US Economic Information
Illustrations of US economic information
Me: Most informed people do know. That is, the House has the specified authority in the Constitution to appropriate money. It is also worth noting that Obama as Senator voted for every one of the stimulus bills.
By the way, I note that Obama is trumpeting his "achievement" of saving the country via stimulus spending. So is the debt inflicted good or bad? I guess it's just abouit which narrative is being pressed, eh?
R.Y.: A good lesson in the dangers of compound interest on debt, too.
R.R.: Finally something he can blame on his predecessors! ;-)
C.K.: @ Rich, do you really think the stimulus bills are the primary source of spending increases under Reagan, Bush 1 and W?
Me: C.K., I made no such assertion.
C.K.: Then why would it matter how Obama voted on the stimulus packages? I think he is on record in believing that in times of economic crisis, stimulus can be effective. Funny the Republicans used to believe that also.
R.Y.: In fact, I believe we had a Republican president the last time Obama was able to vote on a stimulus package.
Me: Because Obama as Senator voted for the spending that added to the national debt.The graph shifts spending to Bush II's last budget year as if Obama had no part to play in its creation. The original premise: you mean Obama DIDN'T create all the debt single handedly?
I don't have any interest in what Republicans believe, since I am not one. Their stupidity and profligate spending does not justify the actions of democrats.
R.E.: But what about a Democratic Congress and Senate. With a Dem President at the helm.
R.Y.: Frankly I believe that any time you get single-party control of both the legislative and executive branches you'll end up with runaway spending.
C.K.: "Because Obama as Senator voted for the spending that added to the national debt" But you just admitted that it was not a significant driver of the debt. It may have actually paid for itself. Meanwhile the tax cut that Bush put into place was actually greater than the deficit in 2007.
C.K.: No tax cut and 2007 ends in a surplus.
Me: I did not admit that. The stimuli were unmitigated disasters.
If the stimuli paid for themselves, then why did the national debt go from $9.2 trillion in '08 to $15.2 trillion in'12?
C.K.: How much were those stimulus packages again? How much was spending and how much was tax-cuts?
C.K.: @ Rich, do you really think the stimulus bills are the primary source of spending increases under Reagan, Bush 1 and W? You seemed to say no.
M.D.: I don't think you understand what we are up against. Its not a republican or a democrat issue.Its the puppet masters above them tied to the British empire that are padding there greedy little pockets.This government is completely defacto.The structure of government that we have is called an Oligarchy where a select few of the wealthiest control us.This country was formed as a republic which is limited gov under the checks and balances of the constitution and we the people are there employers not the other way around.Democracy is where 51% of the people decide whats best for every one and that doesn't work because the rich own the air ways and the news papers and can spread propaganda witch sways the votes there way with lies and trickery.That is why we excepted a central bank,read the book monster from jackal island.If you want to learn more go to www.republicfortheunitedstates.org
The year 1776 marked America’s victory in the war for independence. The lawful... right to re-inhabit is inherent in The Declaration of Independence circa 1776. The Declaration, one of our founding documents, declares our right to change, alter or abolish any system of government that we believe is ...See More
Me: Of course I said no. The first stimulus was signed into law on February 13, 2008. Reagan died in 2004 and Bush I has been out of office for nearly 20 years.
The national debt increased as follows:
2008: $9.210, 24.2% increase over prior year
09: 10.628, 13.3%
10: 12.290, 13.5%
11: 13.998, 12.2%
12: 15.226, 8%
C.K.: Okay then was it a significant driver of the increase in spending under Bush 2, which was part of the question.
Me: If I may correct you, it was a significant driver of spending under a democratic congress.
C.K.: W only had a Democratic congress in 2007 and 2008.
C.K.: He also has the power to veto.
Me: Again, I have no intention of defending big spending republicans. Bush II was wrong to support the stimuli. But again, all appropriations arise in the House. The fact that Bush II agreed is not relevant.
Me: 2008 and 2009 spending was controlled by a democratic house, and Obama voted in favor in the senate. Yes, bush had a democratic congress in 2007 and 2008, which is when the crisis happened and spending spree intensified.
Me: Yes, bush had a democratic congress in 2007 and 2008, which is when the crisis happened and spending spree intensified.
Me: Back to the original premise...
No not so much. Remember spending in 2007 was approved before the Dems took office. 2008 was the bail-out that could have been avoided if Bush was not so dogmatic.
C.K.: Still waiting for you to tell me what percentage of that increased spending was the result of stimulus.
Me: The fiscal policy of the last 30 years culminated in the financial crisis. It could not have been avoided; indeed, they are doubling down on the policies that caused the problem.
C.K.: I think it could have been avoided if steps were taken to prevent the foreclosure crisis from occurring in the first place. They saw that one coming as early as 2006 and did nothing, because the benevolent free hand of the market and all that malarkey. The policies that caused the problem are the very prescription that the Republicans are suggesting to fix the crisis.
Me: Unfortunately, the nature of your question is based on a flawed premise, i.e., that the economy is a closed system where a change in one area does not affect other areas. The stimuli are not isolated events. The implementation of them affected the money supply, the lending practices of banks, the holders of debt of Chevrolet and Chrysler, the confidence of consumers, the hiring activities of employers, the amount of tax revenue coming to the treasury because of unemployment, the amount of S.S. disability claims as people looked for ways to find income, the value of homes and retirement accounts. There is a wide and varied fallout from the decisions government has made.
C.K.: Now you are talking in circles and cannot back up your claims with facts. In other words you do not know the answer.
Me: The original premise of the post. He is not only a part of the problem, but complicit in the mess.
Me: It seems rather plain to me. Government intervention creates a ripple effect throughout the economy. This is basic economics. A trillion spent in various stimuli has a 10 fold ripple effect through the economy.
Me: As long as we agree theat Obama inherited the mess and is not to blame for the subsequent 3 1/2 years.
C.K.: Yes it does create a ripple effect. Much of it positive.
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/5/17/end_this_depression_now_paul_krugman
Public spending is under assault from the United States to Europe in the name of... fighting deficits. Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman argues in his new book, "End This Depression Now!", that the hysteria over the deficit will constrain an economic recovery in a time of high unemployment and...
Me: Are you perhaps going to answer any of my questions?
Me: Krugman? OMG. try again.
C.K.: You have not made a single non-declarative statement
C.K.: How many nobel prizes do you have in economics?
Me: Zero, and no peace prizes either. Of course, I don't brag about killing Osama either.
C.K.: Because you didn't.
Me: Zing.
Me: Looking around for the positive ripple effect. Still looking.
Me: "If the stimuli paid for themselves, then why did the national debt go from $9.2 trillion in '08 to $15.2 trillion in'12?"
C.K.: You know what? This sarcasm is not going to make this conversation productive. The CBO stated that the stimulus saved or produced 3 million jobs. Before the stimulus we were losing 100's of thousands of jobs per month. We have had successive quarters of GDP growth and American corporations recorded record profits. You cannot see what you refuse to see.
C.K.: "If the stimuli paid for themselves, then why did the national debt go from $9.2 trillion in '08 to $15.2 trillion in'12?" Was the stimulus $3 trillion? Could it be a war that was unpaid for, a tax cut that was unpaid for. How can you begin to prove that the stimulus was a negative factor and caused this deficit? You need to prove cause and effect.
C.K.: Now I am out and you can have the last word.
No comments:
Post a Comment