus: that Obama certainly upsets me with his spending spree that I'm sure actually happened!"


Heads up. I have not said that or anything like it. I don't know that I even mentioned Obama, much less a supposed "spending spree". That's actually something YOU made up, and has nothing to do with my posts.

Going back to my original point, you might want to turn the knob down a notch on binary partisan assumption here.
 
2012-06-12 03:18:01 PM  
BojanglesPaladin: pile of 100% irrelevant stats

You haven't shown any indication that small firms are doing worse than big firms. None.

And job creation isn't the only measure of the economy. Firms aren't hiring because there isn't any demand. Why is there no demand? Because wages and salaries are at their lowest points in 50 years. Too much wealth is concentrated at the top. Private industry just needs to go Ford and fix itself. Pay workers enough to buy their products. This isn't rocket science.

And I chose Koch Industries because A. I live in Kansas, where they're physically headquartered, and they're behind a lot of the "small business" legislation and B. they're the largest goddamned S corporation
 
2012-06-12 03:18:59 PM  
Anyway, I'm out. Eye appointment.

And I just noticed that half of the dudes I replied to are on my ignore list. Whack-a-mole.
 
2012-06-12 03:23:54 PM  

Riothamus: You haven't shown any indication that small firms are doing worse than big firms


Probably becasue that's not at all a point I was making.

I also noticed that you haven't illustrated how increased government spending is going to bolster the economy when the last 4-6 years of increased government spending has failed to do so. Which WAS a point being made.

Good luck at thegym eye doctor :)
/I keed
 
2012-06-12 03:26:21 PM  

itsallgeek2me: SomeAmerican: Riothamus: SomeAmerican: My intent was to include the full period of the recession with some additional history. That's what I did, and the data shows what I said it shows. What's your point?

My point?

Your obsolete data sucks, you don't know what a decade is, you incorrectly label top 1% tax giveaways as "stimulus", and the private sector keeps posting record profits quarter after quarter.

So the private sector is doing pretty all right. Maybe we should increase taxes on corporations to encourage them to reinvest and expand their companies? I mean, that was one of the original purposes of the corporate income tax. Encourage them to hire and pay more. Funny how that works.

Oh I see the problem. You are thinking in terms of Obama or not Obama, not in terms of public sector and private sector. I'm in the wrong conversation then, as honestly I'm not interested in politics much. Have fun with scoring points, or whatever it is that you politics people do.

*Checks the name of the tab he is on*

Wha?....

*Checks again*


Another brave independent spreading lies.
 
2012-06-12 03:27:32 PM  

k1j2b3: Please explain to me why worker wage and benefits are a bad thing?

Please show me where businesses making profits are denying their workers wages and benefits? If you are working for a large corporation they actually pay you to work and give you benefits. So are you saying that these companies need to pay workers more b/c they have profits? Hire more workers that they don't need?


Ahh, a Keynesian. Good.

I have never been able to understand these supply-siders. A company will hire the minimum number of employees needed to meet demand. If that company saves money through tax cuts, that money will go to profits.
 
2012-06-12 03:41:34 PM  
JIM PAUL.
 
MFL
2012-06-12 03:48:21 PM  
Sabyen91Profits are pretty high right now. Where are those jobs?
1. Corporate profits hit new highs all the time in an expanding economy.

2. Nominal profits at a record high doesn't amount to a hill of beans when real profits are still below-peak levels.


Riothamus Those profits are still pretty damn high, especially when you consider our low inflation over the past decade

Not as low as the CPI leads you to believe. the EPI is a much better indicator.

If you figure the 40% drop in average household wealth over the last 5 years, a weaker dollar which has inflated prices of everyday goods, and home values gone to shiat, you get what we have now....a standard living that is getting lower by the day and has no signs of stopping.

Our dollar is just lucky that Europe is more "progressive" than we are and they've already farked themselves.

They amount to a hell of a lot more than a hill of beans. In fact, if those profits were equitably shared out to the same level as they were in the 1950s, our economy would be kicking ass.


The 50's boom had nothing to do with income redistribution. It had to do with the United States being the only show in town open for business after WWII.
 
2012-06-12 03:55:09 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Riothamus: I posted facts showing him how wrong he was

I'm not sure you did, but that's what the discussion is for. And how do you respond to MFL's post?

[si.wsj.net image 262x165]

It seems almost impossible to argue that Federal spending has not increased significantly in the period since the economic crisis began. I don't even think the current Administration is arguing that the federal budget has gone DOWN compared to where it was before the crisis.

But more to the point, how do you argue that increasing federal spending will produce an economic recovery? Haven;t the last few years demonstrated that it hasn't worked?


Did you account for the fact that Bush kept the costs of the wars off of the books, and Obama changed that?

That may account for at least a big part of that spike.
 
MFL
2012-06-12 04:05:19 PM  
Riothamus First, Bush set the 2009 FY budget.

Yes and Obama hasn't passed one since. So he's been using what was supposed to be a one time thing as the baseline budget for his entire term.

Second, Obama took office after a significant economic downturn. Hence, maintaining then-current spending levels (you know, to support a growing population) would therefore, by necessity, use an increased portion of the GDP. This is basic math, so I understand you might not grasp it at first.

Again, the current spending levels that he took over was the inflated 2009 budget that was supposed to be a one time thing. Democrats have purposely not passed a budget because they do not want to go back to what the spending levels should be if they wrote a new one.

Third, Obama also put the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures on the books as opposed to "emergency spending"

Obama spent more with one bill (aka the "stimulus") than the entire Iraq war.

Fourth, Medicare Part D didn't take effect until 2008, with most of its spending kicking in after Bush left office. Nice of him to leave that mess for Obama.

Hey I thought you guys loved entitlements. Obamacare makes medicare D look like a drop in the bucket and those costs won't kick in until 2014. See, he's doing the same thing to President Romney.

And one other thing. Is this one of those graphs that counts the stimulus tax cuts as spending, but doesn't do the same for the Bush tax cuts? Because that's pretty farking relevant.

No. If you understood how to read the graph you'd see that it's not very kind to Bush either. Bill Clinton with the GOP controlled congress looks dynamite however.

If the Bush tax cuts were so bad, why did Obama keep them?
 
2012-06-12 04:08:02 PM  

MFL: If the Bush tax cuts were so bad, why did Obama keep them?


You must have missed that part where the Republicans said they would not let anything get accomplished until they passed. That would have meant cutting off everyone's unemployment right before Christmas and denying health care benefits to 9/11 first responders. They wouldn't even let these things come to a vote until the tax cuts were renewed.
 
2012-06-12 04:13:00 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Did you account for the fact that Bush kept the costs of the wars off of the books, and Obama changed that?


I'm not debating the whys and wherefores, per se. Nor am I assigning exclusive 'blame' to Obama - that's just partisan bickering. One could just as easily argue that Obama has been prevented from even more spending by an intractable, too stubborn Republican party. Obama himself frequently complains that he is being stopped by them. So let's put aside the "myteam/yourteam" bullshait and just look at the situation as it stands.

I am pointing out that despite significant increases in federal spending in the last 4-6 years, the economy has shown only anemic improvement. Even with 800Billion or so in spending designed for that specific purpose.

So I'm wondering why so many of you agree with the notion that the private sector is not in need of any assistance, despite the myriad economic metrics that show it is ailing, and how or why additional government spending would produce a different result going forward than it has in the last 4-6 years.
 
2012-06-12 04:13:10 PM  
This thread delivers

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-06-12 04:15:27 PM  

MFL: Sabyen91Profits are pretty high right now. Where are those jobs?
1. Corporate profits hit new highs all the time in an expanding economy.

2. Nominal profits at a record high doesn't amount to a hill of beans when real profits are still below-peak levels.


You appear to be confusing revenue and profits.
 
2012-06-12 04:17:45 PM  

MFL: Sabyen91Profits are pretty high right now. Where are those jobs?
1. Corporate profits hit new highs all the time in an expanding economy.

2. Nominal profits at a record high doesn't amount to a hill of beans when real profits are still below-peak levels.


Inflation adjusted corporate profits are at an all time high.

The chart above shows after-tax corporate profits for U.S. corporations as a whole, which set a new record high in 2011 of more than $1.5 trillion, and were 20.5% above the pre-recession peak of $1.26 trillion in 2006 (adjusted for inflation). While the weakness in the labor market continues to receive media attention, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that U.S. corporations have never been more profitable.
 
2012-06-12 04:34:44 PM  

SomeAmerican: Riothamus:Do you have any idea what "over the last d ...

To make you happy though, here's combined state, local, and federal spending from the 1970's through 2012, projected to 2015, in 2005 dollars.

[www.usgovernmentspending.com image 575x400]

Outside of a spike in 2009, there is no giant slowdown. Feel free to post numbers of your own.


Gee, it's good there has been no inflation since 1970, or otherwise you posting that chart is totally disingenuous. Because $100 in 1970 is worth $593 in 2012.
 
2012-06-12 04:37:58 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: I am pointing out that despite significant increases in federal spending in the last 4-6 years,


...which may not be an actual apples-to-apples comparison, since Bush kept the wars off the books and Obama did not. That's my problem with your assertion.
 
2012-06-12 04:48:08 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: While the weakness in the labor market continues to receive media attention, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that U.S. corporations have never been more profitable.


Why exactly?

Can you explain how corporate profitability is causually related to thenational economic well being, or how it is an economic indicator that somehow neagtes or counterbalances all the other ones like GDP, employment rate, etc.?

Again, this seems like pointing to good dental health on a person with cancer and declaring them fit.
 
2012-06-12 04:48:35 PM  
State spending: Despite the deep recession and the slow recovery, annual state spending overall hasn't dropped once. In fact, by fiscal 2011, total outlays at the state level were 14% higher than they were in 2008, according to the National Association of State Budget Officers.

Yeah, what happened in 2010 in state level politics??? Attacking Obama for something the GOP has a hand in. Business as usual.
 
2012-06-12 04:50:21 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Riothamus: You haven't shown any indication that small firms are doing worse than big firms

Probably becasue that's not at all a point I was making.

I also noticed that you haven't illustrated how increased government spending is going to bolster the economy when the last 4-6 years of increased government spending has failed to do so. Which WAS a point being made.

Good luck at thegym eye doctor :)
/I keed


GDP = Private spending + Investment spending + Government spending + (Value of Exports - Value of Imports)

If private spending tanks and investment spending tanks (as they did in 08) then what other option is there except to increase government spending to prevent GDP from collapsing? Government spending may not be able to cure the problem on its own but it can at least provide a bridge to a time when investment and private spending rebound. We're at the point now where businesses are earning more profit than in the past few years but they aren't spending it on new employment because the demand in the economy is still weak. Why hire when there aren't new customers to buy your product? Government can help stimulate demand by consuming goods and employing workers which will then force the private sector to increase hiring to meet the new demand.
 
2012-06-12 04:50:36 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Bush kept the wars off the books and Obama did not. That's my problem with your assertion


Fine. My statement has nothing whatsoever to do with who approved what spending, and the time frames preceed Obama's election much less any accounting changes. I don't care if Zombie Nixon did it.

So I'm wondering why so many of you agree with the notion that the private sector is not in need of any assistance, despite the myriad economic metrics that show it is ailing, and how or why additional government spending would produce a different result going forward than it has in the last 4-6 years.
 
2012-06-12 04:51:56 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Philip Francis Queeg: While the weakness in the labor market continues to receive media attention, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that U.S. corporations have never been more profitable.

Why exactly?

Can you explain how corporate profitability is causually related to thenational economic well being, or how it is an economic indicator that somehow neagtes or counterbalances all the other ones like GDP, employment rate, etc.?

Again, this seems like pointing to good dental health on a person with cancer and declaring them fit.


No it's like pointing out that giving dentures to the cancer patient won't do any good since their teeth are fine. Corporations don't need tax breaks and corporate tax breaks won't lead to improvements in the labor market.
 
2012-06-12 04:53:14 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Lando Lincoln: Bush kept the wars off the books and Obama did not. That's my problem with your assertion

Fine. My statement has nothing whatsoever to do with who approved what spending, and the time frames preceed Obama's election much less any accounting changes. I don't care if Zombie Nixon did it.

So I'm wondering why so many of you agree with the notion that the private sector is not in need of any assistance, despite the myriad economic metrics that show it is ailing, and how or why additional government spending would produce a different result going forward than it has in the last 4-6 years.


Because "LOL we spent more and we're still in a depression so let's do the opposite" isn't a detailed economic analysis
 
2012-06-12 04:59:58 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Philip Francis Queeg: While the weakness in the labor market continues to receive media attention, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that U.S. corporations have never been more profitable.

Why exactly?

Can you explain how corporate profitability is causually related to thenational economic well being, or how it is an economic indicator that somehow neagtes or counterbalances all the other ones like GDP, employment rate, etc.?

Again, this seems like pointing to good dental health on a person with cancer and declaring them fit.


Dude, whoever's paying you for this shiat should just demand his money back. This is just pathetic.


As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, companies aren't hiring right now due to lack of demand. And why isn't there any demand? Because people don't have any damn money. All those record profits are going right back to the top in the form of obscene compensation and dividends.

How can we stop companies from putting all their profits into dividends and instead reinvest it back into the company?

Raise the corporate income tax. All money spent on payroll/expansion is fully tax deductible, and always has been. By raising corporate tax rates, companies have more of an incentive to reinvest in their companies.

Now feel free to hop onto another alt and derail the thread onto another goddamned pre-debunked tangent.

You cock.
 
2012-06-12 05:00:25 PM  

Garet Garrett: I'll see you your x-axis-definition-less graph and raise you one with actual, you know, data points:


The x-axis was time from the beginning of the recession. I'm sorry if that was too confusing for you.
 
2012-06-12 05:00:30 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: So I'm wondering why so many of you agree with the notion that the private sector is not in need of any assistance, despite the myriad economic metrics that show it is ailing, and how or why additional government spending would produce a different result going forward than it has in the last 4-6 years.


When you say, "ailing" I'm assuming that you mean it's "not as healthy as it was in the past" and not "it's getting worse." The metrics I've seen show that the private sector is getting better.

Republicans should let Obama do what Reagan, Bush I and Bush II did in their economic downturns: let the government hire more people. That helped our country recover from recession. Instead, we've seen a downturn in government employment, and the recession is still lingering. Coincidence? I think not.
 
2012-06-12 05:03:41 PM  

Stile4aly: We're at the point now where businesses are earning more profit than in the past few years but they aren't spending it on new employment because the demand in the economy is still weak.


Or (as is ALWAYS the case), they are reluctant to invest precious capital in an uncertain and unstable economic enviornment. All this ideological irrational partisan fueding with economic and regulatory policy makes it impossible to predict the playing field more than 6 months to a year doen the road. Wil taxes on your business go up a lot? stay the same? Helath care costs going up Down? No chnage Who knows. You can;t make long-term business projections in an enviornment like that, so the smart move is to keep your rough weather funds fully stocked. Companies are holding on to money they may need to weather this storm. And that is actually a GOOD business move, and good for the companies current employees as well. It's just not good for growing the economy.

Government can help stimulate demand by consuming goods and employing workers which will then force the private sector to increase hiring to meet the new demand.

Firstly, we DID this, and it had little appreciable positive impact. One can certainly argue that it kept it from getting worse in some immeasurable way, but I remember in '08 respected 'liberal' economist after respected 'conservative' economist screaming in unison that if we didn't pass the stimulus bill, the economic downturn would last for 3-4 years. Well, we spent 800Billion or so and 3-4 years later, we are still in a down economy.So I'd say the expiriment of spending tax dollars to shore up a flagging economy is less than a resounding success. So how will doing more of the same give us any better result?

It's like when your engine sputters because it's out of gas, and you push the gas pedal to keep it going. Pushing it down even more doesn't put more gas in your tank and the problem is still there.

Secondly, I thought trickle-down economics was debunked? Which is it? How is trying to trickle down with tax dollars any different, except perhaps being less efficient?
 
2012-06-12 05:06:25 PM  

BojanglesPaladin:

Secondly, I thought trickle-down economics was debunked? Which is it? How is trying to trickle down with tax dollars any different, except perhaps being less efficient?


I live with my mom

Government stimulus isn't trickle-down, and no one has ever called New Deal-style government spending "trickle-down" economics.
frac.org

Eat dick.
 
2012-06-12 05:08:09 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Or (as is ALWAYS the case), they are reluctant to invest precious capital in an uncertain and unstable economic enviornment. All this ideological irrational partisan fueding with economic and regulatory policy makes it impossible to predict the playing field more than 6 months to a year doen the road. Wil taxes on your business go up a lot? stay the same? Helath care costs going up Down? No chnage Who knows. You can;t make long-term business projections in an enviornment like that, so the smart move is to keep your rough weather funds fully stocked. Companies are holding on to money they may need to weather this storm. And that is actually a GOOD business move, and good for the companies current employees as well. It's just not good for growing the economy.


This talking point is SO tired. Businesses don't decide to not make money because of "uncertain political futures"

Firstly, we DID this, and it had little appreciable positive impact. One can certainly argue that it kept it from getting worse in some immeasurable way, but I remember in '08 respected 'liberal' economist after respected 'conservative' economist screaming in unison that if we didn't pass the stimulus bill, the economic downturn would last for 3-4 years. Well, we spent 800Billion or so and 3-4 years later, we are still in a down economy.So I'd say the expiriment of spending tax dollars to shore up a flagging economy is less than a resounding success. So how will doing more of the same give us any better result?

It's like when your engine sputters because it's out of gas, and you push the gas pedal to keep it going. Pushing it down even more doesn't put more gas in your tank and the problem is still there.


The only reason those projections didn't come true is because the estimates for how bad it was going to get WITHOUT the stimulus were grossly inaccurate. The stimulus had a positive impact. The only reason it was "less than a resounding success" was because there wasn't enough stimulus. It was still a success.
 
2012-06-12 05:14:07 PM  
Mentat:

So you gleefully ignore the huge ramp up of public employees pre 2009? Can you repost that starting from peak employment numbers now?
 
2012-06-12 05:14:10 PM  
Didn't Investors Business Daily used to be a respectable publication? I still miss the old Wall Street Journal.
 
2012-06-12 05:17:01 PM  

Riothamus: Now feel free to hop onto another alt and derail the thread onto another goddamned pre-debunked tangent.

You cock.


No need to be rude. Next time just say " I don't actually have an intelligent response." or "Would you please put me on your ignore list?".

Riothamus: As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, companies aren't hiring right now due to lack of demand. And why isn't there any demand? Because people don't have any damn money.


See my post above. In uncertain times, business begin hoarding money reserves. These are uncertain times, so they are trimming fat, and not investing in new growth or development. This always happens. You put off buying the $200K new piece of equipment and make do with the one you have for another few years until you can see how things turn out. A lot of businesses are in survival mode thinking. Add to that a very tight credit market, and you have constricted growth with or without demand.

Philip Francis Queeg: Corporations don't need tax breaks and corporate tax breaks won't lead to improvements in the labor market.


Not the question at hand. I'm not asking if we should give anyone tax breaks. The economy did not fail because we weren;t taxing the rich enough. Tax them or don't tax them, that's not where the fix is going to be found.

Lando Lincoln: When you say, "ailing" I'm assuming that you mean it's "not as healthy as it was in the past" and not "it's getting worse." The metrics I've seen show that the private sector is getting better.


I've said that in general economic recovery has been anemic. There has been some limited improvement, but nothing that could be considered a recovery or a turn around. Wouldn't you agree?
 
2012-06-12 05:19:27 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Garet Garrett: I'd note that it's simply a matter of faith that these reductions are a bad thing)

Europe would like a word with you on how austerity is working. Specifically Spain and Ireland.


Okay. Should I look at the 24 countries that increased spending, or the 3 that actually reduced? Greece was forced into cut backs due nobody being crazy enough to lend. Estonia is doing quite nice with their measures. Oh... You meant the increase taxes while slowing, but still increasing, government spending type of austerity.
 
2012-06-12 05:21:11 PM  

ArkPanda: Didn't Investors Business Daily used to be a respectable publication? I still miss the old Wall Street Journal.


I never see anyone actually reading that paper. I've seen more people read the Financial Times from London (good paper btw) compared to IBD.
 
2012-06-12 05:21:41 PM  

MyRandomName: Mentat:

So you gleefully ignore the huge ramp up of public employees pre 2009? Can you repost that starting from peak employment numbers now?


You mean that ramp up that happened right before the Constitutionally-mandated census?
 
2012-06-12 05:23:09 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Riothamus: Now feel free to hop onto another alt and derail the thread onto another goddamned pre-debunked tangent.

You cock.

No need to be rude. Next time just say " I don't actually have an intelligent response." or "Would you please put me on your ignore list?".

Riothamus: As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, companies aren't hiring right now due to lack of demand. And why isn't there any demand? Because people don't have any damn money.

See my post above. In uncertain times, business begin hoarding money reserves. These are uncertain times, so they are trimming fat, and not investing in new growth or development. This always happens. You put off buying the $200K new piece of equipment and make do with the one you have for another few years until you can see how things turn out. A lot of businesses are in survival mode thinking. Add to that a very tight credit market, and you have constricted growth with or without demand.



No, this does not "always happen". When one business tightens up, its competitors smell blood in the water and seize market share. This bullshiat "uncertainty" talking point simply doesn't exist in reality. And what the fark kind of "uncertainty" can you really have when you're posting record profits?

This is a demand-side recession, not supply side. End of discussion.

You're already on my ignore list, I just felt like viewing Fark as a new user would see it. Good God, the avalanche of lies is just atrocious.
 
2012-06-12 05:24:34 PM  

CPennypacker: This talking point is SO tired. Businesses don't decide to not make money because of "uncertain political futures"


They decide not to RISK expanding their business in uncertain times. They stand pat. Hold onto money that would otherwise be going into development or expansion. That's why profits go up - becasue they cut expenses like new equipment and new employees. Make do with what they have, work their employees and equipment more.

It's not tired, it's truth. I don't know what your background is regarding business operations, but I was not aware that there was much debate about this. Even the White House talks about it when they are trying to avoid another 6-month extension or something.
 
2012-06-12 05:26:02 PM  

Riothamus: You're already on my ignore list


Please make that not a lie.
 
2012-06-12 05:27:06 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: CPennypacker: This talking point is SO tired. Businesses don't decide to not make money because of "uncertain political futures"

They decide not to RISK expanding their business in uncertain times. They stand pat. Hold onto money that would otherwise be going into development or expansion. That's why profits go up - becasue they cut expenses like new equipment and new employees. Make do with what they have, work their employees and equipment more.

It's not tired, it's truth. I don't know what your background is regarding business operations, but I was not aware that there was much debate about this. Even the White House talks about it when they are trying to avoid another 6-month extension or something.


When are the "certain" times?
 
2012-06-12 05:29:49 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Riothamus: You're already on my ignore list

Please make that not a lie.


Right now I have "show posts from ignored users" checked. But I might favorite you in piss-yellow just to help counter your utter bullshiat.

But I guess that would drive pageclicks, and that's what you're really after, isn't it?

Oh, and PFQ has a good point. When are these mythical "certain" times that our investor-patriot class so desires?
 
2012-06-12 05:35:51 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: When are the "certain" times?


"Certain" is a graduated scale, not a point, but I would say the Clinton years through 9/11. (maybe even longer all things considered) . 1992 - 2005 or so.

The cold war was over, credit was free and easy, with NAFTA, Permanant favored nation status with China, and other globalist agreements we saw significant economic expansion and economic growth because there were no major socio-economic overhauls (Excepting welfare reform, and balancing the federal budget), and no major wars or global events looming.
 
2012-06-12 05:36:39 PM  

Rapmaster2000: 0%. IBD is for muppets.


Word.
 
2012-06-12 05:37:07 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Or (as is ALWAYS the case), they are reluctant to invest precious capital in an uncertain and unstable economic enviornment.


The economic environment is usually uncertain and unstable. That's its nature. It's a bullsh*t argument.
 
2012-06-12 05:40:14 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: The economic environment is usually uncertain and unstable. That's its nature. It's a bullsh*t argument.


So you believe that right now, there is no more economic uncertainty than there was say in the 90s?
 
2012-06-12 05:42:37 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Stile4aly: We're at the point now where businesses are earning more profit than in the past few years but they aren't spending it on new employment because the demand in the economy is still weak.

Or (as is ALWAYS the case), they are reluctant to invest precious capital in an uncertain and unstable economic enviornment. All this ideological irrational partisan fueding with economic and regulatory policy makes it impossible to predict the playing field more than 6 months to a year doen the road. Wil taxes on your business go up a lot? stay the same? Helath care costs going up Down? No chnage Who knows. You can;t make long-term business projections in an enviornment like that, so the smart move is to keep your rough weather funds fully stocked. Companies are holding on to money they may need to weather this storm. And that is actually a GOOD business move, and good for the companies current employees as well. It's just not good for growing the economy.


A lot of uncertainty would be solved by an improved labor market and growing economy which would boost business profits further. The increased revenue would allow them to increase spending without dipping into their war chests. Since the private sector will not (buy your own admission) spend to stimulate the economy, the government must.

Government can help stimulate demand by consuming goods and employing workers which will then force the private sector to increase hiring to meet the new demand.

Firstly, we DID this, and it had little appreciable positive impact. One can certainly argue that it kept it from getting worse in some immeasurable way, but I remember in '08 respected 'liberal' economist after respected 'conservative' economist screaming in unison that if we didn't pass the stimulus bill, the economic downturn would last for 3-4 years. Well, we spent 800Billion or so and 3-4 years later, we are still in a down economy.So I'd say the expiriment of spending tax dollars to shore up a flagging economy is less than a resounding success. So how will doing more of the same give us any better result?

It's like when your engine sputters because it's out of gas, and you push the gas pedal to keep it going. Pushing it down even more doesn't put more gas in your tank and the problem is still there.


We spent 800 billion into a 14 trillion dollar economy, it was a drop in the bucket. What's more, the projections on which the stimulus was based underestimated the depth of the recession. Q4 2008 and Q1 2009 were worse than were understood at the time. Additionally, about 275 billion of the 800 billion went to tax incentives. Some of these were good (limiting taxes on unemployment) and others had little or no stimulative impact (AMT patch). In the end, only about 100 billion went to public works projects and even less to state governments (many of which used ARRA funds to patch budget gaps rather than to employ workers). We needed a WPA type effort to be truly effective.

Secondly, I thought trickle-down economics was debunked? Which is it? How is trying to trickle down with tax dollars any different, except perhaps being less efficient?

Trickle down economics is the belief that by decreasing the tax burden on the wealthy and large corporations there will be a surge in investment and a reduction in prices thus increasing demand. What this has to do with the stimulus plan, God only knows.
 
2012-06-12 05:42:59 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Philip Francis Queeg: When are the "certain" times?

"Certain" is a graduated scale, not a point, but I would say the Clinton years through 9/11. (maybe even longer all things considered) . 1992 - 2005 or so.

The cold war was over, credit was free and easy, with NAFTA, Permanant favored nation status with China, and other globalist agreements we saw significant economic expansion and economic growth because there were no major socio-economic overhauls (Excepting welfare reform, and balancing the federal budget), and no major wars or global events looming.


You are applying hindsighte in a truly massive way.

There was fantastic levels of uncertainty in that period, including a complete restructuring of the global economy with the collapse of the Eastern bloc, the restructuring of the European union under the treaty of Maastrict, the introduction of the Euro, the Asian financial crisis and on and on and on.
 
2012-06-12 05:48:47 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: BojanglesPaladin: Philip Francis Queeg: When are the "certain" times?

"Certain" is a graduated scale, not a point, but I would say the Clinton years through 9/11. (maybe even longer all things considered) . 1992 - 2005 or so.

The cold war was over, credit was free and easy, with NAFTA, Permanant favored nation status with China, and other globalist agreements we saw significant economic expansion and economic growth because there were no major socio-economic overhauls (Excepting welfare reform, and balancing the federal budget), and no major wars or global events looming.

You are applying hindsighte in a truly massive way.

There was fantastic levels of uncertainty in that period, including a complete restructuring of the global economy with the collapse of the Eastern bloc, the restructuring of the European union under the treaty of Maastrict, the introduction of the Euro, the Asian financial crisis and on and on and on.


I think you just violated the 13th Amendment there.

It just isn't legal to own someone like that.
 
2012-06-12 05:52:03 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: You are applying hindsighte in a truly massive way.


Not from the perspective of US businesses.

Compare that to today when a business does not know what his health care costs will be in a year, or if business and personal taxes will jump in less than 6 months, or if the business will suddenly face carbon penalties, or any number of other bizaare uncertainties resulting from this bullshait 6-month or 2-year short term expiring legislation garbage we get while the jackholes in congress are busy trying to score political points off each other instead of implementing stable, lasting change.

Look, I'm not just saying this. I live this. I don't know how many Farkers are deaing with keeping a business going and employees' families fed with a roof over their head, but I honestly doubt that anyone who has would even suggest that this is not a business impairinf economically uncertain time.
 
2012-06-12 05:53:01 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: So you believe that right now, there is no more economic uncertainty than there was say in the 90s?


There is slightly more, and not in any fashion that would slow investment. There is no reason to think that the corporate friendly behavior of the US government is at risk, and no reason to think that there is a larger depression on the horizon, and there is no reason to think that any investment right now will somehow be ruined by some particular future event. ESPECIALLY from healthcare. Sh*t, healthcare reform simultaneously solidified the position of insurance companies and pharmaceuticals, and started down the path for businesses to be out of the game of providing health insurance for employees altogether, which will only do them good, especially the small ones.
 
2012-06-12 05:53:44 PM  
And on that note I'm out.

Eye appointment or something.
 
2012-06-12 05:54:52 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: There is no reason to think that the corporate friendly behavior of the US government is at risk


Really? Have you heard the rhetoric floating around lately?

Anyway. Really got to go.
 
2012-06-12 05:55:13 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Compare that to today when a business does not know what his health care costs will be in a year, or if business and personal taxes will jump in less than 6 months,


It's crap. It is always true that businesses do not know what those numbers will be x number of years from now, and they never will. There is absolutely no reason to think they'll change very much, except for the better, in any case.
 
2012-06-12 05:56:20 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Really? Have you heard the rhetoric floating around lately?


Truly, businesses ought to be scared of rhetoric. It's been so successful thus far.
 
2012-06-12 05:56:50 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: And on that note I'm out.

Eye appointment or something.


I'm back from the appointment. Eye scratches suck.

Your timing, OTOH, is interesting...
 
2012-06-12 05:59:17 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Philip Francis Queeg: You are applying hindsighte in a truly massive way.

Not from the perspective of US businesses.

Compare that to today when a business does not know what his health care costs will be in a year, or if business and personal taxes will jump in less than 6 months, or if the business will suddenly face carbon penalties, or any number of other bizaare uncertainties resulting from this bullshait 6-month or 2-year short term expiring legislation garbage we get while the jackholes in congress are busy trying to score political points off each other instead of implementing stable, lasting change.

Look, I'm not just saying this. I live this. I don't know how many Farkers are deaing with keeping a business going and employees' families fed with a roof over their head, but I honestly doubt that anyone who has would even suggest that this is not a business impairinf economically uncertain time.


Businesses didn't have any more assurance about those things than they do now. Do you remember the elections of 1992 and 1996, where Bill Clinton was portrayed as the liberalest liberal who ever liberalled and who's tax increases were going to destroy the economy? Do you remember the Hillarycare debate? Do you remember the government shutdown?Take off the rose colored glasses when looking backward.
 
2012-06-12 06:28:35 PM  
pjmedia.com

/drtfa
//don't care
///they are all lying crooks
 
2012-06-12 09:21:30 PM  
So, people know that jobs come from demand and not low tax rates, right?

Jobs are a consequence of success. What business owner WANTS to hire people that cut into their profits?
 
2012-06-12 09:44:19 PM  
Wow. That's nothing but a bunch of lies.

Here, read the report and look at the tables for youself: Link

Republicans are frauds.
 
2012-06-12 09:52:29 PM  

tomWright: [pjmedia.com image 600x354]

/drtfa
//don't care
///they are all lying crooks


That photoshop sucks.

Your BSABSVR sucks.

You suck.

God damn, this thread is about 60 replies with my ignore list active.
 
2012-06-13 12:26:10 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: smitty04: Obama's complaint that it's the government that's hurting these days.

Obama sounds like a Community Activist wanting a bigger budget.

When in reality, under Obama, government spending has grown the least amount in 50 years.


Thats bullshiat because it treats the stimulus spending as an approved budget increase, thats not right.
 
2012-06-13 12:30:02 AM  

Animatronik: cameroncrazy1984: smitty04: Obama's complaint that it's the government that's hurting these days.

Obama sounds like a Community Activist wanting a bigger budget.

When in reality, under Obama, government spending has grown the least amount in 50 years.

Thats bullshiat because it treats the stimulus spending as an approved budget increase, thats not right.


Would you rather Bush's stimulus spending as something else?
 
2012-06-13 12:30:37 AM  

Sabyen91: Animatronik: cameroncrazy1984: smitty04: Obama's complaint that it's the government that's hurting these days.

Obama sounds like a Community Activist wanting a bigger budget.

When in reality, under Obama, government spending has grown the least amount in 50 years.

Thats bullshiat because it treats the stimulus spending as an approved budget increase, thats not right.

Would you rather Bush's stimulus spending be counted as something else?

 
2012-06-13 12:31:13 AM  
The hell?
 
2012-06-13 02:00:48 AM  

Animatronik: Thats bullshiat because it treats the stimulus spending as an approved budget increase, thats not right.


Very nice. It has a lot going for it already. It has multiple misspellings, palpable outrage at something and no apparent logic. Although, I think it would be more effective if it were scrawled on a piece of cardboard.

It should be fun waving it while shouting from your bus window on the way to group.
 
2012-06-13 09:29:41 AM  

SomeAmerican: Some hard data on Federal, State, and Local spending, courtesy of the US Treasury and the Bureau of Economic Analysis. You can access the compiled data here.

Federal spending over the last decade:

[www.usgovernmentspending.com image 575x400]

State spending over the last decade:

[www.usgovernmentspending.com image 575x400]

Local spending over the last decade:

[www.usgovernmentspending.com image 575x400]

For those that would prefer to see these combined, here are is the total of Federal, State, and Local spending:

[www.usgovernmentspending.com image 575x400]

So yeah, we can't say that low government spending is responsible for the weak economy. Although State and local spending is down, Federal is up, and the combined picture shows that outside of a stimulus spike in 2009 spending has been smoothly trending up. This is clearly not "austerity", it is spending as usual.

What we could argue is that government spending should still be spiking in order to stimulate the weak economy. But essentially the government is doing that, but via a different path. Instead of spiking spending they've slashed tax revenue, which put a lot of additional money in individual's pockets. They did this by extending the Bush tax cuts and adding additional tax cuts on top of that in the stimulus bill (like Obama's "95% of all Americans" tax cut). This translates to roughly $5 trillion in additional cash over the last four years, actually. Given that our GDP is $14.6 trillion, that's staggeringly massive.

So you can't really say we aren't spending massive quantities of cash to stimulate the economy either. Granted, we might not be EFFECTIVELY spending that money, but that's another discussion.

So what's left... Federal, State, and local government spending steady, massive Federal stimulus going on, but private sector jobs haven't recovered yet. So yeah, its weakness in the private sector that's still holding us down.


of course that increase in govt spending is due to interest on the borrowed money and the result of the lower revenue streams . not actually money that would stimulate the economy.
 
2012-06-13 10:15:05 AM  

Riothamus: BojanglesPaladin:

Secondly, I thought trickle-down economics was debunked? Which is it? How is trying to trickle down with tax dollars any different, except perhaps being less efficient?

I live with my mom

Government stimulus isn't trickle-down, and no one has ever called New Deal-style government spending "trickle-down" economics.
[frac.org image 432x411]

Eat dick.



When you consider that the $1 in tax money required $2.57 be extracted from the economy first you see that the whole process is still a net loss to the economy.
 
2012-06-13 10:19:52 AM  

RadioAaron: So, people know that jobs come from demand and not low tax rates, right?

Jobs are a consequence of success. What business owner WANTS to hire people that cut into their profits?


Well, tax cuts do promote consumption which leads to jobs... and in a marginal way leads directly to jobs when companies who find their cost/benefit balance teetering between BAU and hiring a new employee have the tax reduction favoring the new hire.
 
2012-06-13 10:45:37 AM  

Mildot: Kind of reminds me of an old TV show... Lost in Space

[www.conservativedailynews.com image 590x421]

/Danger Will Robinson, Danger!
//or as Obama likes tosay (about the economy) Crush, Kill, Destroy!


Son, your mouth's open again.
 
2012-06-13 02:17:28 PM  

RolandGunner: RadioAaron: So, people know that jobs come from demand and not low tax rates, right?

Jobs are a consequence of success. What business owner WANTS to hire people that cut into their profits?

Well, tax cuts do promote consumption which leads to jobs... and in a marginal way leads directly to jobs when companies who find their cost/benefit balance teetering between BAU and hiring a new employee have the tax reduction favoring the new hire.


Tax cuts to consumers do promote consumption. If you give someone who earns millions per year a tax cut of a few hundred thousand dollars, what are they going to buy that they can't already buy?

When you consider that the $1 in tax money required $2.57 be extracted from the economy first you see that the whole process is still a net loss to the economy.

The presumption is that because increasing taxes results in a reduction in pretax income which then can't be spent throughout the economy that raising taxes is bad. I would counter with two points: not even dollar earned is spent equally and the model assumes an across the board increase which no one is suggesting. The problems in our economy are caused by a lack of consumer demand and can only be resolved by restoring purchasing power to the middle class.
 
2012-06-13 02:19:24 PM  
I wouldn't expect much from this obvious obama screwup. The media isn't interested
 
2012-06-14 02:18:59 PM  
I love when they use the term "government" as a proper noun, as if it was some nebulous omnipotent entity. It's not like we live in a democracy where you VOTE for your government.
I've yet to meet someone who can clearly explain the concept of "Big Government™", what it is, and why it's bad.
 
Displayed 166 of 166 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report