Krugman: This is Is Not a Recovery

DerrrrrrrrrrrRRRRR!


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/op...rssnyt&emc=rss

Quote:

---

What will Ben Bernanke, the Fed chairman, say in his big speech Friday in Jackson Hole, Wyo.? Will he hint at new steps to boost the economy? Stay tuned.

But we can safely predict what he and other officials will say about where we are right now: that the economy is continuing to recover, albeit more slowly than they would like. Unfortunately, that’s not true: this isn’t a recovery, in any sense that matters. And policy makers should be doing everything they can to change that fact.

The small sliver of truth in claims of continuing recovery is the fact that G.D.P. is still rising: we’re not in a classic recession, in which everything goes down. But so what?

The important question is whether growth is fast enough to bring down sky-high unemployment. We need about 2.5 percent growth just to keep unemployment from rising, and much faster growth to bring it significantly down. Yet growth is currently running somewhere between 1 and 2 percent, with a good chance that it will slow even further in the months ahead. Will the economy actually enter a double dip, with G.D.P. shrinking? Who cares? If unemployment rises for the rest of this year, which seems likely, it won’t matter whether the G.D.P. numbers are slightly positive or slightly negative.

All of this is obvious. Yet policy makers are in denial.

After its last monetary policy meeting, the Fed released a statement declaring that it “anticipates a gradual return to higher levels of resource utilization” — Fedspeak for falling unemployment. Nothing in the data supports that kind of optimism. Meanwhile, Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary, says that “we’re on the road to recovery.” No, we aren’t.

Why are people who know better sugar-coating economic reality? The answer, I’m sorry to say, is that it’s all about evading responsibility.

In the case of the Fed, admitting that the economy isn’t recovering would put the institution under pressure to do more. And so far, at least, the Fed seems more afraid of the possible loss of face if it tries to help the economy and fails than it is of the costs to the American people if it does nothing, and settles for a recovery that isn’t.

In the case of the Obama administration, officials seem loath to admit that the original stimulus was too small. :lol True, it was enough to limit the depth of the slump — a recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office says unemployment would probably be well into double digits now without the stimulus — but it wasn’t big enough to bring unemployment down significantly.

Now, it’s arguable that even in early 2009, when President Obama was at the peak of his popularity, he couldn’t have gotten a bigger plan through the Senate. And he certainly couldn’t pass a supplemental stimulus now. So officials could, with considerable justification, place the onus for the non-recovery on Republican obstructionism.:rolleyes But they’ve chosen, instead, to draw smiley faces on a grim picture, convincing nobody. And the likely result in November — big gains for the obstructionists — will paralyze policy for years to come. :rolleyes

So what should officials be doing, aside from telling the truth about the economy?

The Fed has a number of options. It can buy more long-term and private debt; it can push down long-term interest rates by announcing its intention to keep short-term rates low; it can raise its medium-term target for inflation, making it less attractive for businesses to simply sit on their cash. Nobody can be sure how well these measures would work, but it’s better to try something that might not work than to make excuses while workers suffer.

The administration has less freedom of action, since it can’t get legislation past the Republican blockade.:lol (hello, supermajority) But it still has options. It can revamp its deeply unsuccessful attempt to aid troubled homeowners. It can use Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored lenders, to engineer mortgage refinancing that puts money in the hands of American families (Good God -- this man is insane) — yes, Republicans will howl, but they’re doing that anyway. It can finally get serious about confronting China over its currency manipulation: how many times do the Chinese have to promise to change their policies, then renege, before the administration decides that it’s time to act?

Which of these options should policy makers pursue? If I had my way, all of them.

I know what some players both at the Fed and in the administration will say: they’ll warn about the risks of doing anything unconventional. But we’ve already seen the consequences of playing it safe, and waiting for recovery to happen all by itself: it’s landed us in what looks increasingly like a permanent state of stagnation and high unemployment. It’s time to admit that what we have now isn’t a recovery, and do whatever we can to change that situation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

DerrrrrrrrrrrRRRRR!


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/op...rssnyt&emc=rss

---

Republicans will whine, moan, and complain no matter what so f*ck them.

Why do you have a problem with what he proposes? Can you give details?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Why do you have a problem with what he proposes? Can you give details?

---

Dude wants to double down on Keynesian economics. 'Nuff said.

Can you explain why that would be a bad choice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Can you explain why that would be a bad choice?

---

Can you explain why that would be a good choice?

I never said it would be a good choice. You, however, pointed out it was a bad choice. I would like to see your justification for your opinion.

Summer of "recovery"
:lmao

"progress"ives make me chuckle.

ya got Repug shit in your ears, and Repug shit for brains.

The stimulus succeeded as far as it went, in spite of the lies Repugs are spewing about its "failure".

The Repugs don't want America to be successful. The more Repug failures the Repugs can falsely stick Magic Negro with, the more stupid Americans will blame them and fuck up by voting for Repugs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

I never said it would be a good choice. You, however, pointed out it was a bad choice. I would like to see your justification for your opinion.

---

You know as well as I do that meany dead enders on this board make stupid accusations that can't be backed up... they simply run away from threads when called on it..

America, AND Europe, are now making exactly the same mistake that FDR made in the late 30s, by cutting govt spending while trying to make a recovery. After FDR's stimulus got stuff moving again, he shut it down, and killed the recovery. The WWII came along as another stimulus and HUGE DEFICIT producer.

The problem NOW isn't the deficit, it surely isn't inflation (deflation is looking probable and is a much worse problem the inflation), the problem is reducing private spending due to 20m+ US un/underemployed, their lost income taxes making non-Federal deficits worse.

What are the Repugs' solutions for getting the ecomony into recovery mode? (as if they gave a shit, which they don't)

1.
2.
3.
4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

You know as well as I do that meany dead enders on this board make stupid accusations that can't be backed up... they simply run away from threads when called on it..

---

I don't have to write some fucking essay on Keyesian economics just because some board douche like Manny or ChumpDump demands it.

ask your boss for help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

I don't have to write some fucking essay on Keyesian economics just because some board douche like Manny or ChumpDump demands it.

---

What is insensitive about the mosque?? Specifically

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

What is insensitive about the mosque?? Specifically

---

Proximity and scale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

I don't have to write some fucking essay on Keyesian economics just because some board douche like Manny or ChumpDump demands it.

---

You don't have to do anything. There is a difference between don't have to and can't, however. You don't oppose this out of understanding, you oppose it because Krugman said it and because you don't like him (which you don't really have sound reasons for either).

Won't != Can't

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

You don't have to do anything. There is a difference between don't have to and can't, however. You don't oppose this out of understanding, you oppose it because Krugman said it and because you don't like him (which you don't really have sound reasons for either).

Won't != Can't

---

How about, I don't like the same policies that prolonged the Great Depression?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Proximity and scale.

---

What about thed proximity is insensitive?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

What about thed proximity is insensitive?

---

Maybe I need to use smaller words.

It's too close and too big.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

How about, I don't like the same policies that prolonged the Great Depression?

---

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

:lol

---

:lol :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Maybe I need to use smaller words.

It's too close and too big.

---

those nitpickers!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Maybe I need to use smaller words.

It's too close and too big.

---

Its 2 blocks away. Its fine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

You don't oppose this out of understanding, you oppose it because Krugman said it and because you don't like him (which you don't really have sound reasons for either).

---

It is fun to see Krugman fail in public.

Darrin posting a youtube yet can't explain himself. Par for the course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

How about, I don't like the same policies that prolonged the Great Depression?

---

We're the only country to call it the great depression. We were in it longer than any other country. The "great" depression wasn't even the "greatest" this country has seen. Wasn't cuz everything done to get out of that one is the complete opposite that was done in '29 and now. "Progress"ives don't like being wrong, but mostly are.

The Manny and Chump method of debating an issue:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Why do you have a problem with what he proposes? Can you give details?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Can you explain why that would be a bad choice?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

I never said it would be a good choice. You, however, pointed out it was a bad choice. I would like to see your justification for your opinion.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

You don't have to do anything. There is a difference between don't have to and can't, however. You don't oppose this out of understanding, you oppose it because Krugman said it and because you don't like him (which you don't really have sound reasons for either).

Won't != Can't

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Darrin posting a youtube yet can't explain himself. Par for the course.

---

So much substance. So much content. Way to take a position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

The Manny and Chump method of debating an issue:

So much substance. So much content. Way to take a position.

---

why do you assume they are taking a position?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

The Manny and Chump method of debating an i







So much substance. So much content. Way to take a position.

---

.



You have to support your points in a debate..you make the claim you back it up...debate 101

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

why do you assume they are taking a position?

---

They hardly ever do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

They hardly ever do.

---

fine, then why do you get so redassed when they ask you a question?

I don't know why its necessary to take a position if I don't feel I have enough facts. I don't know what Krugman's proposals will do because I haven't really looked into them.

What does that have to do with asking you to back up what you're saying? If I go against something, I have reasons why and I can explain myself if asked about it. If I don't then whats the point of going against something?

To say you're against it.

I wonder why Krugman is "off message"? Did he not get the memo that this was the Summer of Recovery?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

I wonder why Krugman is "off message"? Did he not get the memo that this was the Summer of Recovery?

---

Off message according to whom?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Off message according to whom?

---

lolz. :lol

/loaded dice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Dude wants to double down on Keynesian economics. 'Nuff said.

---

If they want to go farther in debt, wouldn't we be better to reduce the taxes on businesses and corporations that employ people?

For my friend, Manny.

A referendum on the economy

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci...636?source=rss

Quote:

---

New figures that show our nation's economy back on life support ought to be a game- changer for our elected officials and anyone seeking office.

Economic growth was revised down to a piddling 1.6 percent in the second quarter, the Commerce Department reported Friday. It's a significant drop from the 3.7 percent growth in the first quarter.

Economists expect the third quarter to hardly grow much more, estimating 1.7 percent growth.

It looks like the Keynesian theory of infusing massive amounts of government cash into the economy has fizzled. And while many other factors also explain the lack of economic energy, the bottom line is that nearly everyone — from consumers to business owners to government decision-makers — faces tremendous unknowns.

Worries about maintaining jobs and salaries stymie consumers. Businesses are holding back money. Economists also say that likely changes to tax laws and new regulatory environments are having a chilling effect.

And that uncertainty continues to hobble our consumer-generated economy.

The news is dire and the message — we hope — is simple: We need clear-eyed action going forward. Kicking around political footballs when there is a chance the country could slip back into recession cannot be tolerated.

"People have been overwhelmed by uncertainty," Ethan Harris, an economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, told The Associated Press.

Meanwhile, the nearly $1 trillion in federal money spent to shore up battered state and local governments and fund various infrastructure projects is drying up, and attempting another stimulus bill would be political suicide as the national debt tops $13 trillion. The debt has reached a level that's endangering national security.

It's also important to note that anemic economic growth nationally most likely means that Colorado won't be able to grow its way out of its state budget troubles. Since the state budget must be balanced, the grim economic numbers will only exacerbate Colorado's challenges.

We need our lawmakers in Colorado, and those who represent us in Washington, to start articulating specific proposals meant to restructure government to something we can afford.

In Colorado, that means ideas for balancing the budget without decimating K-12 education, higher ed and social services; and in Washington, that means deficit reduction plans.

The debate in Washington also will be about whether to extend President Bush's tax cuts.

We don't know that extending the cuts will help much in the short term, but we do know that adding uncertainty to the already fragile situation is irresponsible.

Elections often are decided based on the economic mood of the country. And since this is the season of political rallies, forums and debates, we think voters ought to demand answers to these daunting economic questions.

---

Extending the tax cuts and planning deficit reduction are mutually exclusive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Extending the tax cuts and planning deficit reduction are mutually exclusive.

---

Tax cuts have nothing to do with quadrupling the deficit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Tax cuts have nothing to do with quadrupling the deficit.

---

:lmao

Damn, that was funny.

Um, so because someone says it its correct Darrin? My point that you still have no idea why you believe what you do still stands since the article you posted doesn't explain shit.

You see, when rational people make statements they are usually able to produce information as to why they believe what they have stated. Someone else simply restating it and not explaining why doesn't somehow rationalize it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Tax cuts have nothing to do with quadrupling the deficit.

---

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Um, so because someone says it its correct Darrin? My point that you still have no idea why you believe what you do still stands since the article you posted doesn't explain shit.

You see, when rational people make statements they are usually able to produce information as to why they believe what they have stated. Someone else simply restating it and not explaining why doesn't somehow rationalize it.

---

I don't claim to be an economist, but it's becoming blatantly obvious that the massive infusion of stimulus isn't working. Why would we want to double-down on that theory?

But, whatever, you can keep insulting me or posting smileys. Apparently, that's what you do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Tax cuts have nothing to do with quadrupling the deficit.

---

You're A Check Box Liar.

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//12-1...6-28-10-f1.jpg

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

You're A Check Box Liar.

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//12-1...6-28-10-f1.jpg

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036

---

Thanks for that link to one of Soros' pet projects.


Try this one:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-rich-deficit/

Bush's tax cuts for high earners "have been the biggest contributor to the budget deficit."

http://static.politifact.com.s3.amaz...Ftom-false.gif

Quote:

---

At a news conference on Jan. 8, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was asked about the U.S. budget deficit.

The reporter noted that the Congressional Budget Office projected a relatively small deficit in 2012 if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire at the end of 2010 and tax rates go back to what they were during the Clinton administration.

"You face a major decision next year on tax rates, since the rates do expire at the end of 2010," the reporter said. "Isn't it inevitable that many taxpayers will face a significant tax increase in 2011?"

"Let me just say that the tax cuts at the high end that you were referencing have been the biggest contributor to the budget deficit," Pelosi said. "Don't take my word for it, that's the word of the Congressional Budget Office when the Republicans had control of the Congress."

She continued, "Put me down as clearly as you possibly can as one who wants to have those tax cuts for the wealthiest in America repealed," adding that it should happen "as soon as possible." She cited the same cutoff point that Barack Obama used during the campaign: Taxes should go up for people making about $250,000 or more.

Pelosi was clear about her position, but we wondered about her assertion that the Bush tax cuts "at the high end" were indeed "the biggest contributor to the budget deficit."

When we started this item, we thought it would be relatively straightforward. How wrong we were.

We should start off with the easy stuff: First, there is no CBO report that says tax cuts for the wealthiest are the biggest contributor to the deficit.

We asked Speaker Pelosi's office about her statement, and they pointed us to the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "Congressional Budget Office data show that the tax cuts have been the single largest contributor to the re-emergence of substantial budget deficits in recent years," said the center's analysis.

It also created a handy pie chart that shows tax cuts are responsible for 48 percent of the costs of new legislation between 2001 and 2007. This is second to military spending, the Iraq war and homeland security spending, which together contributed to 35 percent of legislative costs.

But that didn't satisfy us, because that 48 percent number included all tax cuts, not just for the wealthy. It also shows only the costs of new legislation, not the overall deficit.

So we went asking around: For what part of the deficit are tax cuts at the "high end" responsible?

"The real problem is that the deficit is a composite of revenues and spending. You can't say where we would be if we hadn't had any part of that," said Bob Williams, the principal research associate of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. (He also worked for the Congressional Budget Office from 1984 to 2006.)

Having said that, Williams said it's very unlikely that overall tax cuts for the wealthy outpaced the tax cuts for everybody else.

So what is "the high end"? During the campaign, Barack Obama called for repealing the tax cuts on singles making $200,000 or more and couples making $250,000 or more. This is roughly the top 3 percent of taxpayers.

The Tax Policy Center analyzed that plan and found that if Obama raised the rates on that group, it would generate roughly $350 billion over 10 years. Conversely, leaving in place the Bush tax cuts for everyone else would come to $850 billion over 10 years.

Another way to look at it: The Tax Policy Center calculated what share of the federal tax changes each income bracket gained from the Bush tax cuts. The top 5 percent of earners (those making about $225,000 or more) received 30.5 percent of the tax benefits in 2008, according to their analysis. But conversely, the bottom 95 percent of tax payers got 70 percent. Zoom out from the top 5 percent to the top 20 percent, and their share is 47.8 percent. Critics of the Bush tax cuts can call that disproportionate, but it's still less than half and therefore not "the biggest."

All of this indicates that Pelosi is mistaken. Although the wealthy did get big benefits from the Bush tax cuts, their benefits did not outweigh those of everyone else put together.

Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan nonprofit group Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said there are three major contributors to the worsening budget picture presented by the Congressional Budget Office: tax cuts, the Iraq war and the economic downturn.

"Within the tax cuts, the largest numbers went to the middle class, and those are the tax cuts that are most likely to be extended," she said. "I don't see how you could read the numbers to say otherwise."

Certainly tax cuts for high earners have increased the deficit. Pelosi might have made a more convincing case if she had said high earners received a disproportionate benefit from the Bush tax cuts.

But Pelosi said tax cuts for "the high end" were the "biggest" contributor to the federal deficit. We looked at the numbers from a bunch of different angles and found no evidence that tax cuts for the wealthy are larger than those of everyone else combined. In fact, all the numbers we looked at showed that tax cuts for middle and lower incomes represent a bigger slice of the overall revenue pie. We think that evidence directly contradicts her, so we rate her statement False.

---

But since Boutons likes pictures, try this one.

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/...amabudget1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/...amabudget1.jpg

---

... with Lie By Omission of not showing the what contributes to the deficit.

Break the deficits down for us, will ya?

Anything from VRWC Heritage or Cato will do. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

I don't claim to be an economist, but it's becoming blatantly obvious that the massive infusion of stimulus isn't working. Why would we want to double-down on that theory?

But, whatever, you can keep insulting me or posting smileys. Apparently, that's what you do.

---

Then I'm sure if its that obvious you can point out how the multitude of economists who have said just the opposite are wrong and explain yourself.

I'm sure he's composing a thought-provoking post as we speak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Then I'm sure if its that obvious you can point out how the multitude of economists who have said just the opposite are wrong and explain yourself.

---

On what are grounds are these "multitude of economists" basing their conlusion that the stimulus worked?


a) Unemployment
b) Stock market performance
c) Deficit as % of GDP
d) Housing sales


Please, elaborate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar

I'm sure he's composing a thought-provoking post as we speak.

---

Hey, at least I try. Can't say the same for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Hey, at least I try. Can't say the same for you.

---

Awwwwww... you want somebody to mop your brow, fella? You must be exhausted from the effort you've expended in this thread alone :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Thanks for that link to one of Soros' pet projects.


Try this one:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-rich-deficit/

Bush's tax cuts for high earners "have been the biggest contributor to the budget deficit."

---

That says that tax cuts had a lot to do with quadrupling the deficit. It just questioned the veracity of one superlative.

Thanks for taking the time to prove yourself wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

On what are grounds are these "multitude of economists" basing their conlusion that the stimulus worked?


a) Unemployment
b) Stock market performance
c) Deficit as % of GDP
d) Housing sales


Please, elaborate?

---

100s of 1000s, maybe Ms, of jobs were saved by the stimulus provided to state and local levels. Which was primarily addressing the overwhelming priority: reducing unemployment and maintaining employment.

The decline in GDP was lessened by the stimulus.

The stimulus was never intended to pump up the stock market or Wall St, never meant to reduce the deficit (duh).

At this point, housing foreclosures and late payments are mostly due to unemployment.

Keynesian stimulus didn't work in 2001. Tax cuts with out cutting spending is de facto keynesianism. All it did was promote bad sectors instead of letting them falter.

Keynesianism can be achieved through printing money to bail out bad sectors, and start new govt programs, tax cuts, or war.

The only time a keynesian tool has achieved any success was the WW2.

And that wasn't because of govt spending, or stimulus. What govt did there was impose rationing which forced investors and the public to save, along with removing a huge part of the labor force to get killed in europe and asia.

This was a command economy in which the Govt became the largest investor and purchaser while it restrained buisiness.

Unless Paul Krugman is going to propose we initiate another world war, or have the govt ration supplies for a reason, then whatever he proposes is idiocy.

We don't have another way to create an artificial boom like removing the currency from gold, we did that already, worked for England and got them out of the depression of the 30's quicker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

On what are grounds are these "multitude of economists" basing their conlusion that the stimulus worked?


a) Unemployment
b) Stock market performance
c) Deficit as % of GDP
d) Housing sales


Please, elaborate?

---

Why don't you just explain to us the rational you have for the obvious stimulus failure?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

That says that tax cuts had a lot to do with quadrupling the deficit. It just questioned the veracity of one superlative.

Thanks for taking the time to prove yourself wrong.

---

Well, it said that the tax cuts (across the board) account for 48% of 2001-2007 legislation costs. What is that percentage with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 factored in?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Why don't you just explain to us the rational you have for the obvious stimulus failure?

---

It sad that you can't even put forth the same effort as boutons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Well, it said that the tax cuts (across the board) account for 48% of 2001-2007 legislation costs. What is that percentage with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 factored in?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Tax cuts have nothing to do with quadrupling the deficit.

---

You were wrong.

You proved you were wrong.

You even gave a link.

This is why we laugh at you.

Had you placed your goalposts properly in the first place, you wouldn't have to attempt to move them now.

:lol

The fuck? You made a statement and I'm asking you to back up what you said. You need to brush up on burden of proof. I've posted so many links to people talking about the stimulus working. When was the last time you posted anything of substance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

You were wrong.

You proved you were wrong.

You even gave a link.

This is why we laugh at you.

Had you placed your goalposts properly in the first place, you wouldn't have to attempt to move them now.

---

What is that percentage with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 factored in?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

:lol

The fuck? You made a statement and I'm asking you to back up what you said. You need to brush up on burden of proof. I've posted so many links to people talking about the stimulus working. When was the last time you posted anything of substance?

---

Is the prerponderance of evidence that the stimulus is working? Or not working?


I asked you earlier what was the basis for all those economists that said the stimulus was working. That was YOUR claim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

What is that percentage with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 factored in?

---

Why are you moving the goalposts?

Just so Chump knows, the deficit didn't quadruple in 2007.

Youtube must be down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Is the prerponderance of evidence that the stimulus is working? Or not working?


I asked you earlier what was the basis for all those economists that said the stimulus was working. That was YOUR claim.

---

Darrin who made their statement first? Me or you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Darrin who made their statement first? Me or you?

---

I gave you a list of factors that are currently sucking asss

a) Unemployment
b) Stock market performance
c) Deficit as % of GDP
d) Housing sales


And I asked you what those economist are using to guage success. See, this is how it works. It's your turn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

I gave you a list of factors that are currently sucking asss

a) Unemployment
b) Stock market performance
c) Deficit as % of GDP
d) Housing sales


And I asked you what those economist are using to guage success. See, this is how it works. It's your turn.

---

Wait, so that was your proof that it was blatently obvious the stimulous didn't work?

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Just so Chump knows, the deficit didn't quadruple in 2007.

---

Just so Darrin knows, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 didn't only authorize spending.

Perhaps he can now figure out why what he said was so incredibly stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Just so Darrin knows, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 didn't only authorize spending.

Perhaps he can now figure out why what he said was so incredibly stupid.

---

Deficits are based on revenue and spending. Bush tax cuts represent lost revenue. What percentage of the CURRENT deficit are these lost revenues, when the stimulus is factored in?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Wait, so that was your proof that it was blatently obvious the stimulous didn't work?

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

---

What were the goals of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009?


If you knew, your :lmao would be :cry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Tax cuts have nothing to do with quadrupling the deficit.

---

According to you 0%, Darrin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

According to you 0%, Darrin.

---

Then I misspoke. They aren't zero (obviously). But are they significant when compared to the stimulus? Where's RandomGuy when you need him?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

What were the goals of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009?


If you knew, your :lmao would be :cry

---

The goals are exactly what it accomplished. Improvements across the board on the economy.

Yes, I know what you're going to say no so go ahead and tell me how Obama gave an arbitrary number that we passed and ignore the fact that without the stimulus it would have been worse.

Its funny that you make fun of Krugman all the time because his forecasts of what this stimulus was going to do have been pretty much perfect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Deficits are based on revenue and spending. Bush tax cuts represent lost revenue. What percentage of the CURRENT deficit are these lost revenues, when the stimulus is factored in?

---

Concentrate, Darrin. Read the following statements slowly:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Tax cuts have nothing to do with quadrupling the deficit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Just so Darrin knows, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 didn't only authorize spending.

Perhaps he can now figure out why what he said was so incredibly stupid.

---

You'll have to prove you are smart enough to figure out what I'm talking about here. So far, you have failed.

A very simple question: Would unemployment be higher without the stimulus or would it be lower?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

The goals are exactly what it accomplished. Improvements across the board on the economy.

Yes, I know what you're going to say no so go ahead and tell me how Obama gave an arbitrary number that we passed and ignore the fact that without the stimulus it would have been worse.

Its funny that you make fun of Krugman all the time because his forecasts of what this stimulus was going to do have been pretty much perfect.

---

I honestly think you believe this.

Oh well, I've moved my money out of stocks (for now). You can leave yours in, since you appear to be more optimistic than me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

A very simple question: Would unemployment be higher without the stimulus or would it be lower?

---

I don't know. And I don't know how either position could be proven. How do they measure the "saved jobs" metric?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/popup1.jpg

You could ask these 3 private economic firms why they are able to make such measurements.

But furthermore if you don't know then how can it possibly be blatently obvious the stimulus didn't work?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

I honestly think you believe this.

Oh well, I've moved my money out of stocks (for now). You can leave yours in, since you appear to be more optimistic than me.

---

What part of that said I was optimistic? You're too busy keeping your head up your ass you failed to notice Krugman isn't optimistic and hasn't been happy with Obama for quite some time.

Darrin - Its obvious the stimulus didnt work

Me - Would unemployment be lower or higher without it?

Darrin - I don't know but its obvious!


:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Darrin - Its obvious the stimulus didnt work

Me - Would unemployment be lower or higher without it?

Darrin - I don't know but its obvious!


:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

---

German Economy Surges by Defying Stimulus Strategy

http://www.acus.org/new_atlanticist/...mulus-strategy

The German situation is very different. Germany isn't owned by its corporations and finance sector, and there is still a very strong union membership. The education system actually produces employable graduates, without people whining about its meritorious multi-track system. I've worked in Germany lot, and am always impressed by Germany's culture that emphasizes competence at all levels, compared with the dumbuck "fun/TV/pop culture" jerkoffs the US culture dumps on employers. There's no comparable "culture of competence" in France or UK, both of which envy Germany's education system.

Germany has actually acted like a mature, adult country, achieved a consensus that permits the country to exploit its strengths (mostly high tech exports), have a humane safety net and health care system, under social democracy.

USA's bullshit "free market" has delivered a hell of lot less wealth and security to a hell of a lot fewer people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

German Economy Surges by Defying Stimulus Strategy

http://www.acus.org/new_atlanticist/...mulus-strategy

---

Apples and Oranges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

German Economy Surges by Defying Stimulus Strategy

http://www.acus.org/new_atlanticist/...mulus-strategy

---

How did they measure how many jobs they saved through government programs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

How did they measure how many jobs they saved through government programs?

---

I don't know. Do they also have a computer model that "measures" what happens in alternate realities?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

The German situation is very different. Germany isn't owned by its corporations and finance sector, and there is still a very strong union membership. The education system actually produces employable graduates, without people whining about its meritorious multi-track system. I've worked in Germany lot, and am always impressed by Germany's culture that emphasizes competence at all levels, compared with the dumbuck "fun/TV/pop culture" jerkoffs the US culture dumps on employers. There's no comparable "culture of competence" in France or UK, both of which envy Germany's education system.

Germany has actually acted like a mature, adult country, achieved a consensus that permits the country to exploit its strengths (mostly high tech exports), have a humane safety net and health care system, under social democracy.

USA's bullshit "free market" has delivered a hell of lot less wealth and security to a hell of a lot fewer people.

---

So, basically we had to spend more because our population is retarded?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

I don't know.

---

You got that right.

Quote:

---

Do they also have a computer model that "measures" what happens in alternate realities?

---

Is that your critique of the three studies that were provided to you? You don't understand it so it must be wrong?

"basically we had to spend more because our population is retarded"

no, America got fucked, and is unfuckable, by its predatory financial sector and its "financial innnovations", by capitalists and by corporations, and the now-proven-to-have-failed conservative "philosophy" of deregulation and "free market always delivers the best solution."

It helps that VRWC like Murdock, Mellon-Scaif, Kochs, the Repugs find ignorant, uneducated, immature bubbas and rednecks as easy stooges for their agit-prop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

You don't understand it so it must be wrong?

---

Even worse, DarrinS would confine us all to his own ignorance of the matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

You got that right.Is that your critique of the three studies that were provided to you? You don't understand it so it must be wrong?

---

If Manny would provide a link, I'll go take a look at how they projected their "what if the stimulus wasn't passed" scenarios.

I'm just assuming it's based on some kind of model, because the stimulus WAS passed.

It's kind of like discussing whether the world would be a better place if we didn't get rid of Saddam. There's reallly no way to know, so it would all be based on "what if" scenarios and conjecture.

But, whatever, post a link so I can actually read the studies.

By the way, what's YOUR opinion? Be specific.

"if we didn't get rid of Saddam. There's reallly no way to know"

sure there is. Just look at IRaq in Feb 03 and now. The US has created a Pax Americana, aka, a shit hole, setting back Iraq by many decades, with no gain to anybody except the US MIC.

All the Repug Govs, Reps, Senators who pissed on state stimulus funds have taken them and loved them, and taken credit for them.

Lots of school, state, municipal employees have jobs that were marked to be cut, but the stimulus kept them on a payroll, instead on unemployment roll.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"if we didn't get rid of Saddam. There's reallly no way to know"

sure there is. Just look at IRaq in Feb 03 and now. The US has created a Pax Americana, aka, a shit hole, setting back Iraq by many decades, with no gain to anybody except the US MIC.

All the Repug Govs, Reps, Senators who pissed on state stimulus funds have taken them and loved them, and taken credit for them.

Lots of school, state, municipal employees have jobs that were marked to be cut, but the stimulus kept them on a payroll, instead on unemployment roll.

---

You miss my point. How do you justify the argument "well, it would've been WAAAY worse if we DIDN'T do X"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

You miss my point. How do you justify the argument "well, it would've been WAAAY worse if we DIDN'T do X"?

---

How do you justify the converse? It isn't knowable, so it becomes an excuse for both sides to spin their wheels using little more than personal prejudice pro or contra Keynesian econ.

So keynesian economics is not necessary for Germans?

Got it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar

How do you justify the converse? It isn't knowable, so it becomes an excuse for both sides to spin their wheels using little more than personal prejudice pro or contra Keynesian econ.

---

You're right, I can't prove the converse of that argument.

But, the entire argument of "it would've been much worse if we didn't pass the stimulus" is asinine.

It's like if you suffered male pattern baldness and your doctor prescribed Rogaine to stimulate hair growth. Instead of growing any hair, you lose a bit more. Your doctor then tells you that the treatment was a success, because, had you NOT taken it, you would've been completely bald. Wasn't really the point, was it?

Of course it would have been worse. One could argue America will never fix itself until we hit that rock bottom and have no other choice than to put the political bs aside and actually do work son. We postponed the inevitable and are suffering anyway. Cool.


1 Trillion for this. Awesome. Can't wait to see the bill for the next house of cards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EmptyMan

Of course it would have been worse. One could argue America will never fix itself until we hit that rock bottom and have no other choice than to put the political bs aside and actually do work son. We postponed the inevitable and are suffering anyway. Cool.

---

Well, another huge problem is that we have a very large demographic entering retirement age and a younger generation that is -- how would you describe them -- somewhat less ambitious than their parents' or grandparents' generation.

How can you put it on the generation when the jobs got shipped out to other countries by our unerring lead capitalists? People want to earn a living as much as they ever did, they just don't happen to live in economic boom times.