Before anyone takes what Sam has said to heart, you should know he is a devotee of a fringe view of economics that while it makes him happy, doesn’t have wide acceptance.
The stimulus kept us out of an economic collapse. I know that fact pisses you off, but that doesn’t make it not true.
I still don’t get your point. Your party was in complete control for the 4 years, and Bush was certainly complicit in the spending overdose voted in by Dems in the previous 2 (unless you care to cite the bills he vetoed that would have helped ameliorate this mess?).
The downturn in the economy has happened under Dem rule of Congress, and continued under their absolute rule. How can you deny a simple fact?
When you say extension of the Bush tax cuts - are you talking about the ones Obama supposedly wants to eliminate (the cuts for those making over $250k… which amounts to a rounding error, $33b a year or something). Or all of them (which your boy hasn’t had the cajones to propose repealing; some leader :rolleyes:).
Iraq was a bipartisan effort - do we really need to rehash the vote? And if paying for it is an issue, why didn’t the Dems pass the spending cuts or dedicated taxes when they were in charge? Or Obama pull us out sooner?
So, nice try, swing and a miss. Feel free to try again.
Your next response would be more helpful if you could explain why the Dems, when they had absolute power, didn’t either reduce spending or increase taxes to avoid our current situation. And while blaming Bush is about the only answer we ever hear, it’s run its course (as I suspect the electorate will conclude, should the Dems try to trot out that bullshit in Nov).
I didn’t say it is (deficit spending being evil), but there’s a limit. Or is Greece the preferred model?
Then you are disagreeing on how much. That is good news.
If the Repubs kill the raised ceiling, the market will drop like a rock. Investors are pretty stupid and stampede easily.
You’ve made a valiant effort to muddy things up, but you’re unable to dispute any of those facts. Want another try?
Exclude the middle much?
Really? An ad-hominem attack is the best you can do? It’s not a ‘fringe belief’ to think that the stimulus did not work - it’s rapidly becoming the consensus. And I have quoted numerous peer-reviewed papers on this board calling into question the premise and results of the stimulus, and no one has ever refuted one of them. These are not ‘fringe’ papers - they’re papers by respected economists at Harvard, Stanford, and elsewhere.
When come back, bring a real argument.
This is nothing more than a talking point of the left, to be repeated loudly and often to mask the fact that the stimulus did not live up to a single one of the promises its adherents said it would achieve.
The fact is, the economy was already out of recession before the stimulus money even made its way into the economy, and if you look at GDP or job creation or any other economic metric, there is very little correlation between the spending of stimulus money and economic output. Certainly there’s nowhere NEAR the effect its proponents promised.
If it were true that the stimulus avoided a depression or other calamity, you should see a decline that is slowed and halted as stimulus funds make their way into the economy. But in fact what you see is a sharp decline right after the financial crisis, then a modest turn upwards in 2009 to the point where there was positive but anemic growth before the stimulus money showed up. it’s pretty hard to argue that the stimulus prevented a depression when the economy was already out of recession before the stimulus arrived, don’t you think?
We also have the evidence of two previous stimulus attempts, one in 2001 and one in 2008, which had no measurable effect on economic output. In fact, the only major government program that appears to have done some good was TARP, and that was primarily because it addressed a very specific failing and was applied rapidly and in directed fashion.
The stimulus, on the other hand, was a mishmash of pork and state funding that took a long time to make it into the economy, was directed more at districts that had powerful representation rather than those that were the most in trouble, and which had the effect of increasing the permanent structural size of the government - thus failing all three of Larry Summers’ requirements for a stimulus - that it be targeted, timely, and temporary.
The money that went to the state governments was largely used to displace their own spending, resulting in no fiscal infusion into the economy at all, but rather a transfer of debt from state budgets to the federal budget. Half the stimulus was temporary tax cuts, which we already knew were unlikely to work. The measly part aimed at actual infrastructure development was largely snarled in red tape due to union demands and other problems.
This is not fringe economics - this is an empirical look at what actually happened, backed up by peer-reviewed research. The stimulus failed. And now the U.S. gets to carry almost a trillion dollars of extra debt, which will cost at least $30 billion dollars a year in interest, forever. Since the stimulus money is mostly spent now, the only effect left is a perpetual drag on the economy, year after year, because of the money that has to be extracted from it to pay the interest on the gamble.
I’m not sure what point you think you’re making. Of course some debt is OK. But when the debt service starts to crush the budget (ie, soon for us, now for Greece) and rates go up and China stops buying the debt etc etc, then it’s all over.
If there’s no agreement, it’s as much of the Dems putting us in this place in the first place, as GOP intransigence on how to get us out.
The states did not have the political or functional ability to take on the debt to pay for the things the stimulus helped them pay for. So it didn’t transfer debt from the states, it created debt in order that the states could continue to do things like cover paychecks for public employees. Absent the stimulus, we would have had government shutdowns in Minnesota, Wisconsin, California, etc., when the economy was even more vulnerable, as we eventually saw when the federal money to pay teachers and cops ran out.
Just like the rest of the stimulus, such spending may or may not be more advantageous than the cost of the debt – which is a perfectly reasonable if far from settled debate – but your argument that it was merely a transference of debt is simply incorrect.
You honed in on the ad hominem fallacy pretty quickly; ad populum, not so much.
(sigh)
Ok, I guess i need to lay them out for you, point by point. After which you’ll thank me, donate to Bachmann’s candidacy, etc. Please try to follow along, I will take them ‘objective fact’ by ‘objective fact’
(1) About a quarter of the projected deficit over the next decade is because of the downturn in the economy that started in 2008.
Reply: Who was in charge since 2007 of Congress? What did they do to avoid the crisis? If they passed a bill and it was vetoed by that evil W, then please cite the bill.
(2) Another quarter to a third of that deficit is a consequence of the extension of the Bush tax cuts. The Dems voted to temporarily extend only about half of these cuts (because we’re in a recession), and this was blocked by the GOP. The GOP wants to make them permanent.
Your boy, showing immense leadership, refused to fight to let them expire. He caved (when the Dems controlled both congress and the white house!)
(3) The third major portion of the deficit is Iraq, which Bush opted not to attempt to pay for by raising revenue.
a) the Dems voted for Iraq and Afghanistan, b) please cite the tax increases passed by the the Dem congress in 2007 that were vetoed, that could have paid for those conflicts, and c) if the war is so bad, why hasn’t mr Hopey McChange gotten us out yet? I thought he got the nomination from Hillary after uniting both the Cut and Run wings of the Democratic Party, after all
(4) Because the lion’s share of Obama’s spending was temporary (i.e., TARP, Stimulus), even a worst-case scenario projection has that spending contributing to only a small fraction of the overall debt. A best-case scenario has it actually saving the government money by avoiding financial collapse.
Under your guy’s budgets, it’s all a nightmare moving forward. The CBO says that deficits go on for as far as one can see, public debt gets to 100% of GDP in less than 10 years, and Medicare becomes unsustainable. It’s not just temporary spending.
(5) No one knows whether Obamacare will be a net gain or loss for the federal government over the long term. What we do know is that federal medical spending before Obamacare was a huge portion of the long-term projected deficit, and serious people on both sides of the political spectrum think some of the Medicare cost containment efforts have a shot at saving us money.
10 years of taxes rigged to pay for 6 years of benefits. It will get worse, and if you are honest, you know this.
(6) Our long-term fiscal future has a lot to do with how we deal with Medicare (and VA care), defense spending, and the success of our economy. It has very little to do with what we did in 2009 or 2010.
Agreed, sort of; Medicare absolutely. SS, yes. Defense… per capita and as % of GDP defense spending haven’t done much over the last 40 years, and are both down since Bubba was in. Nobody in DOD thinks the numbers are doing anything but going to drop further. Read Washington Technology or Government Computer News, to get smarter on this topic.
(7) Our current “crisis” is entirely of GOP creation. The Democrats want to raise the debt limit. The GOP does not.
You have a cite for this, or is it just partisan bullshit? The GOP would raise it tomorrow, if the Dems acted as they want (stopping the madness, from their POV, and living within our means).
So, before you spout off again, please answer this simple question: how is this crisis ENTIRELY a GOP creation when THE DEMS HAD ABSOLUTE POWER from January 2009 to January 2011, and W played along from January 2007 until January 2009 (with TARP, especially). I notice you have ignored that point so far.
Honestly - you really, truly, don’t blame the Democrats at all for this? They are the completely innocent victims? Are you James Carville incognito?
You’re assuming, incorrectly, that I was trying to lay blame. Instead, I was refuting your contention that Democrats are to blame.
I wasn’t trying for an attack. You stated those things like they were established fact. When in actuality, they are a fringe belief that you like because you prefer the Libertarian religion.
When come back, bring real facts.
It averted a melt-down. That would be a single one of its promises. Would you please retract your incorrect statement now?
This is the result of you believing misinformation promoted by Libertarian true-believers. You are no doubt talking about the 8% unemployment prediction (not promise) made before the Stimulus. If you deal with the universe we actually live in, you might feel that the prediction was made before we knew how bad the economy actually was. We only had preliminary data that painted a rosier picture than was actually happening.
Never mind the fact that the Republicans (the folks you root for) threatened to destroy the economy (now becoming their forte) if they didn’t get most of the stimulus converted to less stimulative tax cuts.
I don’t know how you have the nerve to assert such nonsense.
No. I imagine that the fact that a dozen states didn’t default had something to do with it.
You don’t understand the situation. In your opinion was 2001 as large a drop in the economy as 2008? Was the Bush “stimulus” as large as the Obama one? You are flailing at phantoms to justify your Libertarian beliefs.
I trust you would support a superior stimulus then, and not have it mucked up by congressional Republicans, right?
Nonsense. We had a huge deficit of demand in our economy. Laying off state workers by the millions would have made it much worse.
The stimulus failing is an opinion, a minority opinion. As it happens it is largely held by Libertarian ideologues who walk lockstep with you.
I say that because they’ve been in charge in the immediate preceeding years leading up to this nightmare. They STILL control 2 of the 3 branches of politically elected government. Seems to me a child could figure out who ran the train off the tracks.
You really don’t see that, do you?
PS Go back and look at your list of things that got us into this mess. You tell me if those supposed ‘objective facts’ were actions taken by Dems or the GOP. Then tell me if a reasonable person would assume you’re placing blame.
Are you aware that the Democrats didn’t have a filibuster-proof majority in the senate? And when Bush was president didn’t have a veto-proof majority?
Are you further aware, that the children in charge of the Republican Party nowadays have been filibustering at a much higher rate than ever before in the existence of our country?
Given those two facts, how can you assert that the Dems had control? When the minority party can throw a tantrum and stop everything, they have a lot of control.
Thought Experiment: President and Democrats get a bill to fix the country. It will work. All the evidence shows that this is the best, moderate plan to go with.
Democratic Congress: We have this plan.
Democratic President: Yay! Plan!
Republican Party: Wahhhhh!!! Tyranny!!! Fucking Usurper!!! Wah!!!
Democratic Congress: Okay, wasn’t expecting that. How about we shift it a little to the right?
Republican Party: Wahhhhh!!! Death Panels!!! Boo-Fucking-Hoooo!!!1
Democratic Congress: Okay, how about we make this exactly the plan you guys had two years ago?
Republican Party: Secede!!! Aaaaargh!!!
Children are easily misled. The adults in the room are not so gullible.
Then its not the gang of 6 plan now is it? I might as well say that I fully support Michelle Bachman’s plan except I want to raise the debt ceiling, eliminate the Bush tax cuts and negotiate new tax reduction legislation that isn’t as retarded as the bush tax cuts while reducing spending on a dollar for dollar basis. See I support the Bachman plan.
The devil is in the details. The Republican BBA basically says that you can only cut spending to balance budgets unless you can get 67% votes in the house and the senate to approve a tax increase. Its a stupid plan especially when taxes are at historic lows.
Republicans haven’t put country before party since they lost the white house.
And many of them are not.
Back when they first created the depreciation schedules, they got a bunch of engineers to estimate how long stuff lasts and tax useful life tracked economic useful life, more or less. Then they started with accelerated depreciation in an effort to get people to buy more depreciable property. Our depreciations tables are much faster than economic depreciation at this time so that you almost always have recapture when a corporation sells an airplane or automobile.
As for your dismissal of timing issues, the tax code is largely about timing. Half the tax lawyers in NYC are dealing with timing and character issues and not issues of absolute income. The entire leasing industry is based on timing, and depreciation for that matter.
You do realize the hedge fund taxation started with oil exploration partnerships right? Some wildcatter would raise capital and put in nothing and if he struck oil, he would get 20% (taxed at capital gains rates) as carried interest if not then he was out his time and effort while everyone else was out their investment. It was supposed to promote oil exploration.
Oil and mineral companies use an accounting method called depletion, it is very favorable and while it is not unique to the oil industry, it is certainly a preferred tax system.
Right now ALL depreciation schedules are tax preferences, depreciation is not only accelerated within the same useful life, the depreciation periods have been shortened over time.
Well, worldwide taxation of income is a sticking point in tax policy. So we have made a few accomodations. You only pay the difference, your first $92,900 is excluded (if you are an individual) and you do not have to pay taxes on that income until you repatriate it (if you are a corporation). Still I think it makes sense to rewrite the tax code without the assumption that we are taxing worldwide income. Too much slips through the cracks based on those faulty assumptions.
And if you combined ALL those departments, you would be about 5% of the towards a balanced budget unless you also want to eliminate college student financial aid, unemployment benefits, and our federal nuclear capacity (submarines, warheads, etc.).