heckofajobbrownie Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 How we got where we are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 I thought this was supposed to go in Al's reading thread. Oh wait, you're a lib, so it's okay with Al, and Dan. "never mind" (Heck despises threads without any comment, you know) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 Dan, I reformed my cut and pastes. And it wasn't me who whined about "too many threads in a day" (only three were too many) and "cut and pastes with no comment" which led Al to create his reading thread. I guess the reading thread is only for conversatives. Dan, you threw your non-partisanship out the window long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 I wasn't aware of this rule, or of these things that I totally despise. Thought it was a good summary for everyone to see before they start in about how awesome the Bush tax cuts were, and how devastating a return to Clinton-era top rates would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 and the NEW YORK TIMES is your last feeble line of defense of Buttock Otrauma ? (yikes) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 There are numbers from the CBO, Cal. Then made into a chart. Published by the New York Times. Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 And why, when the CBO gives you good news info, you go gaga? But when they don't, info bad, not good news, right wing conspiracy? (hint: megabaloney) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 That's good news? Where's the good news in that chart? As for the CBO, those are the numbers we always go by, mostly because they're not political. Perhaps you can produce a post where I dismiss the CBO numbers because they don't help make my case, but I'm 100% sure that you can't. Why don't you just address what the numbers say instead of going off on the New York Times and me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aloysius Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 Heck's been banned. For violating a rule that never existed. All that's been requested is that posters only start one thread a day. And not to start a new thread on a subject that's already being discussed in another thread. Clearly, Heck posting some interesting budget numbers doesn't violate either of those rules. It continues to amaze me how some posters here are more interested in debating the politics of this board than they are in actual policy arguments. If it's over your head, feel free to ignore this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 It continues to amaze me how some posters here are more interested in debating the politics of this board than they are in actual policy arguments. If it's over your head, feel free to ignore this thread. I heeded this advice 2 months ago. It seems Cal has been doing this since his Commodore 64. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 Here's a good summary of the chart: "You can think of that roughly $2 trillion swing as coming from four broad categories: the business cycle, President George W. Bush’s policies, policies from the Bush years that are scheduled to expire but that Mr. Obama has chosen to extend, and new policies proposed by Mr. Obama. The first category — the business cycle — accounts for 37 percent of the $2 trillion swing. It’s a reflection of the fact that both the 2001 recession and the current one reduced tax revenue, required more spending on safety-net programs and changed economists’ assumptions about how much in taxes the government would collect in future years. About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt. Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing. About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 How do you figure? The $145 bill Obama "stimulus bill" budget arrow is each year. Yet they only count the arrow once, and it appears you have too. Let's give Barry's stimulus the benefit of doubt here and assume we only suffer through it for 4 years. $145 x4= $580 bil compared to "Bush's $671 bil" over 8 years. Might want to re-work those percentages. Last paragraph in the link, if you're interested. Oh, and hey: if this wreckless idiot shit from the last 8 years is such a damned Texas-sized stupid idea, why are we continuing it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 That's a really good question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 I guess I should have also added an appendix to the question: Why are we adding more wreckless while continuing the original wreckless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 Here is another way we got here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 I guess I should have also added an appendix to the question: Why are we adding more wreckless while continuing the original wreckless. What recklessness are you referring to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballpeen Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 I thought this was supposed to go in Al's reading thread. Oh wait, you're a lib, so it's okay with Al, and Dan. "never mind" (Heck despises threads without any comment, you know) "Please only post links to articles in this thread. You can copy&paste articles in other threads, but please don't inundate the board with multiple threads/articles. You should limit yourself to one new thread a day, and that limit shouldn't be misconstrued as a daily requirement to start another thread. We're trying to have more extended, substantive discussions on the board. So unless you think the article brings up a topic or issue not already discussed on this board, you should link to it in here instead." LOL.....my ass....delete that instructive thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 Obama's stimulus plan = new recklessness (thanks for being discrete with my typo). Bush's Iraq war spending etc. = original recklessness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballpeen Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 Obama's stimulus plan = new recklessness (thanks for being discrete with my typo). Bush's Iraq war spending etc. = original recklessness. it's typical crap.....point to what the other guy did so people don't focus on what you are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 Actually, I thought the misspelling was intentional to make a point. Anyway, you don't agree with the idea of a stimulus, or the size, or the content? I think you'd have a tough time finding an economist that would argue with the need for some sort of government stimulus package at that point. Do you not believe that the fact that we didn't slide into a depression/deep recession had anything to do with the steps the Bush and Obama administration's took to stabilize the banking sector and stimulate the economy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 Ha! Damn. It could have. I should have gone with it. I think I disagree with all 3. I'm obviously not in the trenches, so I can't offer a better number other than less. Because I think this bailout didn't so much stabilize the economy (I think it's still sliding) as it did let the "wrecker's" (intentional) off the hook. As a specific example (and I know this doesn't crack into, nor tie everything together but..), as the credit markets thaw, the commodities traders are back at it again, this well before the unemployment corrects back up with this slight bump. This affects the middle class, for example, at the pump. I know it's just one expense, but when you're unemployed - it stings. Another example would be - assuming I could be talked into the necessity of a stimulus - rather than handing the bailout to the financial sector of GM, put a tag on it making sure that 75,85,90% of the bailout goes to sustaining the employees (worker bees) pensions (the ones they all just lost) rather than allowing GM to fiddle fart around and get it's shit together. Take care of the people who have been doing the right thing, and let the market come in and bring the new company (Hyundai, Hino, Honda, Hoo knows?) to come in, buy the plant and put the bees back to work. They've(the companies) already got the business end of it figured out. In the absence of the Buick Skylark, people will buy a Civic or Accord or Element, or etc.... That is how we are going to get our manufacturing back in this country. American workers, foreign companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballpeen Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 We still have to see what happens...hyper inflation doesn't help anything either...though i guess that only really screws with the people who managed to save some money along the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 Well, I think you're wrong. I don't think 100% of the stimulus was well-spent, or will be well spent, but you don't get to deal in absolutes in politics. And for every economist that tells you that the stimulus was too big you can find another one, equally qualified, who worried about it being too small. If Obama doesn't address the long-term budget problems we face once the economy has been stabilized (and you're right - it's still sliding, but I don't know anyone who thought it would have stopped sliding by now) and we begin to grow again I'll be with you. But for now I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, mostly because we needed stimulus, but also because I don't share any of these paranoid delusions that he's some sort of closet socialist who wants the government to run major corporations forever. These are temporary stabilization measures that he took on because he thought he had to, not because he wanted to. For people who can't see that, I don't know what to tell them. Maybe they should ask themselves why, if he's such a closet socialist, why he didn't choose to nationalize the banks, even when many economists were suggesting doing just that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballpeen Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 What exactly has been stimulated to this point?? I don't think much of the money has stimulated a thing. People are saving their money and paying down debt. No jobs have been created...unemployment is up 3% since president Obama took over(not saying that is all his fault),,,,just saying it hasn't stemmed anything unless you want to pull a figure out of the sky and say this is where it could have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 Well, I wasn't necessarily dealing in absolutes either. I do know when the stimulus funds were allocated at the beginning of the year, it had not been determined where they would specifically be appropriated to. State assemblies had not yet convened to make these determinations. We could have held off for several months (at least we would have saved the $60bil to GM before it went in the toilet) and be in a similar situation that we are now. We could have started with sending $$ to manufacturing, infrastructure, and other GDP builders and that would have been economically (& politically, imo) more responsible than giving it to people who make their living playing with money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballpeen Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 I did see where NY is supposed to get a $8 billion tunnel in from NJ....good for them I guess. Not so good for me or you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Maybe they should ask themselves why, if he's such a closet socialist, why he didn't choose to nationalize the banks, even when many economists were suggesting doing just that? An answer & a tie-in to the NWO thread: Because China owns them. I try not to think about that kind of thing. I'll check in with the book of Revelation every once in a while, but once you have kids, it can be a real bummer to think they will have to face that kind of thing. Same goes for the NWO crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 China doesn't own our banks, Leg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Yeah, that was supposed to be a joke. Just trying to point out I don't try and go down the road of believing or disbelieving things like that. Doesn't do any good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We need Tom Tupa Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 A few that dont give Obama much credit for the bright spots in the current economy: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/...k-under-mccain/ Summary: If McCain were president, let's assume that we wouldn't have seen a stimulus package. Would the economy look much different? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.