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 21
    More: Interesting, President Obama, Bureau of Economic Analysis, austerities, state governments, local governments  
•       •       •

2498 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Jun 2012 at 12:36 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-06-12 10:09:38 AM
3 votes:
img855.imageshack.us
2012-06-12 12:44:10 PM
2 votes:
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 10:23:43 AM
2 votes:
And Stephen Hawking would be dead by now if he was a citizen of the UK.
2012-06-12 05:53:01 PM
1 votes:

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 05:42:59 PM
1 votes:

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 05:42:37 PM
1 votes:

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 05:21:41 PM
1 votes:

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 04:51:56 PM
1 votes:

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 02:43:43 PM
1 votes:

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 02:22:29 PM
1 votes:

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?
2012-06-12 02:00:02 PM
1 votes:

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 01:49:33 PM
1 votes:

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 01:31:04 PM
1 votes:

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 01:12:25 PM
1 votes:
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 01:09:39 PM
1 votes:
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 01:09:14 PM
1 votes:

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 01:02:38 PM
1 votes:

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 12:48:33 PM
1 votes:
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 12:45:51 PM
1 votes:
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 10:19:36 AM
1 votes:
dailydish.typepad.com

Hm.
2012-06-12 10:13:55 AM
1 votes:
I can't think of any publication more willing to take private industry to task for dishonesty than Investors Business Daily.
 
Displayed 21 of 21 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report