Republicans say they're the new Taliban, this is not a joke. Unreal. Options

[Dave K.]

Fat= lower unemployment, unheard of credit, housing market through the roof, people buying like motherfuckers.

'Fat' compared to Now. Bush rung up a big fucking deficit in that kind of climate- almost unbelievable, really. Now, the GOP are bitching about using deficit spending for a purpose.

Well, the deficit did climb quite a bit after 9/11 and the recession that coincided with it.
However, the deficit was coming down every year until last year.

Now, suddenly it's becoming OK to talk about spending almost a trillion dollars
that the government doesn't have. The whole scale has been changed.

And why is there such a rush to get this thing done immediately?
Isn't it somewhat like - dare I say - the runup to the war with Iraq?

[AllMod]

Well, the deficit did climb quite a bit after 9/11 and the recession that coincided with it.
However, the deficit was coming down every year until last year.

Now, suddenly it's becoming OK to talk about spending almost a trillion dollars
that the government doesn't have. The whole scale has been changed.

And why is there such a rush to get this thing done immediately?
Isn't it somewhat like - dare I say - the runup to the war with Iraq?

When does the bombing of Wall Street start?

[Dave K.]

Are you sure they are talking about the bush cuts? I thought she was talking about a new round of cuts for the lower 50% and those would show a 3 time mulitplyer. Either way they are going with 1/3 of the bill as tax cuts and 2/3 spending. The latter part is what only shows a 1.3 x return. The guy talking about this was one of the finance guys who owns the celtics and not some host hack.

The bill as presently constituted is a stinker I think. How is spending money on political groups and sex ed going to generate future returns beyond a short term boost? By all acounts most spending bills just kick the problem down the road.

That's what I thought, too - they were talking about payroll tax cuts (the taxes that everybody pays)
and tax breaks for business.

I would love for somebody to give an example of when government spending
like this actually improved the economy.

[mhaverty]

Bush did spend too much. Bottom line. However does that mean we should go on spending like drunken sailors?

Nobody tells a recovering alcoholic that they shouldn't tell a drunk he might need to stop drinking. Well except for the drunk of course.

[Dave K.]

When does the bombing of Wall Street start?

Shock and awe - with government funny money.

[mhaverty]

That's what I thought, too - they were talking about payroll tax cuts (the taxes that everybody pays)
and tax breaks for business.

I would love for somebody to give an example of when government spending
like this actually improved the economy.

There are no examples. Everybody uses FDR but his spending only cut unemployment from 30 down to 26% or some figures in that range. Avi Nelson was talking about this the other day and said the real things that ended the depression were of course the war but also a decade of pent up demand once the war was over. That and sounder fiscal policies and banking expansion with in reasonable margins (unlike what we saw over th past decade that got us in to this shit show). Basically banks acting like banks again.

[benhamean]

Well, the deficit did climb quite a bit after 9/11 and the recession that coincided with it.
However, the deficit was coming down every year until last year.

Now, suddenly it's becoming OK to talk about spending almost a trillion dollars
that the government doesn't have. The whole scale has been changed.

And why is there such a rush to get this thing done immediately?
Isn't it somewhat like - dare I say - the runup to the war with Iraq?

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/06/news/econo...nuary/index.htm

+ Stock market down 50% or so
+ Lending frozen
+ Foreclosures through the roof

= Reality. The data is there, for you to read.



That is why the scale has changed. Bush created his deficit (out of a surplus) out of serious fiscal irresponsibility- for no reason.

The notion of running a deficit NOW has a reason- a lot of them, actually (some of which I listed above).

[Dave K.]

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/06/news/econo...nuary/index.htm

+ Stock market down 50% or so
+ Lending frozen
+ Foreclosures through the roof

= Reality. The data is there, for you to read.
That is why the scale has changed. Bush created his deficit (out of a surplus) out of serious fiscal irresponsibility- for no reason.

The notion of running a deficit NOW has a reason- a lot of them, actually (some of which I listed above).

Why does this bad economy require a huge stimulus when other worse economic times didn't?

The deficits under Bush were created by a combination of a recession (the bursting of
the dot com bubble, which was the only reason we had a surplus for a couple of years),
a war, and fiscal irresponsibility (by Bush and Congress). He didn't just sit down and
say "I'm gonna create a deficit just to piss off Benhamean".

[mhaverty]

Congressional Budget Office: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul

Wednesday, February 4, 2009
CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul
Stephen Dinan (Contact)
President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.

CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. [The House bill] would have similar long-run effects, CBO said in a letter to Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, who was tapped by Mr. Obama on Tuesday to be Commerce Secretary.

The House last week passed a bill totaling about $820 billion while the Senate is working on a proposal reaching about $900 billion in spending increases and tax cuts.

But Republicans and some moderate Democrats have balked at the size of the bill and at some of the spending items included in it, arguing they won't produce immediate jobs, which is the stated goal of the bill.

The budget office had previously estimated service the debt due to the new spending could add hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost of the bill -- forcing the crowd-out.

CBOs basic assumption is that, in the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a third of a dollars worth of private domestic capital, CBO said in its letter.

CBO said there is no crowding out in the short term, so the plan would succeed in boosting growth in 2009 and 2010.

The agency projected the Senate bill would produce between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent higher growth in 2009 than if there was no action. For 2010, the plan would boost growth by 1.2 percent to 3.6 percent.

CBO did project the bill would create jobs, though by 2011 the effects would be minuscule.



-----------------------------

Looks like we are kicking the can down the street again to me.

[benhamean]

Why does this bad economy require a huge stimulus when other worse economic times didn't?

I guess that we're not that into 30% of our population wandering the countryside begging for odd jobs anymore?

[mhaverty]

I guess that we're not that into 30% of our population wandering the countryside begging for odd jobs anymore?

Economic fear mongering. You lefties are playing on our fears!

[Danny Vermin]

Bush did spend too much. Bottom line. However does that mean we should go on spending like drunken sailors?

Nobody tells a recovering alcoholic that they shouldn't tell a drunk he might need to stop drinking. Well except for the drunk of course.

It's not so much that you are spending that is the problem.

It's WHAT you're spending it on.

[benhamean]

Economic fear mongering. You lefties are playing on our fears!

Sorry...
UNEMPLOYMENT AND FORECLOSURE ARE AWESOME!

[Danny Vermin]

Why does this bad economy require a huge stimulus when other worse economic times didn't?

We like to learn from mistakes to stave off disaster?

[Dave K.]

I guess that we're not that into 30% of our population wandering the countryside begging for odd jobs anymore?

How did you get from 7.5% to 30%?

You're not really buying into this being the worst economy since the Depression, are you?

Can you give me an example where government spending like this had a positive
effect on the economy?

I'm telling you, bra, you sound like Dick Cheney in 2002...

[Danny Vermin]

How did you get from 7.5% to 30%?

It was 4.7% less than 4 months ago.

30% might be an exaggeration.

15% or 20% seems well within the realm of possibility.

[Dave K.]

We like to learn from mistakes to stave off disaster?

? What mistakes? The economy has always recovered. No reason that
it won't this time, either. Why assume that this particular crisis will
turn into disaster?

[Danny Vermin]

? What mistakes? The economy has always recovered. No reason that
it won't this time, either. Why assume that this particular crisis will
turn into disaster?

Because all of the domestic industries that built us to the world power we've been until recently are all tanking severely, simultaneously, and are being beaten in the market by foreign competition regularly?

Ask The Big 3 Car manufacturers.

Ask domestic Oil companies.

Ask electronics and other consumer product manufacturers.

We're # 2, or 3 at best these days, at everything we used to be # 1 at.

[Dave K.]

It was 4.7% less than 4 months ago.

30% might be an exaggeration.

15% or 20% seems well within the realm of possibility.

I agree that it's a little scary how fast it has all happened.

We have to be careful not to move so fast that the end result
is worse rather than better (see Haverty's post). Pass some of
the stimulus now (combination of spending and tax cuts), debate
some of the more conventional pork in a more normal manner.

4 months ago is when the banking crisis started this whole thing.
And I still think that shoring up the foundation of our economy,
the banking/financial industry, will go a long way to getting things back
on track.

[Dave K.]

Because all of the domestic industries that built us to the world power we've been until recently are all tanking severely, simultaneously, and are being beaten in the market by foreign competition regularly?

Ask The Big 3 Car manufacturers.

Ask domestic Oil companies.

Ask electronics and other consumer product manufacturers.

We're # 2, or 3 at best these days, at everything we used to be # 1 at.

This is true. We live in a world economy these days, and we don't
manufacture much in this country anymore. It's kind of hard to put
that toothpaste back into the tube.

I'm not sure how this proposed stimulus is going to affect this situation, do you?

[benhamean]

I'm telling you, bra, you sound like Dick Cheney in 2002...

Bra-
The numbers are out there. Not just here, but worldwide. Not like Dick Cheney's fantasy mystery world.

And I still think that shoring up the foundation of our economy,
the banking/financial industry, will go a long way to getting things back
on track.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, wrong answer.

The banking/financial industries have been lying cheating inflating bookcooking motherfuckers, and have put us in this mess.

Shoring them up is not the answer. Regulating their shady-ass shenanigans is. And finding another foundation for our economy which is based on creating TANGIBLE wealth (Goods and services, rather than false wealth made by trading shit back and forth).

Our nation needs to generate wealth through creating things and selling them, rather than fake math.

[Dave K.]

Bra-
The numbers are out there. Not just here, but worldwide. Not like Dick Cheney's fantasy mystery world.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, wrong answer.

The banking/financial industries have been lying cheating inflating bookcooking motherfuckers, and have put us in this mess.

Shoring them up is not the answer. Regulating their shady-ass shenanigans is. And finding another foundation for our economy which is based on creating TANGIBLE wealth (Goods and services, rather than false wealth made by trading shit back and forth).

Our nation needs to generate wealth through creating things and selling them, rather than fake math.

Great, tell me how this stimulus plan will accomplish any of this.

I'll check back on Monday.

[benhamean]

Great, tell me how this stimulus plan will accomplish any of this.

I'll check back on Monday.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/183303

[terrydactyl]

Yeah I have to agree with Havs here. This one clown doesn't represent the entire right wing.

no
but he is indeed a symptom of what is wrong with our country on the right, and i do compare christian rightie fundies with the taliban - they care not a wit for the future of america but only in retaining power in that ideological fanaticism
it is the party of hate and oppression when the pseudoconservatives and neocons are allowed to usurp moderate republicans
and right wing radio proves that we have to be vigil against 1/2 our own countrymen and women lest they take us all down with us with their myopic pyrrhic victories, their golden calf idolization of rich white wealth and their misunderstanding of the word 'patriotism'

This post has been edited by terrydactyl: Feb 7 2009, 09:17 AM

[terrydactyl]

Yeah I have to agree with Havs here. This one clown doesn't represent the entire right wing.

um, yeah, he does
the only difference is is that he said what they all thought