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.

(Daily Kos)   If it weren't for GOP obstructionism and austerity measures unemployment would be under 6%   (dailykos.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, GOP, American Recovery, austerity measures, ARRA, spillover effect, economic cost, Health Care, International, unemployment  
•       •       •

5253 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Jul 2012 at 7:27 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-07-10 01:30:02 AM  

GeneralJim: All of the above countries no longer exist.


Uh huh, and you know why USA isn't on that list? Because we're not a socialist country. And we weren't socialist (or on that list) under FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter, or Clinton either, despite you twits making the same claims as you are right now.

Here's a helpful retort for you. The two worst economic disasters in the past 100 years occurred under Republican presidents. So don't blame Obama.
 
2012-07-10 01:38:08 AM  

Shvetz: "Injecting the cash into the bottom of the economy makes it go around and around multiple times. Injecting it into the top (Bush tax cuts) ensures that more than half is just sitting in somebody's account, not being spent or invested."



Uh...right - because if there's one thing the wealthy tend to do with their money, it's keep it under a mattress without investing it.

As to your chart, could you please explain -- step by step -- the mechanism through which you believe that extending unemployment benefits creates jobs, or how you believe economic stimulus is created by incentivizing people to be less persistent in their job search?
 
2012-07-10 01:41:59 AM  

ImpendingCynic: "The two worst economic disasters in the past 100 years occurred under Republican presidents. So don't blame Obama."



You don't consider a 50% gross increase in the national debt in just over 3 years, to the tune of $16,000 per citizen, to be on par with the "worst economic disasters" of which you speak? (Difficulty: No "b..bu..but Bush!").
 
2012-07-10 01:54:50 AM  

spmkk: ImpendingCynic: "The two worst economic disasters in the past 100 years occurred under Republican presidents. So don't blame Obama."


You don't consider a 50% gross increase in the national debt in just over 3 years, to the tune of $16,000 per citizen, to be on par with the "worst economic disasters" of which you speak? (Difficulty: No "b..bu..but Bush!").


Reagan tripled the national debt and Bush doubled it. Compared to either of them, Obama is a piker.
 
2012-07-10 02:01:29 AM  

Bucky Katt: I see that Green Font Boy has been busy.


There haven't been any global warming threads for him to troll.
 
2012-07-10 02:03:47 AM  

spmkk: ImpendingCynic: "The two worst economic disasters in the past 100 years occurred under Republican presidents. So don't blame Obama."


You don't consider a 50% gross increase in the national debt in just over 3 years, to the tune of $16,000 per citizen, to be on par with the "worst economic disasters" of which you speak? (Difficulty: No "b..bu..but Bush!").


As you know, the rate of increase in government spending during Obama's first term is far lower than the rate of increase under any other modern president. You know that because it's been pointed out to you here (with documentation) several times.

By the way, bond yields are actually negative right now (measured in constant dollars) - something else I suspect you know. What that means is that the federal government is actually making money by borrowing money. It would be very, very foolish indeed under these circumstances if the federal government weren't borrowing as much money as the market will bear.
 
2012-07-10 02:16:02 AM  

spmkk: Shvetz: "Injecting the cash into the bottom of the economy makes it go around and around multiple times. Injecting it into the top (Bush tax cuts) ensures that more than half is just sitting in somebody's account, not being spent or invested."


Uh...right - because if there's one thing the wealthy tend to do with their money, it's keep it under a mattress without investing it.

As to your chart, could you please explain -- step by step -- the mechanism through which you believe that extending unemployment benefits creates jobs, or how you believe economic stimulus is created by incentivizing people to be less persistent in their job search?


1. Nothing is "incentivizing" (if that's even a word) people to be less persistent in their job search. If the jobs aren't there then no amount of looking is going to find them or make them miraculously appear from nowhere. Also, unemployment, for most people, isn't enough to live on. That is incentive enough to look for work, and the longer one is on it the deeper in debt they will probably be due to the gap between what they have and what they need. Your assumption that people want to live this way is bullsh*t, and if you believe it why don't you figure out how much your unemployment would be if you were laid off today, and try to live on that for 99 weeks? The knee-jerk assumption that people who collect these benefits are lazy is automatically a FAIL, and extremely stupid as well.

2. Those people who are unfortunate enough to need unemployment benefits do contribute to the economy by buying things like food and rent, and maybe the occasional pair of shoes. People make and sell these things, and their jobs are dependent on people who buy these things. As I said upthread, its the people who BUY or rent goods and services who are job creators, NOT businesses. Businesses add jobs or subtract jobs in response to demand, but create nothing. The customer creates demand, and therefore, the job.

3. Money spent and moving through the economy is much healthier than money just sitting in a stock, doing virtually nothing. 100 million people with $10,000 each to spend is a much larger kick in the economic ass than 100 people with 10,000,000,000 each. One can only buy so much bread, and those 100 people can't match the volume of transactions (and therefore actual real JOB CREATION aka DEMAND) the 100 million people can.
 
2012-07-10 02:19:20 AM  

spmkk: ImpendingCynic: "The two worst economic disasters in the past 100 years occurred under Republican presidents. So don't blame Obama."


You don't consider a 50% gross increase in the national debt in just over 3 years, to the tune of $16,000 per citizen, to be on par with the "worst economic disasters" of which you speak? (Difficulty: No "b..bu..but Bush!").


No. We're talking about economic disasters. Not, "wah, the government is spending money!"

So, lots of people losing their jobs, economies falling apart all over the world, and other things that effect people's lives TODAY.
 
2012-07-10 02:20:01 AM  

Tor_Eckman: "spmkk: ImpendingCynic: "The two worst economic disasters in the past 100 years occurred under Republican presidents. So don't blame Obama."


You don't consider a 50% gross increase in the national debt in just over 3 years, to the tune of $16,000 per citizen, to be on par with the "worst economic disasters" of which you speak? (Difficulty: No "b..bu..but Bush!").

Reagan tripled the national debt and Bush doubled it. Compared to either of them, Obama is a piker."



i738.photobucket.com

Adjusted for inflation, the national debt increased more in 3 years of Obama's Presidency than in all 8 years under Reagan. Before the end of Obama's first term, it will have increased more than it did under two consecutive terms of GWB. (Feel free to check my numbers.)
 
2012-07-10 02:26:43 AM  
That argument is not only stupid, it's a loser, too. Obama, on the other hand, is a winner. Obama's too smart to run with this crap
 
2012-07-10 02:26:46 AM  
Again, the Republitards have demonstrated their failure to understand how you're supposed to invest in the future of the USA. Spending is spending, and debt is nothing more than a big number to be appalled at.
 
2012-07-10 02:27:29 AM  

Dafatone: "spmkk: ImpendingCynic: "The two worst economic disasters in the past 100 years occurred under Republican presidents. So don't blame Obama."


You don't consider a 50% gross increase in the national debt in just over 3 years, to the tune of $16,000 per citizen, to be on par with the "worst economic disasters" of which you speak? (Difficulty: No "b..bu..but Bush!").

No. We're talking about economic disasters. Not, "wah, the government is spending money!"

So, lots of people losing their jobs, economies falling apart all over the world, and other things that effect people's lives TODAY."



Let me get this straight: if I drive a bus off a 10-foot ledge, that's a disaster; but if I accelerate the bus to an unstoppable speed toward a 100-foot ledge that's a few hundred feet away, that's NOT a disaster until the actual drop?
 
2012-07-10 02:38:48 AM  
rubi_con_man:
But as stated previously: If you are getting a paycheck , then you're in an entirely incomparable situation to the person PAYING your paycheck. Frequently, businesses (which is a better comparitor to the USGOV , although not perfect) BORROW money and spend more than they get for a period in order to maintain continuity over time and have assets on hand when the time for growth occurs.

So, if a business borrows money, then no possible amount of borrowing could ever be bad? Bullshiat, clear and simple.

Let's use your business analogy, as best as it will fit. If you consider the U.S. a business, GDP would be roughly equivalent to Gross Income. The tax collected would be roughly equivalent to Net Income. I'll be a little sloppy, as it's not an exact match...

$15,094.0 billion GDP
$2,303.5 billion Total Direct Revenue
$1,299.6 billion Deficit Spending
------------------------------------------------
$14,764.2 billion in gross public debt

Let's take a quick look at what this means. All numbers are for 2011. First, we are collecting, to knock off a lot of zeroes, 23, and spending all of that PLUS borrowing 13. Do you get that? We are borrowing MORE than half of what we collect -- more than a third of what we spend, we don't have.

Now, fixed expenses account for the vast majority of those dollars spent. But, if we spent NOTHING, but only paid down the debt with what the government collects, and stopped paying interest, it would take about six and a half years to pay off the debt.

If this were a business, we would have a business in which the fixed expenses were 150% of Net Income, and a debt equal to six and a half years of Net Income. Additionally, there is no immediate (10 years) prospect of the expenditures to Net Income situation improving.

It's time to close the doors and declare bankruptcy.

Let's look at it on a personal level. Let's say you're making $100,000 a year. Each year, you are going $50,000 further into debt, and your current debt is at $650,000. HOWEVER you look at this, it is nowhere near sustainable. We would need to cut spending by about 50%, AND increase taxes by about 50% to even start making headway against the debt. Can you see EITHER of those things happening... let alone BOTH? I can't. Congress killed the U.S. economy, plain and simple. And here's the "murder weapon:"


state-of-the-nation.com
 
2012-07-10 02:41:20 AM  
rewind2846:

1. Extending unemployment benefits: (a) reduces incentive for people to be flexible in the jobs they take, (b) puts us further in permanent debt for a temporary solution. It's not like we've got a pot labeled "unemployment insurance fund" that we can pull from -- we've already emptied it and poured the contents into evaporated "stimulus". Also, I make no assumption about how people want to live or about how lazy they are; I'll thank you to not make such assumptions for me and put them in my mouth.

2. Fair enough, except that your ridiculous assertion that businesses "create nothing" is pretty telling of your position on the producer/consumer relationship.

3. "100 million people with $10,000 each to spend" is a trillion dollars spent on a catch-a-man-a-fish BandAid that lasts about as long as it takes for people to burn through $10,000 and come to you for the next installment. Turns out, spending $10K doesn't take very long -- how often do you propose that we dole out $1T of our grandchildren's money in "stimulus"?
 
2012-07-10 02:41:35 AM  

spmkk: Tor_Eckman: "spmkk: ImpendingCynic: "The two worst economic disasters in the past 100 years occurred under Republican presidents. So don't blame Obama."


You don't consider a 50% gross increase in the national debt in just over 3 years, to the tune of $16,000 per citizen, to be on par with the "worst economic disasters" of which you speak? (Difficulty: No "b..bu..but Bush!").

Reagan tripled the national debt and Bush doubled it. Compared to either of them, Obama is a piker."


[i738.photobucket.com image 499x369]

Adjusted for inflation, the national debt increased more in 3 years of Obama's Presidency than in all 8 years under Reagan. Before the end of Obama's first term, it will have increased more than it did under two consecutive terms of GWB. (Feel free to check my numbers.)


Nice graph. You missed an important data point, but it does show that the debt more than doubled under Bush.

Do you have anything else that backs up my point?
 
2012-07-10 02:43:49 AM  
intelligent comment below:
GeneralJim: Especially, though, if they DO have a super-majority, watch what happens in the first six months. Compare with Obama's bullshiat.

Defund planned parenthood, the EPA, PBS, abolish collective bargaining for unions, force tests before abortions, defense of marriage act, and all these other "job creating" bills?

More than a little slow on the uptake, aren't you? The point, which you missed, was that there was more than four contiguous months (plus another period) in which Republicans couldn't do ANYTHING to stop the Democrats -- and all the Democrats did was pass that POS Obamacare bill written by the insurance companies. Boo-hooing about "obstructionism" is BS. But, thanks for playing.
 
2012-07-10 02:48:34 AM  

Tor_Eckman: "Nice graph. You missed an important data point, but it does show that the debt more than doubled under Bush.

Do you have anything else that backs up my point?"



Your "point" is completely irrelevant. Percentages don't matter -- absolute numbers do. The amount by which you, I, and every other American individual is in debt has increased as much during Obama's term to date as it did under 8 full years of Bush. It has increased more in the last three years than it did in the entire decade of the 1980s (again, adjusted for inflation). What exactly is your "point" in rattling on about farking percentages?

Also, as predicted: "b..bu..but Bush!"
 
2012-07-10 02:49:35 AM  

cchris_39: MSFT: cchris_39: Shvetz: [i.imgur.com image 635x389]

All you need to know. Obama has been for all the things on top, the things that are creating jobs and economic stimulus, and therefore government revenue. See the return on food stamps? Food stamps actually pay for themselves. The Bush tax cuts? Negative returns.

Well that pretty much sums up the socialist mind.

"Maximium economic benefit is achieved by consfiscating all wealth and putting everyone on welfare. I have charts to prove it."

Unfortunately, they have about the half the country agreeing with them. Not that they would ever lay it out with my frank Texas eloquence, but there is their fervant belief laid bare.

It must hurt to be this stupid. How on earth are you able to type through all the pain?

What part of Shvetz's argument did I get wrong?

And yes, the idea that people believe that food stamps provide a 73% return on investment does make my head hurt. Doesn't it yours?

Hell if that was true, Bain Capital would have figured out a way to own the food stamp business.


Well they trash talk it so much, I figured it was competition.

The likes of Bain want poor people. They want to make us poor. They want to keep us poor. The only people they want to make money for are their investors, and money is a zero sum game.

Every dollar paid out to investors is a dollar that does not go into payroll. It does not go into R&D. It does not train workers. It is not passed down to the consumer.

So think about the billions upon billions of dollars that Bain has made. Where did it come from? We know where it goes: offshore to a bank account never to be seen again. Well, except when Mrs. Rmoney needs a new coat, or Mr. Rmoney wants to run for president.
 
2012-07-10 02:54:00 AM  

spmkk: You don't consider a 50% gross increase in the national debt in just over 3 years, to the tune of $16,000 per citizen, to be on par with the "worst economic disasters" of which you speak? (Difficulty: No "b..bu..but Bush!").


No. Because he didn't do it three times, as you imply. additionally, Both Reagan and Bush tripled the debt level of the country. And what he did wasn't nearly enough of a stimulus - millions of highly trained, devoted civil servants across the country lost their jobs.

GeneralJim: Let's look at it on a personal level.


No. What I said is that you can't look at it like a person. It's not like a 'personal level'.

Here's an example. Imagine you run a farm. You are a farmer, and you make about 30k in cash every year, and you set aside enough food to feed your family through the year. You may need to borrow more than your income to finance the seed, fertilizer, water, harvester service, and crop insurance. To anyone unused to this, It looks insane! My God, you borrow 50,000 every year and only make $30,000? That's Massively irresponsible, right ?
 
2012-07-10 03:00:24 AM  
intelligent comment below:
Defund planned parenthood, the EPA, PBS, abolish collective bargaining for unions, force tests before abortions, defense of marriage act, and all these other "job creating" bills?

Oh, yeah... and speaking of "job creating," here's a list of your favorite dumbass' regulations -- which he can blame on NOBODY but himself -- that are stifling business, read by Allen West.

VIDEO
 
2012-07-10 03:02:11 AM  

spmkk: Also, as predicted: "b..bu..but Bush!"


How much of that did Obama inherit, oh but you ignored that part, didn't you, lowlife.
 
2012-07-10 03:07:19 AM  

GeneralJim: intelligent comment below: Defund planned parenthood, the EPA, PBS, abolish collective bargaining for unions, force tests before abortions, defense of marriage act, and all these other "job creating" bills?
Oh, yeah... and speaking of "job creating," here's a list of your favorite dumbass' regulations -- which he can blame on NOBODY but himself -- that are stifling business, read by Allen West.

VIDEO


Allen West? You don't want to be taken seriously, do you?
 
2012-07-10 03:10:01 AM  

gblive: intelligent comment below: gblive: Estonia and Latvia


That's funny you think those countries can be compared to any big economy like England or America.

When I engineer a little jet engine for a tiny RC plane or a huge jet engine for an large passenger plane - the successful design concepts remain the same, it is just a matter of scale.


RC jet engines have to handle bird strikes, have built in fire suppression, and are rates for human transport? Who knew!

I also engineer. (Or rather... I *really* engineer.) And I can point to a lot of systems that do not scale from tiny to Titan. Aviation is one of them. Large planes require different designs than small planes.

If you shrunk a 767 to Cessna size, a pilot wouldn't fit in the cabin. And it would be pretty unstable. And jet engines scaled to that size would not provide enough thrust.

If you scale a Cessna to 767 size you'd have a range measured in yards. The drag that gives you stability for a small craft at low speed would make high speed impossible, if not cost prohibitive.

In addition there are design considerations that come into an aircraft that carries 180 people for several hours at high altitude that you don't have to worry about when you are carrying three at low altitude. Things like bathrooms, emergency exits, emergency oxygen, food service...

Need I go on?
 
2012-07-10 03:10:45 AM  
Wow, it's a straight-up derpocalypse round these parts.
 
2012-07-10 03:12:53 AM  
Mrtraveler01:
Alright let's cut some spending.

Let's start with the Department of Defense, they got tons of waste and fraud that we can cut.

*cue Republican whining against it*

The DoD HAS to be cut quite a bit. I think we can quit occupying Germany and Japan, for example...

And, personally, I'm getting tired of us defending Europe, and then having them sneer at us. Pull out of Europe completely, abrogate all of our treaties, and let Russia eat them. Or, they can defend themselves... or let us defend them -- but let them PAY for their own defense.

But the Democrats' sacred cows get gored, too. Welfare for nothing has to STOP, cold turkey. Any "welfare" one gets, one gets by working. And it should pay less than a real job, to encourage those on it to get off it. The way things are now, if one gets off welfare, and takes a minimum wage job, it is pretty close to a break-even proposition -- except that with welfare, you don't have to work. Well, that should come to a screeching halt. If you're not disabled, you work for your money, even if it's only watching your kids, and others, at a day-care center.

And, we need to be a little bit rational about things, too. I mean, should we be paying for viagra for sex offenders locked up in prison? Really?
 
2012-07-10 03:14:12 AM  

that bosnian sniper: Wow, it's a straight-up derpocalypse round these parts.


Yeah.

And there's still four months to go.
 
2012-07-10 03:16:19 AM  
LordJiro:
I really wish the RNC DNC would issue a new talking points handbook. Hearing the same debunked, fallacious nonsense time and time again is getting so stale.

Fixed.
 
2012-07-10 03:18:38 AM  

spmkk: rewind2846:

1. Extending unemployment benefits: (a) reduces incentive for people to be flexible in the jobs they take, (b) puts us further in permanent debt for a temporary solution. It's not like we've got a pot labeled "unemployment insurance fund" that we can pull from -- we've already emptied it and poured the contents into evaporated "stimulus". Also, I make no assumption about how people want to live or about how lazy they are; I'll thank you to not make such assumptions for me and put them in my mouth.


When folks like you say "flexible" that usually means "minimum wage or less for college educated or trained and experienced people". This is the classic republican response to this idea, the idea that "flexibility" should mean a race to the bottom in wages and benefits to a point where even chinese peasants turn their noses up at the jobs.
Minimum wage and unemployment insurance were instituted for very good reasons:
1. so that people don't starve to death even though they work 40+ hours a week, and
2. so that those people with skills and experience have time to find another job in line with those skills and that experience.
We as a nation figured out a long time ago that it's a waste of resources to have a PhD in physics stocking shelves in a grocery store because they needed money within a week after being laid off.
Also, if you assume that people who are collecting unemployment CHOOSE to live like that instead of working, then what else would the logical conclusion be but that they are lazy? I think you're just to cowardly to say (type) it out loud.

2. Fair enough, except that your ridiculous assertion that businesses "create nothing" is pretty telling of your position on the producer/consumer relationship.


In terms of products or services, of course they "create"... but that was not the point of the conversation. Customer demand creates business (the verb), and business (the verb) creates jobs. Without demand, there are no jobs. Consider the person who opens a flower shop... and no one walks through the door. Ever. Do they actually have a business, or are they simply renting a space? The business comes into being when the first transaction is made, and its continued existence depends on subsequent transactions. If the transactions cease, so does the business. As transactions increase, they have a choice... they can try to do it all yourself, or they can hire someone to assist them. That decision is based solely on customer demand and the volume of business.

Customers create jobs by driving demand, not businesses. Businesses react to that demand. This is why the "job creator" meme is such a f*cking f*cked up bullsh*t lie.

3. "100 million people with $10,000 each to spend" is a trillion dollars spent on a catch-a-man-a-fish BandAid that lasts about as long as it takes for people to burn through $10,000 and come to you for the next installment. Turns out, spending $10K doesn't take very long -- how often do you propose that we dole out $1T of our grandchildren's money in "stimulus"?

Like any stimulus program going back to FDR, the ones enacted thus far simply were not large enough. For an economy the size of ours, getting it unstuck was not going to be done with a tiny jeweler's hammer, but with a sledgehammer and some dynamite. Unfortunately by the time any stimulus that might have helped sh*t its way through the republicans in congress, it was turned into a waste of money due to having its balls, arms and legs chopped off and being left to wriggle around on the floor like a fish. It was designed to barely make a ripple because that's the way the republicans wanted it.

Also, I was not speaking of "stimulus", I was speaking of the insanity of having so much wealth concentrated in the hands of so few people, and how that is what is going to eventually cause the collapse of our system. Money needs to circulate for a healthy economy, and the best way to have it circulate is from the bottom, not the top. How it gets to the bottom is a topic for discussion, but it needs to get there.

It's also very strange the "grandchildren" are only important when there's a Democrat in the white house, especially this one... sensing a pattern here...
 
2012-07-10 03:24:52 AM  
Yeah, so? See you at the polls libs.
 
2012-07-10 03:33:46 AM  
intelligent comment below:
GeneralJim: Well, take ALL the money "the rich" have -- it would run the bloated carcass of the federal government for just over two months. But then, who would you blame for your failures? Oh, the horror.

False talking point is false

Funny that under Obama, government hasn't been smaller for literally decades.

The problem with government is too much military spending, too many corporate welfare cases, and too little taxes on multinational corporations and the wealthy

Boy, you can't get ANYTHING right, can you. Okay, hotshot, spot quiz: Show me where Obama's influence lowered ANYTHING that matters. How many employees work for the federal government is bollocks. What counts is the MONEY spent. Besides, if the same money is being spent, and more of it is on payroll, that's actually marginally better. I don't see ANY decrease under Obama.

media.lclark.edu

 
2012-07-10 03:47:48 AM  
intelligent comment below:
taxes have never been lower, in a hundred years.

Are you really trying to make an argument against this?

Here's a thought exercise: What happens to tax income when the economy tanks?
 
2012-07-10 03:49:26 AM  

spmkk: Tor_Eckman: "Nice graph. You missed an important data point, but it does show that the debt more than doubled under Bush.

Do you have anything else that backs up my point?"


Your "point" is completely irrelevant. Percentages don't matter -- absolute numbers do. The amount by which you, I, and every other American individual is in debt has increased as much during Obama's term to date as it did under 8 full years of Bush. It has increased more in the last three years than it did in the entire decade of the 1980s (again, adjusted for inflation). What exactly is your "point" in rattling on about farking percentages?

Also, as predicted: "b..bu..but Bush!"


Your completely out of your mind. If you have wars that spend huge amounts of money that arent even in the budgets, and then pass them off on the next guy, well, guess what? YOU STILL HAD WARS OFF THE BOOKS, DUMBASS.
 
2012-07-10 03:54:34 AM  

rewind2846: Like any stimulus program going back to FDR, the ones enacted thus far simply were not large enough. For an economy the size of ours, getting it unstuck was not going to be done with a tiny jeweler's hammer, but with a sledgehammer and some dynamite.


it never could be large enough. it is practically impossible.
we had a deficit of 10% GDP before the actual stimulus was accounted for.
about 40% of total federal spending was paid for by debt, before the stimulus.
those amounts are already farking enormous, way way bigger than anything in the new deal as a percentage of gdp or debt or however you choose to slice it.

that amount is the deficit can be looked at as a natural stimulus that results as income taxes drop and food stamps, earned income credit, and unemployment payments increase.
in the history of recessions, only a true world war when 60 million people were killed and a huge portion of industrialized civilization was razed to the ground has ever been *enough* to get us out of a deep recession.
doing very much more than we did while almost adding no new programs is almost inconceivable.
at the end of this decade we might be looking at debt service of 700 billion a year, about 1/5 of our current budget, or all the money that is spent on the armed forces.
the numbers people through around as not enough are incredible, and have never been duplicated in history outside of war that existentially threatened the united states, like ww2 and the civil war.
 
2012-07-10 03:54:59 AM  
intelligent comment below:
paygun: I sure as hell don't think that if we just cut education to the bone and made students meet in mud huts that it will all turn around. I really don't think our problem with education is really a problem with the system itself. A talented well paid teacher can't fix a broken community.


Finally we get to your argument, it's the minorities fault.

It's just all those Escalades and gangsters and baby daddies.

You racist turd. EABOD.
 
2012-07-10 03:55:54 AM  

Mrtraveler01: Giltric: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: GeneralJim: kmmontandon: Same with stimulus measures - if you know you're going to allocate a certain amount of money to infrastructure improvements, you can have a pretty good idea of how many people are going to be hired (or privately contracted, most often, meaning the contractors have to hire) to do those jobs.
Seriously? How about the fact that the "stimulus packages" already passed did NOTHING... well, other than add trillions of dollars to the national debt, of course. "JUST ONE MORE WOULD HAVE DONE IT!" is what you're going with?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 140x150]

Just one more beer...
Just one more bump....
Just one more hit....
Just one more fix...
Just one more empty shoebox to hoard...
Just one more stimulus.....

All are signs of addiction.......

Still waiting for some evidence over here.

Not surprising, enablers are usually in denial and ignore any evidence anyway.

So you don't have any evidence then?

Good to know.

Link


Failing in your attempts to stop using the drug

Making certain that you maintain a supply of the drug

Spending money on the drug, even though you can't afford it

Doing things to obtain the drug that you normally wouldn't do, such as stealing

Feeling that you need the drug to deal with your problems

Focusing more and more time and energy on getting and using the drug

How does this prove that the economy would've recovered faster without the stimulus?

Man you guys are slow tonight!

Link

•Letting your addicted friend or loved one change the subject when you bring up their substance abuse problem

So you got nothing then?

Good to know.


I'm done wasting my time on Giltric's drivel. Life is too short to listen to stupid, willfully ignorant, or disingenuous. I'm betting on all three in his case.

/favorited!
 
2012-07-10 04:03:37 AM  
Mrtraveler01:
gblive: intelligent comment below: gblive: In the real world, Austerity means that spending goes "Down". Not so in the U.S. and many European countries. Then the politicians jump up & down and claim that "austerity" was a failure. Austerity did not fail; you increasing spending and calling it "austerity" is a big Fail.


except England has cut spending in all areas like the military, health care and education.

Guess what has happened? Rising unemployment and extremely low GDP numbers

Show me the total U.K. budget each year from 2005 to current. The U.K has not reduced TOTAL spending.

That is like saying the the U.S. cut education and FDA spending ... and guess what happened. Rising unemployment and extremely low GDP numbers

Ah yes, the "No True Scotsman" approach to austerity.

Obviously if the UK cut spending more and put EVEN more government workers out of work, that'll somehow magically fix the UK economy and get it out of the recession it just got back into.

Okay. VERY SLOWLY....

Spending
in
the
U.K.
has
gone
up
every
year.

Got it? That is NOT cutting spending. That's like battling alcoholism by making sure you drink more every day than the day before. Don't tell me you buy that rot that if the government wants to expand 5%, and they only expand 2%, that's a cut of government by 3%... Really?
 
2012-07-10 04:09:16 AM  
maybe not a 10% deficit before the stimulus was taken into account now that I think about it, but close.
I think we were gonna run a $1.2 trillion deficit just from less taxes and more social services expenditures (before the lmost $300 billion for one years worth of stimulus) and gdp had droppped to 14 trilion. so whatever 12/140 is was the deficit to gdp ratio. so what is that? 8-9%. something like that. it was a huge amount of *stimulus spending* even before the stimulus was passed.

anyway I'm fairly certain we've never run up those current deficit to GDP numbers in our history except for during ww2. in truth, we had a f*ckload of stimulus.
 
2012-07-10 04:15:53 AM  

GeneralJim: Mrtraveler01: gblive: intelligent comment below: gblive: In the real world, Austerity means that spending goes "Down". Not so in the U.S. and many European countries. Then the politicians jump up & down and claim that "austerity" was a failure. Austerity did not fail; you increasing spending and calling it "austerity" is a big Fail.


except England has cut spending in all areas like the military, health care and education.

Guess what has happened? Rising unemployment and extremely low GDP numbers

Show me the total U.K. budget each year from 2005 to current. The U.K has not reduced TOTAL spending.

That is like saying the the U.S. cut education and FDA spending ... and guess what happened. Rising unemployment and extremely low GDP numbers

Ah yes, the "No True Scotsman" approach to austerity.

Obviously if the UK cut spending more and put EVEN more government workers out of work, that'll somehow magically fix the UK economy and get it out of the recession it just got back into.
Okay. VERY SLOWLY....

Spending
in
the
U.K.
has
gone
up
every
year.

Got it? That is NOT cutting spending. That's like battling alcoholism by making sure you drink more every day than the day before. Don't tell me you buy that rot that if the government wants to expand 5%, and they only expand 2%, that's a cut of government by 3%... Really?


He is making a poor atempt at saying that austerity worsens an economic down turn. And most economists with a phd after their name agree. Especially the ones holding that prize from Nobel.
 
2012-07-10 04:16:50 AM  
jcooli09:
The stimulus did do some good, and we'll have some better roads and bridges to show for it. We should do it again.

Well, clearly, spending a bunch of money will put SOME people to work -- even if it is only couriers delivering bags of money to Obama contributors. But, as I pointed out before, note that the $22 billion dollars spent on census-taking is clearly visible in the employment numbers, and the 45 times greater stimulus package doesn't make a visible ripple.

And, again, the vast amount of money spent on stimulus could have been used to put EVERY unemployed person to work for more than 18 months. Did anything anywhere NEAR that cool happen as a result of this?

And, I would additionally point out that that money has to be taken from OTHER people, who now will not be buying cars, or whatever else they would have bought. So, more people out of work in other fields, more people working in concrete. Shuffling it around doesn't MAKE anything, and doesn't IMPROVE anything. It ended up being a wash. It's good if you're in concrete, and part of the stimulus builds roads, but not good if you run a movie theater, and people don't have the money to go, because it was taken to do road work. A trillion dollars of "stimulus" means taking $8,500 from every household in the U.S. and giving it to political hangers-on, mostly. I don't see how that can help anywhere near as much as it hurts.
 
2012-07-10 04:20:01 AM  

rewind2846: "Minimum wage and unemployment insurance were instituted for very good reasons:
1. so that people don't starve to death even though they work 40+ hours a week, and
2. so that those people with skills and experience have time to find another job in line with those skills and that experience.
We as a nation figured out a long time ago that it's a waste of resources to have a PhD in physics stocking shelves in a grocery store because they needed money within a week after being laid off."



a.) Did I, at any point, make an argument against either minimum wage or unemployment insurance (for a reasonable period)?

b.) Finding a job in line with existing skills or experience is not always possible, nor should it be. When aircraft technology advances to where only two people are needed in the cockpit, the skills and experience held by flight engineers are no longer marketable. When CAD is invented, the skills and experience of drafters become permanently obsolete; it doesn't matter how much you pad their fall, their bottom is still going to drop out, and stimulus isn't the solution. People have to adapt -- sometimes to technological advancements, sometimes to economic pressures and fluctuations. You're not going to stimulate that reality away, and you'll make the problem worse by trying.

c.) Having a physics PhD sit around while the research grant coffers are replenished is a much greater waste of resources than having that physics PhD stock shelves. And if that PhD HAS to settle for minimum wage (roughly what unemployment benefits add up to), don't you think it's probably wiser to make it more attractive for him to earn it by stocking shelves than collect it for not stocking shelves?


rewind2846: "Like any stimulus program going back to FDR, the ones enacted thus far simply were not large enough. For an economy the size of ours, getting it unstuck was not going to be done with a tiny jeweler's hammer, but with a sledgehammer and some dynamite. [anti-Republican partisan derp deleted]"



Where exactly is it that you think money for your "large enough" sledgehammer would come from, Krugman-san? Nobody's opposed to infusing some cash into the economy if it's there. But we can't keep borrowing $10 to stave off $5 failures. I HAVE to believe you understand that at some point the bill actually comes due.

We have run up enough debt just during Obama's term to incur $150B per year in additional interest alone -- that's 20% of the entire defense budget. How much more do you want? At a certain point, it doesn't matter HOW much it stimulates the economy, the hole will be too deep for even the strongest engine to power out of.


And...apparently it needs to be said *yet again*, because the entirety of 20th-century history didn't communicate it to you clearly enough -- the solution to the the poor not having enough ISN'T for the rich to have less.
 
2012-07-10 04:27:37 AM  

spmkk: And...apparently it needs to be said *yet again*, because the entirety of 20th-century history didn't communicate it to you clearly enough -- the solution to the the poor not having enough ISN'T for the rich to have less.


I must have missed that part, when did it happen again?
It has never been an issue of taking what the rich have, they can keep it, it's preventing them from taking more than they deserve.

spmkk: Krugman-san


Know how i know you're an idiot? You completely dismiss a world reknown award winning ecconomist, not with argumentation but with name calling.
 
2012-07-10 04:31:35 AM  

GeneralJim: intelligent comment below: taxes have never been lower, in a hundred years.

Are you really trying to make an argument against this?
Here's a thought exercise: What happens to tax income when the economy tanks?



Time and time again, here and elsewhere, every single thing you've said has been proven wrong. Again and again. You're response is always the same. Ignore, change the subject, deflect, straw man, reduction to absurdity, etc. You have nothing. Except maybe self-delusion and fear. Eying your right-wing saviors with tears made equal parts of fear and sadness at the loss of an America you think existed. There is no room for rational discussion here, you simply won't have it.

I actually feel sorry for you.
 
2012-07-10 04:34:45 AM  

GeneralJim: And, I would additionally point out that that money has to be taken from OTHER people, who now will not be buying cars, or whatever else they would have bought.


Did they even cover the great depression at your house of learning? It's like everything you type flies in the face of how the world actually works. If you raise taxes on those making over $200k a year do you really think they won't be able to afford a car?

You do know that we were officially out of the Great Depression before WW2 started, right?
 
2012-07-10 04:37:34 AM  
not that I'm talking to anyone, but I was wrong. federal deficit as a percentage of GDP was larger in ww1 than it was in 2009-2010.

and as you can see deficit to gdp got up to near 28% during the ww2.

however in 2009-2010 we managed to more than double what the new deal outlayed as deficit spending at its peak in 1935.

anyway as we can see deficit spending was almost 3 times as big in 1941 as it was in 2010.
so to equal 28% of gdp in deficit spending (like we spent in ww2) in 2010 we would have had to deficit spend 3.92 trillion. that was bigger than our f*cking budget that year by several hundred billion. think about what this means.

the feds only took in $1 trillion in income taxes 2009 iirc, and we ran a 1.5 trillion deficit. even if we decided to have a complete moratorium on income taxes in 2009 (not one person pay anything in taxes) we still would have only added another trillion to the debt. we'd still be f*cking short of the 28% deficit to gdp ratio goal by 1.4 trillion dollars. wtf could the federal government spend another $1.4 trillion on in one year, after the small stimulus was having trouble to find shovel ready projects.
it's really almost impossible to conceive this kind of profligacy if you don't think you need to build an army capable of destroying the rest of the world and you need to start rearming 3 years ago.

www.usgovernmentspending.com
 
2012-07-10 04:38:32 AM  

spmkk: And...apparently it needs to be said *yet again*, because the entirety of 20th-century history didn't communicate it to you clearly enough -- the solution to the the poor not having enough ISN'T for the rich to have less.


Ah, yes, the 20th century demonstrates clearly to us that the solution to the poor not having enough is to cut taxes on billionaires while lowering the minimum wage. I think the 20th century (especially around 1929 onward) has taught us that taking from the rich and giving to the poor can quite possibly be the best thing you can do for a struggling economy.
 
2012-07-10 04:42:59 AM  

Magruda: GeneralJim: And, I would additionally point out that that money has to be taken from OTHER people, who now will not be buying cars, or whatever else they would have bought.

Did they even cover the great depression at your house of learning? It's like everything you type flies in the face of how the world actually works. If you raise taxes on those making over $200k a year do you really think they won't be able to afford a car?

You do know that we were officially out of the Great Depression before WW2 started, right?


I knew that, but I'd be willing to bet you didn't know that we were officially out of the depression before the new deal even got started.
but you wouldn't have wanted to tell the folks that couldn't find employment and were looking at 23% unemployment or whatever that.

/all you need to break out of a recession/depression is one quarter of actual growth.
 
2012-07-10 04:43:12 AM  
intelligent comment below:
Why do you pick an arbitrary year and demand to be compared to that? England has cut its budget and is now in a double dip recession.

Okay. Here are charts. I see NO "cutting". Perhaps they did not expand as much as they wanted, but they did NOT cut spending.

i49.tinypic.com

www.ukpublicspending.co.uk

 
2012-07-10 04:46:20 AM  

GeneralJim: command economies


You are a very silly person.

Projecting the RWA tendencies towards unquestioned obedience and a lock step mentality onto the left was bad enough but swinging at commie ghosts now? Yeesh.
 
2012-07-10 04:46:40 AM  

relcec: /all you need to break out of a recession/depression is one quarter of actual growth.


And i'm sure that you know that job growth usually follows an economic upturn, they don't happen at the same time.

Also, are you saying that the Great Depression ended in 1933? That's a new one.
 
2012-07-10 04:53:14 AM  
intelligent comment below:
GeneralJim: Many people have said that the recession would've been much more severe without the stimulus.

Want to know how long it took for America to recover from the 29 crash? 25 farking years.

I did not say that -- YOU did, dumbass.

Oh, and speaking of dumbass, it was NOT "America" that took 25 years to recover, it was the stock market. Dumbass. The stock market had a HUGE artificial bubble, caused by government action, just like the housing bubble in this one, caused by government action. And, of course, all of FDR's tax-n-waste make work DID delay recovery, just like Obama's "stimulus" has delayed recovery.
 
Displayed 50 of 508 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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