Should the US government hand out more stimulus checks?

[MartinBlank]

This isn't all that complicated.

Spending needs to be cut. Period. We can not sustain these ridiculous levels of spending AND cut taxes. Earmarks and pork cause significantly more damage to our spending than some of the propositions that Obama has.

Bush not only cut taxes, he INCREASED spending to levels never before seen. This recipe for disaster began when Bush took office, and it will take a serious set of stones to change things.

[losturmarbles]

how about instead of giving out checks to whoever sticks out their hand, why dont the government stimulate a tax cut on those actually working and producing something. and not an obama tax cut, a real tax cut like lowering the income tax rate. (to 0% preferably)

that's who's hurting is the working poor

[EBSB52]

I'm still waiting for my first stimulus check!

Me too, course I filed on Oct 15 w/a 6-month extension. Did you file in April 15 and have not received it yet?

[EBSB52]

The vast majority of left-wing lunatics like EBSB52 have failed miserably in everything they've ever tried and are extremely jealous of those that have experienced financial success.

They can't make it on their own so they elect socialist politicians like Barack Obama in hopes that a few crumbs might fall their way.

However, at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter who is in charge. The rich will still be rich and liberal democratic fools will continue to whine about how unfair the world is.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>The vast majority of left-wing lunatics like EBSB52 have failed miserably in everything they've ever tried and are extremely jealous of those that have experienced financial success.


RW maggots like andywend are clueless and refuse to talk data or anything other than rhetoric.


>>>>>>>>>>>>They can't make it on their own so they elect socialist politicians like Barack Obama in hopes that a few crumbs might fall their way.


Gee, that's funny, I am an FAA licensed aircraft mech, inspector, FCC GROL, private pilot and have a BS in Justice. I earn a good living and am happy, I just hate to see the rich get all the breaks, unlike you.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>However, at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter who is in charge. The rich will still be rich and liberal democratic fools will continue to whine about how unfair the world is.


Then if that's true, nothing will change, then why is your girly ass whining? WHy care? Not enough class disparity with a Dem in office? Hahahaha...deal with it, your ideology is out, dine, caput; the people have spoken in landslide fashion and your kind are outdated.

ME:

YOU:

[Cloak & Dagger]

Hell No Work More And Stop Whining.all These Americans Want A Handout Bunch Of Lazy Asses

you mean like AIG taking a vacation after getting a handout from Bush?

[EBSB52]

This isn't all that complicated.

Spending needs to be cut. Period. We can not sustain these ridiculous levels of spending AND cut taxes. Earmarks and pork cause significantly more damage to our spending than some of the propositions that Obama has.

Bush not only cut taxes, he INCREASED spending to levels never before seen. This recipe for disaster began when Bush took office, and it will take a serious set of stones to change things.

True, but actually fascist Ronnie started the spending ball rolling.

[EBSB52]

how about instead of giving out checks to whoever sticks out their hand, why dont the government stimulate a tax cut on those actually working and producing something. and not an obama tax cut, a real tax cut like lowering the income tax rate. (to 0% preferably)

that's who's hurting is the working poor

You have to have income to receive the stimulus checks in the past. Besides, who cares? The idea is not to punish, but to stimulate from the consumer side. It is classist to worry about people in lower socio-eco classes. These skid row homeless have a fvcked life, even with whatever little welfare check tehy get.

[Igetp2s]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>Like all "stimulus" packages, this one would fail. It is simply a transferring of money from 1 person to another.


Show me where the legislation, the framework, hell, anything that transfers wealth from 1 to another. You can't, that's silly RW rhetoric. In fact, the funds are tacked right on to the debt, so it is funded by rubber checks, not transference.


It's pretty simple actually. The gov't takes money from individuals in the form of taxes. The gov't then returns the money out in the form of a stimulus to other individuals. Nothing of value has been created. Money is simply moving from one person to another via the gov't. This should be pretty self-explanatory; it is quite revealing how idiotic you are that I have to explain this. Where exactly do you think the debt will be paid off from? Whether the taxes are collected beforehand or at a later date, the money is still coming from the same source.





>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't generate growth of any kind, because it doesn't change people's incentives to produce more, like tax cuts do.


If it is spent it creates temporary stimulus. Tax cuts....let's see; who is taxed? The people with money? Yes. SO tax cuts let the rich keep more of their money, which they generally save or spend very selctively. If you give money to teh poor they have no option but to spend it, so that stimulates the economy.

This also shows just how limited your knowledge of financial markets is. Unless the wealthy are hiding their cash under their mattress, or burying in the ground, it doesn't make a difference whether they save or spend it. If they "save" it by depositing it in the bank, the bank will simply loan the money to someone who will use it for investment. It makes no difference who the money is sent to, the money will find it's way to someone willing to spend it and use it productively regardless. And why would you want a temporary stimulus anyway, as you admit it would be, rather than having a PERMANENT stimulus by lowering taxes and being business friendly?

By the way, you keep glorifying the economy under Clinton. But Clinton was an advocate for free trade, and pushed for NAFTA. Obama wants to unilaterally revoke NAFTA. What does that say about Obama's understanding of how economics works.

[EBSB52]

This also shows just how limited your knowledge of financial markets is. Unless the wealthy are hiding their cash under their mattress, or burying in the ground, it doesn't make a difference whether they save or spend it. If they "save" it by depositing it in the bank, the bank will simply loan the money to someone who will use it for investment. It makes no difference who the money is sent to, the money will find it's way to someone willing to spend it and use it productively regardless. And why would you want a temporary stimulus anyway, as you admit it would be, rather than having a PERMANENT stimulus by lowering taxes and being business friendly?

By the way, you keep glorifying the economy under Clinton. But Clinton was an advocate for free trade, and pushed for NAFTA. Obama wants to unilaterally revoke NAFTA. What does that say about Obama's understanding of how economics works.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>This also shows just how limited your knowledge of financial markets is. Unless the wealthy are hiding their cash under their mattress, or burying in the ground, it doesn't make a difference whether they save or spend it. If they "save" it by depositing it in the bank, the bank will simply loan the money to someone who will use it for investment.


Shows how narrow your thinking is. If the rich sock it away, don't spend it, then it will be there to loan, but since the money is pooled there will be limited product demand. Money has to be spent in order to keep things circulating, simply pooling money stagnates the economy. Taxing the rich and at the same time providing social welfare ensures the rich spend their money. Not fair? Don't give a shit, it makes the world go around. Very weak that you argue your position but ignore that when we enact trickle down / supply side economics we tank. When welfare is established all do well.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It makes no difference who the money is sent to, the money will find it's way to someone willing to spend it and use it productively regardless. And why would you want a temporary stimulus anyway, as you admit it would be, rather than having a PERMANENT stimulus by lowering taxes and being business friendly?


No, the rich tend to pool momey, hence they are rich. If it's not being circulated, then there will not be employment unless the gov enacts social welfare to mandate its circulation. Or to do it in a hurry, stimulus checks.

You assume that lowering taxes creates a permanent stimulus, yet no supporting data, historical data, etc. And then the other side of that, your tax cuts, is that the deficit, hence debt grow under tax cuts, further burying your perfect world scenario.

You simply cannot show me a sustained period of tax cuts where most/all indicators reveal progress. If so, show me the period. Do I need to show you evidenc of my assertion and counter-evidence of yours? I will.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>By the way, you keep glorifying the economy under Clinton. But Clinton was an advocate for free trade, and pushed for NAFTA. Obama wants to unilaterally revoke NAFTA. What does that say about Obama's understanding of how economics works.


He was also an advocate of tax increases, the very thing we are discussing. I'm pro-free tarde too, where have I ever said otherwise? As for NAFTA, GHWB started it, and Clinton signed it. I think Obama wants to establish trade restrictions for the US corporations who send employment overseas, so your rendition of unilatterally overturning it is quite an exadgeration.

[Igetp2s]

Is your head underground? You think our current economic problems are because we're not spending enough money? You just might be the only person in this country that believes that.

Absolutely brilliant.

[losturmarbles]

@igetp2s
youre wasting your time responding to this dummy. he thinks rich people "tend to pool momey, hence they are rich"
he thinks that raising taxes on the rich, increases government revenue
he further thinks that if the government has more revenue then they use it toward the deficit.

sadly, he's dead wrong.

@ebs
please show us your concocting evidence of your lame assertions

in the mean time, maybe you can answer this question that was proposed to obama:

GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.

But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair.

And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive, and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don't have it and that we're able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools.

And you can't do that for free.

OBAMA: And you can't take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children and our grandchildren, and then say that you're cutting taxes, which is essentially what John McCain has been talking about.

And that is irresponsible. I believe in the principle that you pay as you go. And, you know, you don't propose tax cuts, unless you are closing other tax breaks for individuals. And you don't increase spending, unless you're eliminating some spending or you're finding some new revenue. That's how we got an additional $4 trillion worth of debt under George Bush. That is helping to undermine our economy. And it's going to change when I'm president of the United States.

GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

OBAMA: Well, that might happen, or it might not. It depends on what's happening on Wall Street and how business is going. I think the biggest problem that we've got on Wall Street right now is the fact that we got have a housing crisis that this president has not been attentive to and that it took John McCain three tries before he got it right.

And if we can stabilize that market, and we can get credit flowing again, then I think we'll see stocks do well. And once again, I think we can generate the revenue that we need to run this government and hopefully to pay down some of this debt.

[reno cool]

Sounds like a fair answer.

If revenue went down when the tax went up does not mean there was necessarily a causal relationship there. Any gambler worth a shit should understand this. And anyway looking into something is never a bad idea.
Furthermore, we can't continue to rely on unabated growth forever.

[EBSB52]

Is your head underground? You think our current economic problems are because we're not spending enough money? You just might be the only person in this country that believes that.

Absolutely brilliant.

After I address all of your points, you can only render this diarrhea? Obviously, by reading my reply, a reasonable person could extrapolate that my problem is military spending and/or tax cuts for the rich, as that pools money rather than makes it available for circulation, hence recession. I clearly state that here:

Shows how narrow your thinking is. If the rich sock it away, don't spend it, then it will be there to loan, but since the money is pooled there will be limited product demand. Money has to be spent in order to keep things circulating, simply pooling money stagnates the economy. Taxing the rich and at the same time providing social welfare ensures the rich spend their money. Not fair? Don't give a shit, it makes the world go around. Very weak that you argue your position but ignore that when we enact trickle down / supply side economics we tank. When welfare is established all do well.

And here:

No, the rich tend to pool money, hence they are rich. If it's not being circulated, then there will not be employment unless the gov enacts social welfare to mandate its circulation. Or to do it in a hurry, stimulus checks.

You assume that lowering taxes creates a permanent stimulus, yet no supporting data, historical data, etc. And then the other side of that, your tax cuts, is that the deficit, hence debt grow under tax cuts, further burying your perfect world scenario.

You simply cannot show me a sustained period of tax cuts where most/all indicators reveal progress. If so, show me the period. Do I need to show you evidence of my assertion and counter-evidence of yours? I will.



But you want to reinterpret it as me saying that we’re not spending enough money because you can’t impeach the idea that stimulus to the rich yields non-circulated money and stimulus to the poor yields product demand. Why don’t you illustrate the 20 of 28 years of supply side economics and explain how it’s been a great success. Please use employment, debt and any other objective data as a reference for your support. In previous posts in this thread I asked you:

1) Oh please, how do tax cuts do that? Use your theory, but please back it up with historical application as well, and not just, 'well it seemed to work.........." I would like to see data that supports the assertion that tax cuts create growth.

2) Funny how you infer Obama lacks intelligence, as the neo-con trash elected is generally at a severe deficit of education/intelligence over their Dem counterparts. Again, love your chalkboard rendition, pls show some kind of data as evidence or counterevidence.

3) Show me where the legislation, the framework, hell, anything that transfers wealth from 1 to another. You can't, that's silly RW rhetoric. In fact, the funds are tacked right on to the debt, so it is funded by rubber checks, not transference.


Or just be yourself and ignore all the tough stuff.

[EBSB52]

[quote=losturmarbles;1213856]@igetp2s
youre wasting your time responding to this dummy. he thinks rich people "tend to pool momey, hence they are rich"
he thinks that raising taxes on the rich, increases government revenue
he further thinks that if the government has more revenue then they use it toward the deficit.

sadly, he's dead wrong.

@ebs
please show us your concocting evidence of your lame assertions

in the mean time, maybe you can answer this question that was proposed to obama:


I'm the dummy and yet you are factually wrong. Rich people don't pool money? Sure they do, they invest it, create more, pool it and carefully invest and pool it. A stagnated economy is part of the elements of recessions. I'm the dummy and you neo-cons have yet to insert any data from what I've read, unless I missed the 1. You guys go off of your, "life experience” and bag the intelligent stuff. you’re obviously much smarter than the most successful man in the world, Warren Buffet, who agrees with me. He says if he gets a check he’ll bank it. He also says that rich people are given too many tax breaks and pay low a percentage in taxes.


>>>>>>>>>>>>he further thinks that if the government has more revenue then they use it toward the deficit.


No, neo-con, if the government has more tax revenue and/or less spending, they don't have a deficit or they have a smaller deficit, as in under Clinton where he inherited 290B/yr deficit and left a 236B surplus his last year. But of course neo-cons don’t understand that operating on a surplus is a good thing, as the 3 pieces of garbage they've presented us since 1981 ran enormous deficits that have taken the debt from 1T to 10.5T and slamming. (just ignore that fact, as it impeaches everything you stand for).

As for the vid, I will get my speakers hooked up to my new computer tomorrow and answer whatever inane point you have. I am interested in what he says, but it’s of really little value since I’m going from recent fiscal data, not ad hominem or whatever you think works as a replacement for intelligent debate.

In the mean time, tell me, regardless of ideology and your fiscal blueprint, has American Republican fiscal ideology been a success since 1981? (just ignore if you don't have the cookies).

>>>>>>>>>please show us your concocting evidence of your lame assertions


Please, which assertions are you asking for? I’ve been doing nothing but posting data since I’ve been here that the neo-cons have ignored, so what data, what element of the economy? Just a blanket inquiry does nothing.

[EBSB52]

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/05/did_the_bush_ta.html

Here ya go, this is a pretty good offfering of the way I feel.


Paul Krugman: It's actually neither. About the Bush tax cuts: the tax cuts of 2001 evidently didn't do the job; these days, the Bush people talk about the economy as if history began in the middle of 2003, after their SECOND wave of tax cuts.

But while the economy did start growing, finally, in 2003, the growth wasn't at all of the form you'd expect if tax cuts were responsible. The main tax cuts were on dividends and capital gains; supposedly this would make it easier for businesses to raise funds and invest. But business investment hasn't been the main driver of growth; in fact, businesses have been sitting on huge piles of earnings, reluctant to invest. Instead, the big driver was housing construction and consumer spending.

So what really happened? Low interest rates led to a housing boom that eventually turned into a housing bubble. High house prices made people feel richer, and they could borrow against the increased value of their homes, feeding consumer spending. Tax cuts had nothing to do with it.


BTW, Paul Krugman, altho nowhere near as brilliant as you, he's an American economist, columnist, author and intellectual He is a professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton University, and a columnist for The New York Times. In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences "for his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity". Krugman is well-known in academia for his work in international economics, including trade theory, economic geography, and international finance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman

I'm sure he'll be calling you for advice


Game, set, match

[andywend]

356 posts in 20 days from this left-wing lunatic EBSB52 and every single one contains the same socialist garbage.

This guy needs to get a life and a job and stop sponging off of others success.

[wtf]

ebs, you must be a genius! i think you have memorized every left wing economic book in print. you should run your own country or something.

[EBSB52]

356 posts in 20 days from this left-wing lunatic EBSB52 and every single one contains the same socialist garbage.

This guy needs to get a life and a job and stop sponging off of others success.

Wait, big government is socialism, I sure we agree, your party is pro-big government as they have grown the government more than ever with the largest spending of all time and I’m the socialist? Hmmmm, pot / kettle. And I’m the lunatic? One definition/description of insanity: Trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Again, and I’m the lunatic?


So the best you can do is to count the posts I’ve written; can’t you guys see how that makes you look like you’re running when you ignore the brilliance I’ve posted:

Paul Krugman: It's actually neither. About the Bush tax cuts: the tax cuts of 2001 evidently didn't do the job; these days, the Bush people talk about the economy as if history began in the middle of 2003, after their SECOND wave of tax cuts.

But while the economy did start growing, finally, in 2003, the growth wasn't at all of the form you'd expect if tax cuts were responsible. The main tax cuts were on dividends and capital gains; supposedly this would make it easier for businesses to raise funds and invest. But business investment hasn't been the main driver of growth; in fact, businesses have been sitting on huge piles of earnings, reluctant to invest. Instead, the big driver was housing construction and consumer spending.

So what really happened? Low interest rates led to a housing boom that eventually turned into a housing bubble. High house prices made people feel richer, and they could borrow against the increased value of their homes, feeding consumer spending. Tax cuts had nothing to do with it.


BTW, Paul Krugman, altho nowhere near as brilliant as you, he's an American economist, columnist, author and intellectual He is a professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton University, and a columnist for The New York Times. In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences "for his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity". Krugman is well-known in academia for his work in international economics, including trade theory, economic geography, and international finance.


Before you wriote, “Brilli9ance, bullshit………….bla, bla, bla, nothingness.” Try impeaching his assertions. Maybe he’s written too many books in too short a time, as I’ve written too many posts in too short a time. Maybe you can find something totally unimportant like that.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>This guy needs to get a life and a job and stop sponging off of others success.


Yesterday and today I’m doing an annual inspection on a 182 (aircraft), meaning I’m returning to service an aircraft after inspection and what will be repair, so I think I do important things. Some of the airlines that you may have flown on would be repaired by me, so I think I have a life. Me thinks you are clueless and don’t the have the sense to just skip on by, as you have no intelligent retort.

[mathdotcom]

Economists are infamous for never agreeing on a lot of issues. Krugman is a well-known and ardent Democrat. You'll find plenty of 'Republican' economists who will say the opposite about the tax cuts. And yes, some of them are Nobel prize winners, too. ie. Gary Becker.

[EBSB52]

ebs, you must be a genius! i think you have memorized every left wing economic book in print. you should run your own country or something.

What is a left wing book? The left wing protocol is to tax fairly, cut deficit spending, debt spending and take care of all, not just the elite.

The American people have figured that out, finally and have spoken in a huge way by electing by landslide a Dem pres, stacked the house and senate in a huge way. If there are a few holdouts, well, after Hitler’s fall, there were still the same few holdouts. There were people who then and some still now who deny the Holocaust, many countries have laws against dong that. There will be people denying that under Clinton’s term the fiscal health of the US healed even though all indicators point that way. And after Obama presumably foxes many things, there will be people all the while and afterward denying that his policy changes fixed anything. As a society you have to let a few people continue to be in stupid denial, it’s really ok.

[EBSB52]

Economists are infamous for never agreeing on a lot of issues. Krugman is a well-known and ardent Democrat. You'll find plenty of 'Republican' economists who will say the opposite about the tax cuts. And yes, some of them are Nobel prize winners, too. ie. Gary Becker.

Do you disagree with his assertions? I've been saying what he wrote for a long time. The mortgage meltdown had a hell of a lot more to do with low interest rates than it did with irresponsible lending. If the houses didn’t artificially inflate, but irresponsible loans were made, there wouldn’t have been lost appreciation value to lenders, hence they could have recovered most of their loans via foreclosure sale. Bush even said the same things, watered down with other blame.

And why were the interest rates so low so long? Greenspan, for some reason, put them there and left them for too long. Did the Bush Admin prompt him? Why didn’t the Bush Admin stop him by either directing him or firing him if he wouldn’t? Greenspan did such a good job for so long, even under fascist Ronnie with irresponsible spending, cherished his time under Clinton.

Either way with that, can you disagree with what Krugman said?

[mathdotcom]

I didn't say I disagreed. I just said I could provide the opposite view from an equally reputable economist. Also just wanted to point out that Krugman has very strong anti-Bush views to begin to get at his motive for being so harsh.Wouldn't you admit that if a Nobel prize winning Republican economist had said the things Krugman said it would be even *more* damning of the Bush tax cuts?

The President can't direct the Chairman of the Fed. Yes he can fire him, but that's extremely rare and would only be done if he was being truly irresponsible. Firing the Fed chairman would be a very poor precedent, especially when times are good. No one saw this coming. Everyone believed they were in a new era where they could keep interest rates low and inflation low as well. Can't blame Greenspan for not being omniscient.

[losturmarbles]

@ebsb52

i dont have time to sift through your incoherent bumblings. so let me try to make this quick.
1>investing is not called "pooling money", and even if rich people were pooling money (whatever that means), it has dick to do with the economy.
2>you made the statement

You assume that lowering taxes creates a permanent stimulus, yet no supporting data, historical data, etc. And then the other side of that, your tax cuts, is that the deficit, hence debt grow under tax cuts, further burying your perfect world scenario.

You simply cannot show me a sustained period of tax cuts where most/all indicators reveal progress. If so, show me the period. Do I need to show you evidenc of my assertion and counter-evidence of yours? I will.

i posted a video WITH TRANSCRIPT and you have no response to it. and all you can show for "evidence" of your "assertions" is some lame economist that says the housing bubble was caused by low interest rates. (once again you prove how much of an ignorant slut you are)

anyway i can address that later, back to my first point.
Increasing the capital gains tax rate in the 1980s, decreased the revenue from that tax.
Decreasing the tax rate in the 1990s, increased the revenue from that tax.
WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS??
Connect the dots mutha ucka
how do you think clinton got that surplus?? by increasing tax rates???
rich people, business owners, corporations, etc are NOT going to invest in our economy if theyre going to get raped by the IRS.

3>im glad that warren buffet agrees with you, and since wb says "that rich people are given too many tax breaks and pay low a percentage in taxes.", would you please do me a favor and ask wb the following questions:

a)what percentage of total federal income taxes do the top 1% of tax filers pay?
b)how about the the top 50% of tax filers?
c)and how about the bottom 45%?

3 questions , all i need is 3 answers a,b,c

[hoopster42]

wouldnt be a bad idea, in terms of making sure the money is spent on goods or services and not paying c.c. debt or things like that.

However what stores would be in on the deal haha? you cant just us it for a handful of stores. It would have to be like a **** card that cannot be accepted for things like paying down debt...and could only be used to purchase goods.

its a nice idea but ppl can use visas to buy shit from overseas on the internet and then its not stimulating OUR economy

[EBSB52]

@ebsb52
i dont have time / I'm too pathetic to read to sift through your incoherent bumblings / citations from people way smarter than me. so let me try to make this quick / so let me avoid once agina, but you're used to coward neo-cons like me doing this.

Fixed it for ya.......

[EBSB52]

@ebsb52

So let me get this straight, you want to avoid my questions like the waste you are, but want me to answer yours? Answer mine, joke, then I'll gladly answer yours.

[EBSB52]

I didn't say I disagreed. I just said I could provide the opposite view from an equally reputable economist. Also just wanted to point out that Krugman has very strong anti-Bush views to begin to get at his motive for being so harsh.Wouldn't you admit that if a Nobel prize winning Republican economist had said the things Krugman said it would be even *more* damning of the Bush tax cuts?

The President can't direct the Chairman of the Fed. Yes he can fire him, but that's extremely rare and would only be done if he was being truly irresponsible. Firing the Fed chairman would be a very poor precedent, especially when times are good. No one saw this coming. Everyone believed they were in a new era where they could keep interest rates low and inflation low as well. Can't blame Greenspan for not being omniscient.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I didn't say I disagreed. I just said I could provide the opposite view from an equally reputable economist.


Cool, so we agree that it was not the tax cuts that spurred growth.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Also just wanted to point out that Krugman has very strong anti-Bush views to begin to get at his motive for being so harsh.

1) I didn't think it was harsh.

2) Let's forego the issue and focus on what Krugman thinks of Bush.... Who the fvck cares? Substance.... what caused the 90's boom? What caused the neo-con trash bust, both of them?


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Wouldn't you admit that if a Nobel prize winning Republican economist had said the things Krugman said it would be even *more* damning of the Bush tax cuts?


Yea,....hey Mods, can you change this thread title to WHAT KRUGMAN THINKS OF BUSH?


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The President can't direct the Chairman of the Fed. Yes he can fire him, but that's extremely rare and would only be done if he was being truly irresponsible.


Lowering the rate for that long is irresponsible and if we had a president other than trailer trash, he wouuld have recommedned teh rate not be lowered, no response would have garnered a firing.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>Firing the Fed chairman would be a very poor precedent, especially when times are good.


Times may have been good there, but have been fvcked here for some time. A real leader doesn't give a shit about precedent/appearance, he /she cares about performance. We've had for too long neo-con trash that cares about appearance and image, not results, which explains why we changed the picture.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No one saw this coming.


There must have been a blizzard up there then, cause I was calling this shit a long time ago. Haven't we seen enough boom/bust cycles to know that a bust is on the other side of a boom?


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Everyone believed they were in a new era where they could keep interest rates low and inflation low as well.


Nah, no one cares in the US, it's about **** thy neighbor, all that matters is me. We have had inflation for some time and the general purpose for adjusting the interest rate is to control inflation; we lower the rate to stimulate spending, but realize that we can't keep it too low because the evil inflation demon is awaiting. We raise the rate to slow spending and keep inflation in check.

The reason Clinton had success were many, but primarily they were able to control the economy and inflation. Bush cut taxes and slashed social spending, thinking the economy would start itself. Instead the economy died and he tried to kickstart it by lowering interest. Still didn't work. The classist trash will forever claim that welfare is bad for the economy, but history disagrees. When welfare is the highest the economy does the best, when taxes are cut as well as social programs, the economy does the worst; care to disprove that via evidence?


>>>>>>>>>>>>>Can't blame Greenspan for not being omniscient.


Can we balme him and Bush for being idiots and keeping interest too low, too long? Or just say, "Gosh golly, whatever, oh well, how'd that happen?

[EBSB52]

@ebsb52

Here's another liberal, ***-swilling faggot-lover.... I say that because if he disagrees with you neo-cons he must must be all that.

http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~nroubini/

And his article: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~nroubini/SUPPLY.HTM

Professor of Economics
and International Business
Stern School of Business, New York University


His interpretation of Clinton's fixes:

By the time Clinton came to power in 1993, the effects of the supply side policies of the 1980s on the fiscal conditions of the U.S. were clear: the budget deficit in 1992 was 290b US $ or 4.9% of GDP and the public debt to GDP ratio equal to 50.6%. The deficit reduction plan that Clinton proposed was based on a limited increase in income tax rates (only for the very rich), an increase in various indirect taxes and a slowdown in the real growth of government spending.


And the conclusion:

So, in conclusion the verdict from history and empirical evidence is quite clear. Supply side economics is "voodoo economics". Reductions in tax rates (starting from initial moderate tax rate levels) do not siginificantly increase labor supply and savings, do not increase economic growth, do not raise total tax revenue and do not reduce budget deficits. Their likely effect on the level and growth rate on output is close to zero while they lead to significantly larger budget deficits.


So if you read:

- verdict from history

-empirical evidence

- Reductions in tax rates (starting from initial moderate tax rate levels) do not siginificantly increase labor supply and savings, do not increase economic growth

- likely effect on the level and growth rate on output is close to zero


So you can take your flowery, failed recipe and and test it, we have and the result is Republican failure. CAN YOU READ AND WATCH RESULTS? IT HASN'T WORKED, GENIUS; I DON;T CARE IF YOU THINK IT LOOKS GOOD ON PAPER. PROFESSOR AFTER ANOTHER HAS DOOMED YOUR BLUEPRINT AS FAILURE..... but they're liberal so they don't count. Well, friend (borrowed from your idiot), the country sees it my way.

[wtf]

wow, i dont know if america operates in a vacuum. but japan has had interest rates at ZERO or close to ZERO for over a decade. so that arguement is very very weak. dont care what book nerd economist you wheel out, reality is reality.

[EBSB52]

wow, i dont know if america operates in a vacuum. but japan has had interest rates at ZERO or close to ZERO for over a decade. so that arguement is very very weak. dont care what book nerd economist you wheel out, reality is reality.

Perhaps they have other controls to avoid irresponsibility. Deregulation is the real killer here, in a macrostructural sense, but couple that with low interest rates and here we go. Even your hero, Bush said that was part of the problem.


I think comparing Japan's entire economy to the US economy is vague at best. I bet they have a system of horor there too, here it is dishorable not to steal what you can, so regulation is far more essential.

[wtf]

yes you have a point, japan is grossly over regulated, the banks wont lend a penny. if you couple de-regulation with low interest rates you do foster that environment. when the bubble burst in japan everyone went into their shell, never to return.

america could be going down that path, all the signals are there.

[EBSB52]

yes you have a point, japan is grossly over regulated, the banks wont lend a penny. if you couple de-regulation with low interest rates you do foster that environment. when the bubble burst in japan everyone went into their shell, never to return.

america could be going down that path, all the signals are there.

Sounds like you know more about Japan's econmomy than do I, but your inferrence that regulation is a bad thing is in extremely poor timing, considering that we are where we are largley due to deregulation. And I would say that their economy is healthier than ours and they have a better manufacturing base per capita.


This deregulation myth has gone too far in the US and I see a reversal in order. That's what happens when you get liberty and you fvck it all up, you lose mom's car keys.

[losturmarbles]

well like i figured, ebsb52 gets put to task and he loses all rationality, wait thats right when did he ever have that?

it must be hard out there living through ideology that refuses you to think on your on and accept reality.

he says one thing, gets proven wrong, but still thinks some moron's economic theory trumps reality and history.

oh and since i know you don't have a friggin clue, and youre probably busy dreaming about getting porked in the rear by your idol warren buffet. i'll give you a break on the pop quiz.

here's the answer key:

a)what percentage of total federal income taxes do the top 1% of tax filers pay?
40%
i know wb thinks that this is too low, but i seem to think that something is wrong with this... The top 1% of tax filers pay 40% of all the income tax.

b)how about the the top 50% of tax filers?
97%
The top half of americans pay nearly all of the income tax.

c)and how about the bottom 45%?
0%, thats right zero. they don't pay, but they do get paid with refundable credits and rebates.

so yeah, out of FAIRNESS, we should really be trying to raise taxes on the evil greedy rich that pool their money together and cause stagflation.

and to address your well thought reasoning behind the housing bubble, it doesnt take a genius to connect the dots on it. so believe what your liberal heros tells you, and don't take the time to figure it out on your own.

for those curious as to the housing bubble, this vid does a decent synopis of the relavent events and causes:

[reno cool]

c)and how about the bottom 45%?
0%, thats right zero. they don't pay, but they do get paid with refundable credits and rebates.

Please explain to me how this is so. Are you telling me that 45% of Americans make bellow 10,000 a year? Do elaborate.

[losturmarbles]

c)and how about the bottom 45%?
0%, thats right zero. they don't pay, but they do get paid with refundable credits and rebates.

Please explain to me how this is so. Are you telling me that 45% of Americans make bellow 10,000 a year? Do elaborate.

is this a wake up call for you reno??

go ask the Treasury Department