The Son We Need to Elect

oldtimer 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Outstanding analysis and commentary!!!! I couldn't agree with you more, nor could I have expressed those thoughts more eloquently. Allow me to be the first to congratulate you, Mr. Ward, for your letter before the mindless liberals climb on this response page with their sing-song drivel.

geoffcutler 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Ditto...well done, and happy 4th!

Thatcher 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Well said, Mr. Ward!

MikeNC 10 months, 3 weeks ago

WOW!!! Now that's a letter fit for the 4th of July! Ditto, Ditto, Ditto on what you said and the responses to your letter....Mike

The_AnonymusProfit 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Amen

MikeNC 10 months, 3 weeks ago

I think you can call this letter, a left jab and right jab, before the final punch in the gut. K O first round. Diane

Matt_Woodruff 10 months, 3 weeks ago

You are overlooking one inconvenient fact; the religion Romney practices is NOT christianity.

Bentpan 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Mr. Ward when better than the 4th of July to point out the Anti-American pursuits of this administration and those that would still support a president that has presided over the greatest decline of American values and standard of living in my lifetime. I was proud my country could and would elect an african American to the presidency and Ashamed that of all the great men and women they could have chosen, this is who they chose for the honor of being the first.

Bentpan 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Matt_Woodruff 3 minutes ago "You are overlooking one inconvenient fact; the religion Romney practices is NOT christianity" Mr Woodruff, The Morman faith is not Christianity in the same way Baptists, Presbyterians etc are hot really Christians to "the one True Faith" Roman catholicism or vise-versa, Yet Mormans hold that Jesus Christ is the one true Savior. Way to show your bigotry not to mention ignorance.

The_AnonymusProfit 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Amen bentpan

Matt_Woodruff 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Bentpan, maybe you should do a little research before you spout your "knowledge". I could educate you but I know that you have the internet so why don't you google it and get back to me. Oh, and I am a bigot for pointing out the obvious?

jimt 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Thatcher, I'm responding to an earlier post of yours where you equated government spending during a depression/recession, under Keynsian principals, as digging holes and filling them up.

Do you consider the Hoover Dam, the Grand Coule Dam, the TVA, the Golden Gate Bridge, among other dozens if not hundred of other huge projects undertaken by the Federal Government during the depression as digging holes and filling them up? Did these projects, funded without actual tax dollars to fund them, thus adding to our national debt, constitute reckless and foolish spending, creating debt that our children and grandchildren will have to pay for? Or did they constitute infrastructure buildings that have actually generated huge postitive revenues for the Federal Government through income taxes and use fees, create millions of permanent jobs in the private sector, increase our GDP, and increase our per capita income?

By the way, without the TVA the enormous amount of electricity used by the Oak Ridge uranium enrichment plant in Tennessee would not have been possible and "little boy" would not have existed to drop on Hiroshima. Without the Grand Coule Dam the Hanford Plutonium production reactor would not have been possible, thus the "fat man" bomb dropped on Nagasaki would not have been possible. Without the Hoover Dam Las Vegas would not be possible (maybe a good thing, maybe a bad thing), but millions of jobs were created as the city grew. Pheonix might not be possible, and agriculture in Nevada, Arizona, and Southern California, which generates tens of billions of dollars of revenue, and tax dollars, and employes millions of people, would not be possible.

Just curious.

AndrewSoboeiro 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Yep, I'm so happy we'll elect someone who will put your imaginary friend "back in our daily lives." Because if there's one thing that freedom is about, it's having religion imposed from above.

Illegal immigrants are not "attempt[ing] to change us to a different culture, religion and system of jurisprudence." All they're doing is trying to make money for their family. They haven't imposed anything on us. Morally, they have every right to come here as long as they aren't aggressing against anyone (which most of them have not). Leave the illegal immigrants alone, and focus on the overgrown government that's destroying our lives.

MikeNC 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Good comments Bentpan. Most will enjoy this short video and song. We will soon be clawing our way back...Mike

My Name is America by Todd Allen Herendeen- The Official Patriotic Anthem-Super! by Toddallenshow

Matt_Woodruff 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Great comment Andrew! I am afraid that it will be over the head of most here though.

MikeNC 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Andrew and Matt: If an illegal is caught in Mexico: felony, up to two years in prison. If caught again, felony, up to 10 years in prison. Unfortunately Congress has failed to address illegal immigration for such a long time, that it would be erroneous, in my opinion, to send all illegals back to Mexico, or what ever country they're origin is. With that said, we need to get some sort of green card status for those over 18 and with clean records and steady employment. Residency cards, but not citizenship, for young people up to age 18, who were brought here at young ages. IF they then want to follow guidelines to becoming citizens, fine, BUT all this must be done at the same time we tighten our southern borders. Diane

clarabelle 10 months, 3 weeks ago

whew.......... the far right out in force after this silly letter. kinda like listening to limbaugh where the ditto heads applaud even when he farts........

RodHarter 10 months, 3 weeks ago

"... Before the mindless liberals."

Now there's an intelligent comment! Sure makes me believe the letter must have some factual basis. It's always fun to dismiss opposing points of view and bolster your own point of view by simply denigrating the opposition. How adult. According to Mr. Ward Barack Obams single-handedly destroyed our culture, values, leadership role in the world, our economy, borders and immigration control, redistributed wealth, and removed God from our world. Whew! That man has been busy. His repeated reference to electing a son this November, and I know it has an antecedent in Paul Dunn's article, muddies the water rhetorically. The 'otherness' campaign against Obama has been waged since the day of his inauguration, and I for one reject that dog-whistle propaganda. Incidentally, I would welcome a factual discussion of your assertions because they simply don't square with reality. Mr. Ward's letter is rather a nice prologue for a book of fiction.

Matt_Woodruff 10 months, 3 weeks ago

MikeNC, I was commenting on the Mitt is a good "christian" not the immigration issue. As far as that goes, unless you are an OP (original people) we are ALL immigrants!!

The_AnonymusProfit 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Matt please...educate us....

Bentpan 10 months, 3 weeks ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Bentpan 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Mike enjoyed the music video, a inspirational reminder of how important today is and how fortunate we are to be Americans. Thanks for sharing.

MikeNC 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Matt: 6th great grandmother, Ots-Toch, princess of the turtle clan of Mohawks. As for a vast majority of immigrants, immigransts, not illegal immigrants. And as I stated earlier, I do believe in putting together a program for illegals who are already here. Is that a problem? PS you had commented on Andrew's comment so included you and Andrew when I made my earlier post.

Matt_Woodruff 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Bentpan, Do you feel better now? I'm an idiot? LOL I laugh at your stupidity!! OMG I don't know where to begin! AP I Challenge you to go to google first, if you have questions come back and I will answer them for you. Let's start with the simplest one; Mormons believe that "god" was a flesh and bones being, how does that jibe with what you THINK you know about christianity??

Thatcher 10 months, 3 weeks ago

jimt-- Thanks for the question. You may have misread my posts on DR's thread "Little Green Men." I did not equate government spending during a depression (under Keynes) with digging ditches and filling them in. What I said, and what is uncontroverted, is that Keynes believed that the federal government should pay folks to dig ditches and fill them, and that this was an acceptable liberal economic theory...and I posted many links verifying this fact, including this one: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/may/26/builders-britain-recession. Keynes believed in big-government, top-down solutions, and has many supporters, including Paul Krugman and President Obama. One of the many problems with Keynes' view (besides its stupidity), is that it ignores real pro-growth policies which work to reduce unemployment and substantially grow GDP. Here's the actual year-by-year unemployment statistics during FDR's "Great Depression" when he was relying upon Keynes: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/unemployment-during-the-great-depression.html. Simply stated, it did not work, because it can't work. As far as the Hoover Dam (and the other projects you cited), none of these projects had any real effect at reducing unemployment, because government PROJECTS (i.e "shovel ready jobs" in Obama's words) have never and will never reduce unemployment...but government POLICIES can. Look, Obama and Biden were touting "The Summer of Recovery" in 2010: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/06/biden-touts-summer-of-recovery/1. How'd that work out for folks? Then came the summer of 2011 and now 2012: http://reason.com/blog/2012/04/16/third-summer-of-recovery-is-already-over. It has only gotten worse. Again, thanks for the question, and I appreciate your fairness on this site. Cheers!

alladat1 10 months, 3 weeks ago

RodHarter - Good points. The decoded version is "lets elect our favorite white son".

Bentpan 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Mr. Woodruff you really need to go to the website ( which is the official Morman site ) I provided for your education, while I'm not an expert on the Morman faith or christianity for that matter, from what I read at their site you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about, but that's understandable, most bigotry is bred of ignorance.

jimt 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Thatcher:

With all due respect, your assertion that government cannot create jobs and stimulate a recovery is nonsense.

The people who worked on those projects I mentioned had jobs. But like ALL construction jobs, when the project was finished the job ended. But in the meantime, those hundreds of thousands of workers spent money in the private sector, creating hundreds of thousands of more jobs. That was true in the 1930s, and it's true today. Are you saying that all construction jobs, so long as the government is the source of the funding for those jobs, even though the actual work is performed by the private sector, don't create jobs and reduce unemployment?

You are also completely neglecting the long-term economic benefits of infrastructure jobs, which by definition are the government's responsibility to fund. As I said, literally millions of people owe their livelihoods today from those construction projects in the 1930s. The same can be said for the federally funded interstate highway projects of the 1950s and 1960s, the manned and unmanned space projects of the 1960s through to today, jobs in the defense industry, my job with a huge government contractor, which was just one of many, and so on. Most of the employees were in the private sector. Those employees, like me, went out and bought houses, cars, clothing, furniture, appliances, took vacations, ate at restaurants, paid federal taxes, and so on. All that spending was in the private sector. The beneficiaries of that spending then went out and bought houses, cars, clothing, furniture, appliances, took vacations, ate at restaurants, paid federals taxes, and so on. It's called the economic multiplier effect.

Most historians, like Ben Bernanke, among others, think Roosevelt's critical mistake was to reduce federal spending because of the growing federal debt. As soon as these the government stopped creating new huge infrastruture projects unemployment started to rise again.

I think the bottom line is that you cannot have a significant recovery until individuals in the middle class are confident that they will have a job for years to come. When that happens they go out and spend money and through the multiplier effect overall demand increases and business begins to increase production and hires more people. Today businesses are sitting on over $2 trillion in cash. Why are they not modernizing their facilities and increasing their production of goods, both essential components of a sustainable recovery? Simple, the middle class doesn't have money or the confidence that they will have money in the future due to their confidence that they will have jobs in the future. Cutting taxes for the "job creators," will not further incline them to modernize their plants and increase production. Demand will.

If I'm in error, please point out the factual and logical fallacy of my conclusions.

jimt 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Thatcher: Here's the quote, put in context, that you cite re: Keynes: " John Maynard Keynes once advocated paying people to dig holes and fill them in again, in order to create jobs and demand in a time of slump. With Britain deep in double-dip recession, the government is embarking on a 21st-century version of the policy, using its financial power to kickstart a wave of building projects and boost the economy.

Nick Clegg dropped a broad hint last week that the coalition hoped to unleash a "massive" wave of investment in housing and infrastructure from the private sector by using government guarantees.

This is hardly digging holes and filling them up. Nor do I thinke Keynes was serious. He was making an illustrative point, e.g., that government can be a catalyst for getting a national economy out of depression/recession while at the same time accomplishing tasks that are in the immediate and long-term public interest.

In this regard, about eight months after the stimulus plan to fund "shovel ready projects," I happened to drive up to Northern Virginia. I passed three huge highway projects, all had signs that noted that the funding came from the stimulus plan. Eight months is not nearly enough time to do the surveying, land acquisition, planning, contract letting, contract evaluation, and final awards for this work. They were, quite literally, shovel ready. Further, they pumped over $1 billion into the local economy in direct funding, and multiples of $1 billion into the local economy due to the multiplier effect, and, when completed, they will be part of a badly needed and neglected road infrastruce in Northern Virginia. I know, because it was traffic conjestion and its impact on my mental health (here pest and others will no doubt comment) that drove me out of the area and down to Pinehurst.

One last point, as the self-appointed arbiter of proper linguistic behavior for these posts, I trust you'll review bentpan's calling Mr. Woodruff and "idiot" and repudiate and condemn his namecalling.

Thatcher 10 months, 3 weeks ago

jimt-- "The people who worked on those projects I mentioned had jobs." Yes they did, and their wages were paid by the federal government, which got the money to pay such salaries from taxpayers. You can do the math and see that such an approach is unsustainable, and results in no growth. It did not work for FDR, and it is not working for Obama. The unemployment numbers are what they are. If you were correct, the federal government could reduce unemployment just by hiring more federal workers and paying their salaries. Except that the federal workers' salary is paid for by the taxpayer. Keynes took your approach to its logical liberal conclusion: hire workers to dig ditches and fill them in...and borrow the money if necessary to do so. After all, they had jobs, right? It simply has never worked and cannot work. And jimt, I don't mean any disrespect at all, but your approach is almost identical to Nancy Pelosi's, who claimed in December that unemployment benefits would be the best stimulus for the economy: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/pelosi-extending-unemployment-benefits-would-create-600000-jobs. This is classic Keynes. By the way, Obama did extend those benefits, and unemployment is higher. Again, you are a fair man, and I enjoy discussing economics with you in a civil manner. It is like a breath of fresh air, and I thank you for that. Cheers!

jimt 10 months, 3 weeks ago

You simply ignore the long-term jobs government creates, space program for instance, and the economic multiplier effect, and the federal taxes said job holders pay, and the income generated, and taxes paid down the road from the completion and utilization of these projects.

I think further discussion at this point is pointless in light of the fact that the trillions of dollars generated by the Hoover Dam ,alone, over its lifetime to this point count for nothing in your method of accounting.

Sherwood 10 months, 3 weeks ago

The federal government creates jobs all the time. In fact, I know several people employed by the government. Most of them are in the military. Others do social or clerical work.

You can argue about what types of jobs government should create, but you can't honestly argue that government can't create jobs and reduce unemployment when that is exactly what happens when the government pays you to do a job (whether it be military service, road construction, other infrastructure improvements, conservation, and so on). As jimt points out, this has a multiplier effect when those employed by the government go out and spend money on goods and services in the private sector.

Projects under the WPA, CCC and the alphabet soup of programs during the great depression not only created jobs, but also improved land and infrastructure in the long-run. Of course these programs were only temporary and were eliminated because of unnecessary concerns about government debt and of course World War II. So while such programs created jobs in the short-term, these same jobs were lost in the long-run. Which is why I think similar programs ought to be a permanent feature of our political economy.

During recession, those who lose their jobs in the private sector could find employment in the public sector through a job guarantee program. As the economy improves, these same workers would be hired back into the private sector. Not only does this take care of the decline in demand that comes with an increase in unemployment, but it also prevents a situation where a person who has just been laid off becomes idle and less employable due to skill loss associated with idleness.

Thatcher 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Sherwood-- You posted last night on the thread "There's No Similarity," and asserted (essentially) that government debt is not a problem. You, and other folks here, can read my response to your post. Sherwood, Pelosi was referring to the same "multiplier effect" when she said extending unemployment benefits was the best stimulus ever, and would create 600,000 jobs. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/pelosi-extending-unemployment-benefits-would-create-600000-jobs. Was Pelosi right? Or wrong? And why? Thanks!

AndrewSoboeiro 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Bastiat talked about the "broken window fallacy." You could claim that by breaking other people's windows, I'm creating jobs, since the people who owned the windows have to hire glaziers to fix them. The problem is that you don't account for how the proprietors would have spent their money had they not had to fix the windows. Yes, I'm creating jobs for the glaziers, but I'm destroying jobs for tailors, waiters, manufacturers, or whatever else. Similarly, you can't just look at jobs the government creates; you have to look at the jobs taxation destroys.

This, of course, may be an oversimplification. I really don't understand economics, and am not in a position to discredit Keynesianism. But I do know that you can't simply look at public servants and say "the government creates jobs!" There's more to it than that.

Thatcher 10 months, 3 weeks ago

AndrewSoboeiro-- Great point about Bastiat. Here's a link for folks who may be unfamiliar with his "broken plane of glass" example: http://economics.about.com/od/output-income-prices/a/The-Broken-Window-Fallacy.htm. Enjoy!

Thatcher 10 months, 3 weeks ago

And Andrew, it appears you know more about economics than you realize! Do well in school! Cheers!

Thatcher 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Sorry folks, we sorta hijacked this thread to discuss economics. I believe the thread is about Romney and Obama. We now return to your regularly scheduled programming...

Matt_Woodruff 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Bentpan, You are an IDIOT! Really? Go to the mormon website? LOL!!!!! I asked you to EDUCATE yourself, are you serious???????

The_AnonymusProfit 10 months, 3 weeks ago

@ Matt

I asked you to educate us, your idea of education is to tell someone to google? This does not tell me what you think. The typical response when someone has nothing to say or has been caught in a pile of BS is to tell the objecting party to "learn something" and then "come back" for a discussion. You have fallen into that category.

As to your question on how the Mormon faith jives with me.

Matt you like so many who either do not believe in GOD, or ascribe to christianity not as faith but as a social or political label fail to grasp what Christianity is in the first place. I am a Christian, I do not have a denomination as being part of a denomination goes against the teachings of our lord and savior.

The Mormon faith holds that Jesus Christ died on a cross for the sins of the world. That he descended into hell and rose again on the third day. Jesus did not save the world because of what a few roman soldiers and some Jewish priests decided to do to him. He saved the world because he incurred the divine wrath of GOD.

What ever denomination one follows. The key to being part of the Christian faith is believing in 4 things. 1. That jesus was both Man and GOD. 2. That Jesus was Perfect and without sin. 3. That Jesus defeated death through Resurrection. and 4. That only by accepting Jesus as your lord and savior can you receive salvation and eternal life in heaven.

Now what my personal beliefs are, are my own personal beliefs. If you want to have a conversation about them then I invite you to meet me in a public area for discussion as this in not the time nor the place.

Matt if you learn anything you need to learn that Religion is MAN searching for GOD. Christianity is GOD searching for MAN.

Mitt Romney while as imperfect as all humans are, is no more or less qualified to be the president of the US based on his denomination of Christianity. As to the validity of the faith, that is for Christ to decide and not me.

Matt_Woodruff 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Sherwood, The government may create jobs but they do not create any VALUE! There is a huge difference!

Bentpan 10 months, 3 weeks ago

TAP MW apparently feels it's foolish to go to the Mormon Website to find out about the Mormon faith so I rather doubt he'll give your reply the consideration it deserves.

Thatcher 10 months, 3 weeks ago

TAP-- That may have been your best post ever. Well said! Cheers!

The_AnonymusProfit 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Thanks Thatcher. :-)

Sherwood 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Thatcher-- It's hard to say whether unemployment benefits created X number of jobs because our economy is a dynamic system with multiple variables contributing to movements in employment. And it's hard to assess the counter-factual-- no unemployment benefits vs unemployment benefits-- because we don't have time machines (yet). But unemployment benefits do contribute positively to demand and I feel confident in saying at the very least unemployment benefits contributed to sustaining a certain level of employment (while, of course, other factors could have contributed positively or negatively to unemployment).

I disagree with Pelosi when she says unemployment benefits are the best form of stimulus. I would say that a government guaranteed job during hard times is the best form of stimulus compared to handouts. Of course individuals or families in dire circumstances ought to be given assistance, for reasons entirely unrelated to the economy.

As far as debt and how government finances itself, I don't have the time or articulation to adequately explain my approach, but it is quite unconventional even by Old and New Keynesian standards. If you're truly interested in the nature of money and government financing or at least want something to challenge you, I recommend: Michael Hudson's work related to the history of money (The Lost Tradition of Biblical Debt Cancellation), David Graeber's Debt: The First 5000 Years, and L. Randall Wray's Understanding Modern Money. Steve Keen's Debunking Economics is also an awesome survey of economics in general. I have to admit, I'm heavily influenced by the post-Keynesian, Chartalist schools of thought.

JD 10 months, 3 weeks ago

I would rather vote George Romney than Mitt. He is very unlike his father. His father set the precedent for releasing tax records for up to twelve years back. Why? "Releasing a single return wouldn't prove anything, he told the magazine's senior editor, T. George Harris. It could be a fluke, or even a cynical manipulation designed to make the candidate look good. What really mattered was how a candidate managed his personal finances over the long haul."

"Stumped by his argument," Harris wrote in the magazine, "I was not prepared for the move that it eventually led him to make: He ordered up all the Form 1040's that he and Mrs. Romney had filed over the past 12 years -- including those profitable ones when he saved the American Motors Corp. from bankruptcy and became a millionaire on the company's stock options." Romney's disclosure was apparently unprecedented. While other candidates had released statements outlining their income, assets and other financial data, none had ever released his actual returns.

Of course George made money off his stock in American Motors, while Mitt hides his in the Cayman Islands.

The_AnonymusProfit 10 months, 3 weeks ago

And just to make an off topic post.

To date current

1,346,000 American soldiers have died fighting for the concept of freedom, liberty, and happyness.

skylinefirepest 10 months, 3 weeks ago

JimT...good comment on both Hoover and the space program. But these were projects and I fail to see enough co-operation in our current government to do something "for the people". This government is more than willing to send OUR money all over the world and practically give it to political cronies ( such as the overworked Solyndra disaster ) and that is NOT in the category of making jobs for Americans. Add to that the last million illegal aliens just given job security over Americans and this administration gets a big fat zero for job creation. I think your examples of Hoover, etc. were really good but I also think that our government back then worked together for the common good and weren't as disfunctional as today's administration.

Thatcher 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Sherwood-- You seem like a fair guy. I understand you coming from a post-Keynesian background. You say "it's hard to say whether unemployment benefits created X number of jobs...." Pelosi said it would create 600,000 jobs. We don't need a "time machine" to know (a) that her claim was stupid and totally false, (b) that she had no idea what she was talking about, and (c) no such jobs were created. But as I said to jimt, my point about Pelosi was not to tie jimt to her, or you to her. Doing that would be grossly unfair. Both you and jimt are intelligent, and can think for yourselves, which you obviously do, regardless of what Pelosi says or thinks. My sole point was that Pelosi's prediction, like most Keynesian stuff, never turns out the way it is sold to us. Because it cannot work in the real world. It never has, and it never will. Cheers!

oldtimer 10 months, 3 weeks ago

As I noted in the very first comment I posted after Mr. Ward's letter this morning "before the mindless liberals climb on this response page with their sing-song drivel". Well, they apparently sleep a bit later than we conservatives, but the sing-song, whiny, how-dare-you-say-that drivel has now spewed forth ad nauseum. Go back and re-read Mr. Ward's letter, dear lefties - you bring his arguments to light and life.

Thatcher 10 months, 3 weeks ago

oldtimer-- I really like your posts. Very straight-forward, and to the point. Well done. Cheers!

jimt 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Part 1

Thatcher: jimt-- "The people who worked on those projects I mentioned had jobs." "Yes they did, and their wages were paid by the federal government, which got the money to pay such salaries from taxpayers. You can do the math and see that such an approach is unsustainable, and results in no growth. It did not work for FDR, and it is not working for Obama."

How many times do I have to repeat the same thing before you get it? The Hoover Dam alone has created trillions of dollars of income in the private sector over its lifetime, so far. So you do the math, tell me how a project that was built in the 30s for tens of millions of dollars and has over the last 70 plus years created literally millions of jobs indirectly over said time, due to the environment and electricity it generates, and said jobs pump money into the federal government via income and other use taxes is "unsustainable."

This revisionist history that government spending, especially on infrastructure projects doesn't "create jobs," is one of the biggest lies in American history and it is and will continue to kill our economy.

Re Pelosi:

"The economy would have been in much worse shape without the 2009 stimulus — which increased employment in the third quarter of this year by as many as 3.3 million full-time jobs, according to a report by the Congressional Budget Office.

Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates have blasted the $800 billion pumped into the economy through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as a waste of taxpayer dollars that failed to put people back to work.

The nonpartisan CBO figures offer a more nuanced picture of how government spending impacted an economy still coping with unemployment above 9 percent. It provides an alternative glimpse of an economy with even higher unemployment and drastically lower growth.

The CBO figures released Tuesday estimate that the stimulus package raised the gross domestic product this past quarter by 0.3 percent-1.9 percent.

jimt 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Part 2

The CBO report provided a broad range of the estimated number of full-time jobs created because of the stimulus — from a low of 500,000 to a high of 3.3 million jobs.

Previous estimates indicated that the stimulus funded more than 400,000 full-time jobs in the third quarter, but the CBO said in its report that the figure was not a “comprehensive” look at the law’s impact.

The effects of the stimulus are fading after having peaked in the first half of 2010, the report noted.

However, the CBO estimates that the stimulus will raise GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.8 percent next year and employment by 200,000 to 1.1 million jobs."

Source:" CBO: Stimulus added up to 3.3M jobs" http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68965.html

I know, I know, these facts conflict with what you and other conservatives believe therefore: the source is biased, the source is wrong, the math is wrong, the CBO isn't non-partisan, as proof it keeps undertaking studies that conclude things that we conservatives disagree with, thus it isn't non-partisan.

I'm done with this thread. I honestly cannot argue anymore with people who distain logic and debunk provable facts simply because they are inconvenient truths.

The_AnonymusProfit 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Abstract: Despite decades of repeated failure, President Obama and Congress continue to promote the myth that government can spend its way out of recession. Heritage Foundation economic policy expert Brian Riedl dispels the stimulus myth, lays out the evidence that government spending does not end recessions--and presents the evidence for what does end recessions. Hint: It's not another "stimulus package." Proponents of President Barack Obama's $787 billion stimulus bill continue to insist that the massive government bailout played a decisive role in moving the economy out of the recession. Yet assuming no destructive government actions, the economy's self-correction mechanism was widely expected to move the economy out of recession in 2009 anyway. With a parade of "stimulus" bills the past two years (going back to President George W. Bush's tax rebate in early 2008), it was entirely predictable that some would link the expected end of the recession to whichever stimulus bill happened to come last. Indeed, President Obama's stimulus bill failed by its own standards. In a January 2009 report, White House economists predicted that the stimulus bill would create (not merely save) 3.3 million net jobs by 2010. Since then, 3.5 million more net jobs have been lost, pushing the unemployment rate above 10 percent.[1] The fact that government failed to spend its way to prosperity is not an isolated incident: During the 1930s, New Deal lawmakers doubled federal spending--yet unemployment remained above 20 percent until World War II. Japan responded to a 1990 recession by passing 10 stimulus spending bills over 8 years (building the largest national debt in the industrialized world)--yet its economy remained stagnant. In 2001, President Bush responded to a recession by "injecting" tax rebates into the economy. The economy did not respond until two years later, when tax rate reductions were implemented. In 2008, President Bush tried to head off the current recession with another round of tax rebates. The recession continued to worsen. Now, the most recent $787 billion stimulus bill was intended to keep the unemployment rate from exceeding 8 percent. In November, it topped 10 percent.[2] Undeterred by these repeated stimulus failures, President Obama is calling for yet another stimulus bill.[3] There is every reason to expect another round to fail as miserably as the past ones, and it would bury the nation deeper in debt.

The_AnonymusProfit 10 months, 3 weeks ago

The Stimulus Myth The economic theory behind the stimulus builds on the work of John Maynard Keynes eight decades ago. It begins with the idea that an economic shock has left demand persistently and significantly below potential supply. As people stop spending money, businesses pull back production, and the ensuing vicious circle of falling demand and production shrinks the economy. Keynesians believe that government spending can make up this shortfall in private demand. Their models assume that--in an underperforming economy--government spending adds money to the economy, taxes remove money from the economy, and so the increase in the budget deficit represents net new dollars injected. Therefore, it scarcely matters how the dollars are spent. Keynes is said to have famously asserted that a government program that pays people to dig and refill ditches would provide new income for those workers to spend and circulate through the economy, creating even more jobs and income. The Keynesian argument also assumes that consumption spending adds to immediate economic growth while savings do not. By this reasoning, unemployment benefits, food stamps, and low-income tax rebates are among the most effective stimulus policies because of their likelihood to be consumed rather than saved. Taking this analysis to its logical extreme, Mark Zandi of Economy.com has boiled down the government's influence on America's broad and diverse $14 trillion economy into a simple menu of stimulus policy options, whereby Congress can decide how much economic growth it wants and then pull the appropriate levers. Zandi asserts that for each dollar of new government spending: temporary food stamps adds $1.73 to the economy, extended unemployment benefits adds $1.63, increased infrastructure spending adds $1.59, and aid to state and local governments adds $1.38.[4] Jointly, these figures imply that, in a recession, a typical dollar in new deficit spending expands the economy by roughly $1.50. Over the past 40 years, this idea of government spending as stimulus has fallen out of favor among many economists. As this paper shows, it is contradicted both by empirical data and economic logic.

The_AnonymusProfit 10 months, 3 weeks ago

The Evidence is In Economic data contradict Keynesian stimulus theory. If deficits represented "new dollars" in the economy, the record $1.2 trillion in FY 2009 deficit spending that began in October 2008--well before the stimulus added $200 billion more[5]--would have already overheated the economy. Yet despite the historic 7 percent increase in GDP deficit spending over the previous year, the economy shrank by 2.3 percent in FY 2009.[6] To argue that deficits represent new money injected into the economy is to argue that the economy would have contracted by 9.3 percent without this "infusion" of added deficit spending (or even more, given the Keynesian multiplier effect that was supposed to further boost the impact). That is simply not plausible, and few if any economists have claimed otherwise. And if the original $1.2 trillion in deficit spending failed to slow the economy's slide, there was no reason to believe that adding $200 billion more in 2009 deficit spending from the stimulus bill would suddenly do the trick. Proponents of yet another stimulus should answer the following questions: (1) If nearly $1.4 trillion budget deficits are not enough stimulus, how much is enough? (2) If Keynesian stimulus repeatedly fails, why still rely on the theory? This is no longer a theoretical exercise. The idea that increased deficit spending can cure recessions has been tested repeatedly, and it has failed repeatedly. The economic models that assert that every $1 of deficit spending grows the economy by $1.50 cannot explain why $1.4 trillion in deficit spending did not create a $2.1 trillion explosion of new economic activity. Why Government Spending Does Not End Recessions Moving forward, the important question is why government spending fails to end recessions. Spending-stimulus advocates claim that Congress can "inject" new money into the economy, increasing demand and therefore production. This raises the obvious question: From where does the government acquire the money it pumps into the economy? Congress does not have a vault of money waiting to be distributed. Every dollar Congress injects into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. No new spending power is created. It is merely redistributed from one group of people to another.[7] Congress cannot create new purchasing power out of thin air. If it funds new spending with taxes, it is simply redistributing existing purchasing power (while decreasing incentives to produce income and output). If Congress instead borrows the money from domestic investors, those investors will have that much less to invest or to spend in the private economy. If they borrow the money from foreigners, the balance of payments will adjust by equally raising net imports, leaving total demand and output unchanged.

The_AnonymusProfit 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Every dollar Congress spends must first come from somewhere else. For example, many lawmakers claim that every $1 billion in highway stimulus can create 47,576 new construction jobs. But Congress must first borrow that $1 billion from the private economy, which will then lose at least as many jobs.[8] Highway spending simply transfers jobs and income from one part of the economy to another. As Heritage Foundation economist Ronald Utt has explained, "The only way that $1 billion of new highway spending can create 47,576 new jobs is if the $1 billion appears out of nowhere as if it were manna from heaven."[9] This statement has been confirmed by the Department of Transportation[10] and the General Accounting Office (since renamed the Government Accountability Office),[11] yet lawmakers continue to base policy on this economic fallacy. Removing water from one end of a swimming pool and pouring it in the other end will not raise the overall water level. Similarly, taking dollars from one part of the economy and distributing it to another part of the economy will not expand the economy. University of Chicago economist John Cochrane adds that: First, if money is not going to be printed, it has to come from somewhere. If the government borrows a dollar from you, that is a dollar that you do not spend, or that you do not lend to a company to spend on new investment. Every dollar of increased government spending must correspond to one less dollar of private spending. Jobs created by stimulus spending are offset by jobs lost from the decline in private spending. We can build roads instead of factories, but fiscal stimulus can't help us to build more of both. This form of "crowding out" is just accounting, and doesn't rest on any perceptions or behavioral assumptions. Second, investment is "spending" every bit as much as is consumption. Keynesian fiscal stimulus advocates want money spent on consumption, not saved. They evaluate past stimulus programs by whether people who got stimulus money spent it on consumption goods rather than save it. But the economy overall does not care if you buy a car, or if you lend money to a company that buys a forklift.[12]Government spending can affect long-term economic growth, both up and down. Economic growth is based on the growth of labor productivity and labor supply, which can be affected by how governments directly and indirectly influence the use of an economy's resources. However, increasing the economy's productivity rate--which often requires the application of new technology and resources-- can take many years or even decades to materialize. It is not short-term stimulus.[13]

The_AnonymusProfit 10 months, 3 weeks ago

In fact, large stimulus bills often reduce long-term productivity by transferring resources from the more productive private sector to the less productive government. The government rarely receives good value for the dollars it spends. However, stimulus bills provide politicians with the political justification to grant tax dollars to favored constituencies. By increasing the budget deficit, large stimulus bills eventually contribute to higher interest rates while dropping even more debt on future generations. Answering the Critics Despite the foregoing evidence, some analysts maintain that governments can spend their way out of recession. Their common objections are addressed below: Critics' Objection No. 1: People Are Saving Instead of Spending, and banks Are Not Lending.By Borrowing and Spending these "Idle Savings," Government Can Circulate More Money Through the Economy. This is the most common defense of government stimulus cited by policymakers. Indeed, among proponents of government spending there is a strong focus on whether people are spending or saving, with the implication that spending circulates through the economy while savings effectively drop out. But savings do not drop out of the economy. Nearly all people put their savings in: (1) banks, which quickly lend the money to others to spend; (2) investments in stocks and bonds; or (3) personal debt reduction. In each of these situations, the financial system transfers one person's savings to someone else who can spend it. So all money is quickly spent regardless of whether it was initially consumed or saved. The only savings that drop out of the economy are those hoarded in mattresses and safes. Some contend that recession-weary banks are hoarding savings well beyond the legal minimum reserves. Yet even when banks hesitate to lend their deposits, they invest them in Treasury bills to keep them circulating through the economy and earning interest.[14] In fact, the federal funds market--where banks lend each other any excess cash at the end of the day--exists because banks refuse to sit on unused cash even overnight. Thus, even in recessions, one person's savings quickly finances another person's spending.[15] Advocates of the "idle savings" theory fail to specify the location of all these newly hoarded piles of dollar bills they believe have been shielded from spending in the financial system. Even more telling, they also fail to explain--even if there were massive amounts of idle savings--how the federal government is supposed to acquire them for injection as new spending. After all, even if individuals, businesses, and banks were hoarding dollar bills in mattresses and safes, why would they suddenly lend them to the government to finance a stimulus bill? The very idea of hoarding dollars suggests these people and businesses would not trust the financial system, and would be quite unlikely to attend the next Treasury bill auction.[16]

The_AnonymusProfit 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Stimulus spending advocates must be able to show that nearly all money lent to Washington would have otherwise sat idle in mattresses and bank safes. Otherwise, Washington is merely a middleman transferring purchasing power from one part of the economy to another--and the justification for government spending as stimulus collapses. Critics' Objection No. 2: Borrowing from Foreign Nations Can Provide "New" Money for the Economy.

Accepting that domestic borrowing is no free lunch, some analysts have asserted that foreign borrowing can inject new dollars into the economy. However, these nations must acquire American dollars before they can lend them back to Washington. Foreign countries can acquire American dollars by either: Attracting American investments in their country. In that instance, the dollars leaving America match the dollars lent back to America. The net flow of saving circulating through the U.S. economy does not increase. Selling goods and services to Americans and receiving American dollars in return. For the United States, these imports raise the trade deficit and thus reduce domestic demand. The government's subsequent borrowing back and spending of these dollars merely offsets the increased trade deficit. In either situation, American dollars must first leave the country before they can be lent back into the U.S. economy. The balance of payments between America and other nations must net zero. Consequently, government spending funded from foreign borrowing does not provide stimulus. Critics' Objection No. 3:

The_AnonymusProfit 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Government Spending Has a Multiplier Effect That Allows the Money to Re-circulate Through the Economy Multiple Times. This point is correct but irrelevant to the question of stimulus. Yes, $100 in unemployment benefits can be spent at a grocery store, which, in turn, can use that $100 to pay salaries and support other jobs. The total amount of additional economic activity will be well above $100; but because government borrows the $100, that same money is now unavailable to the private sector--which would have spent the same $100 with the same multiplier effect. Consider a more comprehensive example. A family might normally put its $10,000 savings in a CD at the local bank. The bank would then lend that $10,000 to the local hardware store, which would then recycle that spending around the town, supporting local jobs. Suppose that the family instead buys a $10,000 government bond that funds the stimulus bill. Washington spends that $10,000 in a different town, supporting jobs there instead. The stimulus has not created new spending, jobs, or a multiplier effect. It has merely moved them to a new town. The mistaken view of fiscal stimulus persists because people can easily observe the factories and people put to work with government funds. By contrast, people cannot easily observe the jobs that would have been created or factories used elsewhere in the economy with those same dollars had they not been lent to Washington. In his 1848 essay, "What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen," French economist Frederic Bastiat termed this the "broken-window fallacy," a reference to a local myth that breaking windows would stimulate the economy by creating window-repair jobs. In reality, the window-repair spending comes out of funds that otherwise would have been spent (and created jobs) elsewhere in town. Today, the broken-windows fallacy explains why thousands of new stimulus jobs are not improving the total employment picture. Critics' Objection No. 4: During a Recession, Government Spending Can Put Unused Resources to Work. This restates the overall spending fallacy. Yes, government spending can put under-utilized factories and individuals to work--but only by idling other resources in whatever part of the economy supplied the funds. If adding $1 billion would create 40,000 jobs in one depressed part of the economy, then losing $1 billion will cost roughly the same number of jobs in whatever part of the economy supplied Washington with the funds. It is a zero-sum transfer regardless of whether the unemployment rate is 5 percent or 50 percent. Critics' Objection No. 5:

The_AnonymusProfit 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Government Reports Show That the Stimulus Has Already Created or Saved 640,000 New Jobs. According to a White House survey, businesses have used much of the $200 billion in stimulus dollars distributed thus far to hire or retain 640,000 workers. These figures have been ridiculed for their absurdity, such as reporting $6.4 billion spent in congressional districts that do not exist, and the survey's assertion that a single lawnmower purchase in Arkansas saved or created 50 jobs.[17] Setting aside these inaccuracies, this jobs figure is not surprising. Businesses that receive large government grants would be expected to expand and hire more workers. However, this ignores half of the equation. If injecting $200 billion into the economy supports 640,000 jobs, how many jobs were first lost by borrowing that $200 billion from the economy? The White House says zero. The White House job numbers assume that all $200 billion is new and supports jobs that would not otherwise exist. But that could be true only if the private sector would have otherwise hoarded the entire $200 billion in safes and mattresses, where it could not be consumed, invested, or deposited in banks for investment spending--but instead turned the entire $200 billion over to the government. When dollars are transferred from one part of the economy to another, jobs will transfer accordingly. The White House's single-entry bookkeeping ignores the part of the economy that financed all these jobs. Not surprisingly, the nation's overall unemployment rate has continued to rise. Critics' Objection No. 6: Government Should Subsidize Consumption, Which Represents 60 Percent of the Economy. This confuses the creation of income with its application. All income is applied somewhere in the economy: most on private consumption, some on private investment (converted from savings via the financial system), and some by government (taxed or borrowed out of consumption and investment). In the short run, the distribution of spending does not affect the total amount spent.[18] The only way to increase consumption spending immediately is to take it from investment or government spending. Declining consumption means that either: (A) more income is diverted into investment or government spending (which is zero-sum in the short run); or (B) less income is created overall, which typically leads to less spending across all categories. For the latter situation, the solution is to create incentives for productivity that create more wealth and income for people to spend across all categories. What Government Policies Do Affect Growth?

Thatcher 10 months, 3 weeks ago

jimt-- "(T)he stimulus package raised the gross domestic product this last quarter by 0.3 percent- (to) 1.9%." Exactly. Have the federal government spent almost one trillion dollars (stimulus), and GDP goes up .3%? That is a terrible statistic. Now, how did it affect unemployment? Just as bad. Sorry, jimt, facts are facts, and I see you've labeled your post part 1 (as if there is more to come). If you'd like to skip to the last part, I can tell you this: the stimulus has already been spent, the unemployment rate is at 8.2% and going higher, and GDP is on life-support. And since you mentioned the CBO, did you know that the CBO now says Obamacare, instead of costing only $940 billion, will now cost $1.76 trillion? http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-price-tag-shifts-940-billion-1-163500655.html. Almost double the cost sold to the American people? That .3% increase in GDP may be "the good ole days" before this guy is through. Cheers!

The_AnonymusProfit 10 months, 3 weeks ago

While government spending merely displaces private spending dollar-for-dollar in the short run, it can have a long-term impact on productivity. Similarly, tax policy can also affect productivity and growth. Government Spending Can Have a Long-Term Impact. Although it cannot immediately increase economic growth, government spending can have a long-term impact. Economic growth results from producing more goods and services (not from redistributing existing income), and that requires productivity growth and growth in the labor supply. Productivity growth requires some combination of: (1) a more educated and efficient workforce; (2) more private physical capital, such as factories and tools; (3) increased use of new technology; (4) more public infrastructure like roads and other utilities; and (5) markets to set prices and rule of law to enforce contracts. Government's effect on economic growth is determined by its effect on productivity and labor supply. Only in the rare instances where the private sector fails to provide those inputs in adequate amounts is government spending necessary. Government spending on education, physical infrastructure, and research and development, for instance, could increase long-term productivity rates--but only if government invests more competently than businesses, nonprofit organizations, and private citizens would have if those investment dollars had stayed in the private sector. Historically, governments have rarely outperformed the private sector in generating productivity growth. Thus, mountains of academic studies show that government spending typically reduces long-term economic growth.[19] Even most programs that could increase productivity would take too long to be considered stimulus. Education spending will not affect productivity until the student has graduated and entered the workforce (and it is not clear that additional spending improves productivity anyway). New roads, highways, and bridges can take more than a decade to complete before they can transport people and goods. These policies should not be considered short-term stimulus spending. Tax Policy's Strong Effect on Economic Growth.

The_AnonymusProfit 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Taxes can affect growth, although not for the reason many people believe. Many tax cutters commit the same fallacy as do government spenders when asserting that tax cuts spur economic growth by "putting spending money in people's pockets." Similar to government spending, the tax-cut cash does not fall from the sky. It comes from reduced investment and a higher trade deficit (if financed by budget deficits) or from government spending (if offset by spending cuts). However, certain tax cuts can add substantially to productivity. As stated above, economic growth requires that businesses produce increasing amounts of goods and services, and that requires consistent business investment and a growing, productive workforce. Yet high marginal tax rates-- defined as the tax on the next dollar earned--create a disincentive to engage in those activities. Reducing marginal tax rates on businesses and workers will increase incentives to work, save, and invest. These incentives encourage more business investment, a more productive workforce by raising the after-tax returns to education, and more work effort, all of which add to the economy's long-term capacity for growth. Thus, not all tax cuts are created equal. The economic impact of a tax cut depends on how much it alters behavior to encourage labor supply or productivity. This productivity standard is the same as the one applied to government spending in the previous section. Tax rebates fail to increase economic growth because they are not associated with productivity or work effort. No new income is created because no one is required to work, save, or invest more in order to receive a rebate. In that sense, rebates that write each American a check are economically indistinguishable from government spending programs. In fact, the federal government treats rebate checks as a "social benefit payment to persons."[20] They represent another feeble attempt at creating new purchasing power out of thin air rather than focusing on productivity. Tax rebates in 1975, 2001, and 2008 all failed to create economic growth. By contrast, large reductions in marginal tax rates in the 1920s, 1960s, and 1980s were each followed by large surges in economic growth.[21] More recently, the 2003 tax-rate reductions immediately reversed the job losses, sinking stock market, declining business investment, and sluggish economic growth rates that had followed the 2000 recession.[22] These gains continued until unrelated economic developments brought the most recent recession in December 2007.[23]

The_AnonymusProfit 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Conclusion All recessions eventually end. The U.S. economy has proved resilient enough to eventually overcome even the most misguided economic policies of the past. Yet it would be fallacious to credit the stimulus bill for any economic recovery that inevitably occurs in the future. According to Keynesian theory, a $1.4 trillion budget deficit should have immediately overheated the economy. According to the White House, the stimulus should have created 3.3 million net jobs. Instead, the economy remained in recession and 3.5 million more net jobs were lost. By every reasonable standard, the stimulus failed. H. L. Mencken once wrote that "complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers." He may as well have been referring to the idea that Congress can foster economic growth simply by "injecting" money into the economy. Government stimulus spending is not a magic wand that creates jobs and income. Repeated failed attempts in America and abroad have shown that governments cannot spend their way out of recessions. Focusing on productivity growth builds a stronger economy over the long term--and leaves America better prepared to handle future economic downturns.

The_AnonymusProfit 10 months, 3 weeks ago

There ya go JimT, there is my response. My carpet bomb is based on fact though. try not to blow up your brain trying to understand it.

Thatcher 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Wow TAP! I try to respond promptly to jimt and you are able to type all that first? Haven't read it yet, but my lord, how did you type all that so fast?

jimt 10 months, 3 weeks ago

TAP: jimt...try not to blow up your brain trying to understand it.

Well Thatcher, another uncalled for insult, are you going to condemn it?

My last ever post.Yes, you've all defeated me. You're all my intellectual superiors. I can't stand the heat so I'm getting out of the kitchen. And so on and so on.

bye forever.

Thatcher 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Actually jimt, I think what TAP said to you was wrong, and he should apologize. And I haven't defeated you in the least. You are obviously a very bright guy, and I am not your intellectual superior, and I've never claimed to be. I had a guy slam my wife on these threads a couple of nights ago. No liberal stood up and called him out. Perhaps you didn't read it. I don't blame you for what that creep posted. Your comments here are valued by many. Including me. Cheers!

Thatcher 10 months, 3 weeks ago

My job here is this: I have no job here. I am no different than any other poster here. I am not a referee, I can't make folks say things in different ways. I can't make folks apologize. I can't control what they say. I can only urge folks to be civil. I have done that many times, and I have tried very hard to be respectful here to everyone. So jimt, I think you should not quit this site, and I really hope you do not. Give it some thought. Cheers!

Sherwood 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Why copy and paste research from the Heritage Foundation when you can just link to it: http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2010/pdf/bg_2354.pdf

The_AnonymusProfit 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Ok jim your right my last comment was crass.

cooldaddy 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Sherwood. You cannot create any wealth , and only debt by "creating jobs" in Government. It is a false system. Dosen't work. It is taxpayer money...all 100 percent of it, that "creates" these jobs and skews numbers. Unless the newly 'created" jobfinder pays 100 percent in taxes, it dosen't work. It sucks money out...Thi liberal mentality will sink the country...already is. Sandhills offers accounting and economics. Maybe you can get the grant for the intellectually disconnected (socialists) and attend. The county van can pick you up and maybe a church will buy your books for you.

MikeNC 10 months, 3 weeks ago

I googled did FDR's policies prolong the great depression, and found a site from non other than Liberal minded UCLA. Interesting the article was written, August 10,2004. So it's a report done when our economy was still strong. So for all liberals, this is from Liberal UCLA. just google UCLA newsroom august 10,2004. It's a short synopsis with Statistics and Data and Facts. Diane

clarabelle 10 months, 3 weeks ago

"Thatcher - oldtimer-- I really like your posts. Very straight-forward, and to the point. Well done. Cheers!"

Dumb ........ meet Dumber!

Sherwood 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Cooldaddy-- I've taken several courses in economics and accounting. In order for the economy to grow debt is necessary. Surpluses are required in a growing economy, however not every entity in an economy can grow at the same time as they cannot all run surpluses with one another at the same time. This is an accounting identity. You can actually learn about it by taking a course which covers macro-accounting. In order for an entity to run a surplus, there must be another entity running a deficit (ie. spending more than it takes in, also known as taking on debt). In theory all entities can have a balanced trade with one another but this would not be economic growth or wealth creation but a stagnant system. Again this is a simple accounting identity that always holds true. A mere description that has nothing to do with socialism.

A bond purchaser lends idle funds to the U.S. government. The U.S. government allocates these funds to be spent on wages, goods and services. As you point out, some of these wages are recaptured by the government in the form of taxes. But, at the same time, the provider of goods and services sees a rise in revenue because of the government's, and the government worker's, spending on goods and services. This increase in revenue is taxable revenue, so debts are recaptured in this way as well.

Speaking of accounting, the government's budget deficit is an ex post accounting identity that is influenced by prevailing economic forces. Budget deficits go up during recession because taxable revenue in the private sectors falls while government spending decisions remain constant and automatic stabilizers kick in. If, in response, you take the single-minded approach that deficits are bad and must immediately be cut and therefore decide to cut spending to target some arbitrary deficit figure, you will see an additional decline in taxable revenues in the private sector. This only increases the deficit. It's like a dog chasing it's own tail.

So, let's be clear. Economic crises lead to increasing government budget deficits, not the other way around.

Sherwood 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Also, in the private sector, in order to start a business one must take on debt unless the entrepreneur can finance such an undertaking with previously existing income. One must incur debt to finance the expansion of a business, unless of course the expansion is financed out of revenues generated from operations. :)

mcg2010 10 months, 3 weeks ago

In case anyone want to read the actual, original source for TAP many posts, you can find them here: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/01/why-government-spending-does-not-stimulate-economic-growth-answering-the-critics and here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703481004574646551469288292.html

Just in case anyone was curious as to how the profit typed so quickly.

clarabelle 10 months, 3 weeks ago

I think we all knew it was cut and paste. Thank you though

mcg2010 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Furthermore, I dare say that Mr. Ward is living in world of fantasy, greater than those that supported Obama in 2008.

"In other words, we will say 'no' to progressivism once and for all and return to those things which made us special in the world." Really? I'm sure that's what they thought through every election against FDR, or in 1964 against LBJ. This nation was founded on enlightenment and a progressive way of thinking. Our experiment in democracy was the first of it's kind. It was progressive in and of itself. While, I see your point and simplification of the term "progressivism," we should never want to say 'no' to progressivism. You know what would have happened if we had said 'no' to progessivism. Women wouldn't be able to vote. Black men and women would be treated as inferiors. We will always be progressive, and to be honest, that is what make America special to me in the first place. That we are willing to make corrections and move forward.

"Gone will be those who wish to redistribute wealth. Instead all will again have an opportunity to become wealthy. Gone will be socialized and government-run health care. Gone will be those who illegally enter for other than altruistic ideals, attempt to change us to a different culture, religion and system of jurisprudence."

Holy idealism Batman! Sure, socialists that never were will be gone. I wouldn't get so hot and bothered about repealing health care either, the same things were said about social security and medicare. Guess how many of those programs are still around. Agree with them or not, they have a public appeal that makes it very difficult for politicians to ignore. And finally, yes, let's blame the illegal immigrants in this country for their efforts to change our great nation. It's not like a bunch of "illegal immigrants" from England came over here and tried to do the same thing to Native Americans...oh...wait. I'm not sure what illegal immigrants you've encountered, but the ones that I know are kind, upstanding Christians many of whom are leading their families and communities in a Christ-like life. To try and blame them for the greed that has taken hold of our cooperation and subsequently politicians, is flat out disrespectful. Not only to those that have come here in search for the same American dream that you seems so devoted to (and many young people who were brought with their families, without a choice), but to the people who founded this country who had nothing but the same dreams and ideals of the immigrants of today.

You know what's nice about the past? The problems of yesterday have already been solved. That's why those times seem so carefree. But we can't live in that place Mr. Ward. We have to move forward and take on the challenges of today in a way that honors and upholds the America that we all know and love.

nothingspecial 10 months, 3 weeks ago

The Christian vote in November usually goes to the candidate who is either a Christian or who is most likely to uphold Christian values.

The candidate who hands down will uphold Christian values is Mitt. President Obama clearly does not uphold Christian or even Constitutional values as evidenced on the one hand by his clear support for abortion, and on the other hand by his refusal to enforce the defense of marriage act and illigal immigration laws.

Interesting related commentary about LDS and irrational beliefs by Dennis Prager here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/06/19/mormons_have_irrational_beliefs_who_doesnt_114521.html

Courseaire 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Just think of how well the Kennedy's upheld the Catholic Church's values.

clarabelle 10 months, 3 weeks ago

"The candidate who hands down will uphold Christian values is Mitt. President Obama clearly does not uphold Christian or even Constitutional values"

It is comments like this that makes me shake my head and wonder how some people can be so damn stupid.

The_AnonymusProfit 10 months, 3 weeks ago

thats an easy one clarabelle, the comment is true which makes you shake your head and wonder how you can support someone who does not uphold even constitutional values.

Thatcher 10 months, 3 weeks ago

clarabelle-- I've noticed a certain uniformity in your posts here and elsewhere. Regardless of the topic, you routinely end each post by labeling the person with whom you disagree as an idiot, stupid, (or in my case) "dumb and dumber." This is quite an amazing gift you have...to quickly determine someone's intelligence level so as to label each of them a moron. One can only assume that you have received super-secret information from professionals that your IQ is off the charts. While such news might be difficult to reconcile with the fact that you have never posted anything here of real substance, choosing instead merely to insult your fellow posters, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and will assume you're "holding back" your substantive revelations for later use. And when that happens, most if not all "morons" on these threads will have nothing to say. As a courtesy, please let us morons know one week in advance (you may want to say 7 days, because we are morons) as to your intended substantive post. That way, we can prepare and plan for the time in which everything we believe in is eviscerated by your single, substantive post. Thanks in advance for your kindness to us.

The_AnonymusProfit 10 months, 3 weeks ago

LMFAO Thatcher. I just spit out my diet coke.

skylinefirepest 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Actually Thatcher, I've tried to give our friend JimT a little break....but Clarabelle is exactly as you describe her. With no indication whatsoever that she has ANY intelligence she calls others stupid, etc. constantly and I believe I've only read one comment from her that was any different. She is tiresome, to the extreme.

Thatcher 10 months, 3 weeks ago

skyline-- I've had many substantive discussions with jimt. He has always been fair, and to my knowledge, never labeled me "dumb." Intense debate, and he always remained a gentleman. I tried to be as well. I will say this: jimt, in one post, captures more substance than most liberal posts here combined. A very intelligent man, but I disagree with many of his proposed economic policies. My hope is that he will soon return and continue with the debate.

JD 10 months, 3 weeks ago

does not uphold Christian or even Constitutional values as evidenced on the one hand by his clear support for abortion

Lots of Christians support abortion. They are called Protestants. And they support the action of abortion because it is a medical procedure that is sometimes life saving to the mother, also if the mother is a victim of incest or rape to terminate the unwanted pregnancy.

Mormons consider themselves Christian, because earlier Protestants knew that the followers of Joseph Smith believed in doctrinal matters that deviated somewhat from traditional Christianity. Now, because Mormons do not hold to the decisions and formulations of the post-biblical church councils, and because we believe in an expanded canon of scripture, some do not consider us to be a part of “orthodox” Christianity. They are correct. From: Robert L. Millet, professor of religious education at Brigham Young University.

RmeMP 10 months, 3 weeks ago

clara "not a bit of belle" = PWNED!!!

she should hense forth have to hold thatchers pocket when she wants to comment :)

Thatcher 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Actually RmeMP, I was hoping that clarabelle would simply be more civil when posting, and refrain from calling people like you and me "idiots" or "stupid." You obviously are not, but to clarabelle, apparently disparaging any person with whom she disagrees is simply part of her debating technique. Hopefully, she will be more civil, and I'm more than willing to give her another chance. Cheers!

The Son We Need to Elect

More like this story

Comments

May events