Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-24-2008, 12:28 PM   #1 (permalink)
Banned
 
National Debt: Year 2000 Increase= $18 billion, 2008 Increase= $700 Billion

When you get your government stimulus rebate check, in a few months, consider the impact of the government rebating at least $150 billion in tax revenue, back to taxpayers and corporations.

This "stimulus package", is intended, somehow, to replace the effect on the economy, of the $800 billion in "MEW", mortgage equity withdrawal, take out of rising home equity, just in 2005 alone. That withdrawal amount, this year, will be down to $100 billion, if it is even that much.

Without the rebate, the increase in "national debt", or US treasury debt, in 2008, would be at least $550 billion, where it has been "stuck", annually, for the last four years, up from just $18 billion, in the friscal year ended 09/30/00:

Background:

Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20010228.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 27, 2001

Address of the President to the Joint Session of Congress


..t is reasonable, and it is responsible. It meets our obligations, and funds our growing needs. We increase spending next year for Social Security and Medicare, and other entitlement programs, by $81 billion. We've increased spending for discretionary programs by a very responsible 4 percent, above the rate of inflation. My plan pays down an unprecedented amount of our national debt. And then, when money is still left over, my plan returns it to the people who earned it in the first place. (Applause.)...

....Many of you have talked about the need to pay down our national debt. I listened, and I agree. (Applause.) We owe it to our children and grandchildren to act now, and I hope you will join me to pay down $2 trillion in debt during the next 10 years. (Applause.) At the end of those 10 years, we will have paid down all the debt that is available to retire. (Applause.) <h3>That is more debt, repaid more quickly than has ever been repaid by any nation at any time in history.</h3> (Applause.)....
Quote:
http://www.gop.com/News/NewsRead.asp...c-9532ba33cf3d
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Fact Check: Democrat State Of The Union Response

The Democrat Duo Of Obstruction Responds To
State Of The Union Address With Misstatements And Inaccuracies

4. Reid Implied President Bush Is Not Concerned With National Debt. “[A]fter we worked so hard to eliminate the deficit, his policies have added trillions to the debt – in effect, a ‘birth tax’ of $36,000 on every child that is born.” (Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi, “Democratic Response To State Of The Union Address,” Press Release, 2/2/05)

*
But In State Of The Union, President Bush Promised To Cut Deficit In Half By 2009, Cut Wasteful Programs, And Keep Spending Increases Under Rate Of Inflation. “[N]ext week I will send you a budget that holds the growth of discretionary spending below inflation, makes tax relief permanent, and stays on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009. My budget substantially reduces or eliminates more than 150 government programs that are not getting results, or duplicate current efforts, or do not fulfill essential priorities. The principle here is clear: a taxpayer dollar must be spent wisely, or not at all.” (President George W. Bush, State Of The Union Address, As Prepared For Delivery, Washington, DC, 2/2/05)
Debt to the penny...you enter the time span:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPD...application=np

Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...t/histdebt.htm

Quote:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h...F0_UAD8UCAGKO0
Deal Reached on Tax Rebates for Stimulus

5 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats running Congress and the Bush administration reached a tentative deal Thursday on $300-$1,200 tax rebates and business tax cuts to jolt the slumping economy.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Democratic and Republican leaders are looking for imminent agreement with the White House on an emergency package to jolt the economy out of its slump after negotiators on all sides made significant concessions at a late-night bargaining session.

"They're hoping to near a conclusion very soon," presidential spokeswoman Dana Perino said Thursday.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed to drop increases in food stamp and unemployment benefits during the Wednesday meeting in exchange for gaining rebates of at least $300 for almost everyone earning a paycheck, including low-income earners who make too little to pay income taxes.

Families with children would receive an additional $300 per child, subject to an overall cap of perhaps $1,200, according to a senior House aide who outlined the deal on condition of anonymity in advance of formal adoption of the whole package. Rebates would go to people earning below a certain income cap, likely individuals earning $75,000 or less and couples with incomes of $150,000 or less.

Pelosi, D-Calif., and House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, had yet to reach agreement on a package of tax breaks for businesses after estimates showed a tentative business tax agreement could exceed $70 billion, far more than had been expected, the aide and a Democratic lobbyist said.

Pelosi and Boehner appeared optimistic as they left their third extended negotiating session of the day with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. "We'll have more to say tomorrow," Boehner said. "We're hopeful...."
Do we need the stimulus, more than we need to control the debt increase. Doesn't the bulk of the rebate go to those in least need of it, and least likely to spend it all, to stimulate economiuc activity?

Is this period, since the end of 2000, the worst period of out of control spending in US history? The debt was $5.65 trillion in Oct., 2000, and it is $9.18 trillion, as of today.

Enjoy your rebate check, it comes on the backs of your grandchildren!
host is offline  
Old 01-24-2008, 12:55 PM   #2 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Looks like we agree on something, I bet it is for different reasons but we have come to the same conclusion.

Even the economist Keynes (his name is almost synonymous with the use of government spending to stimulate the economy) came to the conclusion that government spending does not have a lasting impact on economic stimulus.

Increased production of real goods and services is the only thing that will generate real economic growth. The folks in Washington can play shell games all day long with moving money around, but unless people produce more the shifting of money was a waste in terms of economic stimulus.

So you are correct. Either we pay for this today with increased taxes, nullifying the package or we pay (or our children) in the future with increased taxes - hurting future economic growth.

If the government really wants to stimulate the economy, we need tax cuts targeted to the production of goods and services. Oops, thats some supply side stuff again. I know how much you dislike that concept. But when a family takes their $1,200.00 to pay-off a credit card debt, that won't create one new job. On the other hand if you give a tax break to a small business trying to grow you may get an entity that hires people to produce valued goods and services. So you have real people making real income from producing real goods and services that other real people want to consume.

The basis is investing in the infrastructure for increasing production leads to lasting economic growth.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 01-25-2008, 07:14 PM   #3 (permalink)
immoral minority
 
ASU2003's Avatar
 
Location: Back in Ohio
I agree that this won't do anything to solve our economic mess that Bush and his theories created. Everything was going great under Clinton, our national debt should have been at record low levels right now. Especially under a republican (whose party is supposed to be for fiscal restraint and smaller government...)

This $600 that is coming from nowhere, and will go to buy Chinese goods at Wal-Mart will do nothing. Well, actually I already spent mine on a Projector from Japan. So, different country, same effect.

It doesn't do anything to fix the economic mess that has happened in the past 7 years. Too many people with 'free' money in their homes, spending wildly on things they couldn't afford at the time, demand for homes going up because investors could get them cheap and with little money, companies kept trying to make more profits, and if one supplier raised prices, then the next company has to raise prices. And the whole problem of materials/resources (like oil) being auctioned off as commondities in the market. I wonder how much oil/gold/copper/ whatever is just sitting in someones portfolio, causing demand to skyrocket, yet actual use is constant.

Oh yeah, and this will do nothing to help the value of the dollar against foreign currencies.

But who cares, it's not like we will be able to tax the retirees in 20 years when the country is broke...
ASU2003 is offline  
Old 01-26-2008, 08:50 PM   #4 (permalink)
Insane
 
What do you expect from an administration that believes in "supply-side economics." Instead of listening to real economists, they decide that they know better, and that they should give money to the super rich.

There is a video of Peter Peterson on Charlie Rose about how this type of thinking is a problem for this country: http://youtube.com/watch?v=kCpzs45vrRsThe point is, that $600 rebate will not be spent by many people, anyone who has a lot of money will just save it... and the poor people who would spend it won't be getting a rebate. But what do you expect from an administration that asserts how factual information is inferior to the hunch.
rlbond86 is offline  
Old 01-27-2008, 06:37 AM   #5 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASU2003
... Everything was going great under Clinton...
Perhaps not everything, what about that Dot-com bubble bursting thingy?

Do you blame Clinton for that, like you would blame the sub-prime mortgage melt down on Bush?

Keep in mind that during the rise of the Dot-com bubble, government was the benefactor of abnormal tax receipts from speculators and day traders profiting from stocks with no economic value.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."


Last edited by aceventura3; 01-27-2008 at 08:03 AM..
aceventura3 is offline  
Old 01-27-2008, 07:18 AM   #6 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlbond86
The point is, that $600 rebate will not be spent by many people, anyone who has a lot of money will just save it... and the poor people who would spend it won't be getting a rebate. But what do you expect from an administration that asserts how factual information is inferior to the hunch.
That's right, I'll just put mine right into my bank account.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 01-27-2008, 08:11 AM   #7 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlbond86
What do you expect from an administration that believes in "supply-side economics." Instead of listening to real economists, they decide that they know better, and that they should give money to the super rich.

There is a video of Peter Peterson on Charlie Rose about how this type of thinking is a problem for this country: http://youtube.com/watch?v=kCpzs45vrRs
The point is, that $600 rebate will not be spent by many people, anyone who has a lot of money will just save it... and the poor people who would spend it won't be getting a rebate. But what do you expect from an administration that asserts how factual information is inferior to the hunch.
How do people who don't pay that much in federal taxes get a 'rebate' that would be called a 'gift'.

Its an economic stimulus package, and I guess you don't know anyone who makes 50k or more if you think they will all put that into savings.

I personally think it won't do much, but it was MY GOD DAMN money in the first place they TOOK from me. So just who should be getting it?

Using my very scientific method (this was sarcasam, some people have very bad sarcasm detectors) I think any recession will be minor at this point. People are still spending a money, lots of it, I was driving all over, put 100 miles on my car yesterday looking for supplies for my new office. I had to fight for parking spots everywhere and the stores were packed. It looked more like the week before xmas than a nothing weekend in January. I noted the same behavior the last two recessions. So you can call this a hunch, it is, but so far hunches seem to have as good a chance of being true as expert opinion on such matters.

Being that this 'rich' man spent six hundred thousand dollars he didn't have this year and created several jobs I could use a bit of my labor they took from me last labor. It would be most welcome, as I'm taking a pay cut along with this risk.

I'm now working this Sunday on this project, so I bid you good day.

Edit: Too many typos to bother fixing it, had to stop writing it several times taking care of the kids and it shows, but you get the gist.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Last edited by Ustwo; 01-27-2008 at 03:24 PM..
Ustwo is offline  
Old 01-27-2008, 08:33 AM   #8 (permalink)
immoral minority
 
ASU2003's Avatar
 
Location: Back in Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Perhaps not everything, what about that Dot-com bubble bursting thingy?

Do you blame Clinton for that, like you would blame the sub-prime mortgage melt down on Bush?

Keep in mind that during the rise of the Dot-com bubble, government was the benefactor of abnormal tax receipts from speculators and day traders profiting from stocks with no economic value.
Well, maybe not everything. But I was talking about the direction the national debt was headed.

I would blame investors, hedge fund/401k managers and speculators for a lot of the problems in the economy. They unnaturally inflate things by reducing the supply that they won't use (or had no part in producing). I'm not saying that they don't have a role in an economy and making it run. But it seems like they are the ones that pump things up to as high as they can go, and then get out at the top, while everyone else gets burnned.
ASU2003 is offline  
Old 01-27-2008, 08:53 AM   #9 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Perhaps not everything, what about that Dot-com bubble bursting thingy?

Do you blame Clinton for that, like you would blame the sub-prime mortgage melt down on Bush?

Keep in mind that during the rise of the Dot-com bubble, government was the benefactor of abnormal tax receipts from speculators and day traders profiting from stocks with no economic value.
Lets compare the Clinton/Bush years:
REAL GDP GROWTH
4.09% during Clinton's 8 Years
2.65% over Bush's first 7 years

NATIONAL DEBT
$5.7 trillion at end of Clinton term
$9.2 trillion at the start of Bush's last year

BUDGET DEFICIT/SURPLUS
$431 billion surplus in Clinton's last 3 budget years
$734 billion deficit over Bush's last 3 budget years

NEW PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS CREATED
1.76 million jobs/year during Clinton 8 years
369,000 jobs/year over Bush 7 years

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME & CHANGE IN MEDIAN INCOME
$49,163 at end of Clinton's term, with a $6,000 Increase in 8 Years
$48,023 at start of Bush's last year, with $1,100 decrease in 6 Years

U.S. TRADE DEFICIT
$380 billion at end of Clinton's term
$759 billion at start of Bush's last year

STRENGTH OF U.S. DOLLAR
1.07 Euros per Dollar at end of Clinton's term
0.68 Euros Per Dollar at start of Bush's last year
Are we better off as a nation than we were 8 years ago?
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 01-27-2008 at 09:07 AM..
dc_dux is offline  
Old 01-27-2008, 02:02 PM   #10 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
DC,

There are a couple of fundamental issue to be addressed regarding your comparison of the Bush/Clinton years.

To what degree does a President influence the economy?

How do you factor in the timing of political policies on the economy?

I don't dispute the fact that the economy is worse today than it was 8 years ago, even realizing some segments of the economy are improved and the fact that there are always trade offs, i.e. GDP growth during war v. low inflation, or household income v. household net worth.

If you believe that on day one of a Presidency the trends and issues affecting our economy are the result of the new President, I see your point. Otherwise you would have to have a very complex economic model to address your point with any degree of objectivity.

Just like I believe that the Nixon administration had an impact on the economic conditions during the Carter administration so would the Clinton administration have had an impact on economic conditions during the Bush administration. This does not even take into account the impact of laws and regulations resulting from acts of Congress or even the actions taken by other nations in our world economy.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 01-27-2008, 02:06 PM   #11 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Lets compare the Clinton/Bush years:
REAL GDP GROWTH
4.09% during Clinton's 8 Years
2.65% over Bush's first 7 years

NATIONAL DEBT
$5.7 trillion at end of Clinton term
$9.2 trillion at the start of Bush's last year

BUDGET DEFICIT/SURPLUS
$431 billion surplus in Clinton's last 3 budget years
$734 billion deficit over Bush's last 3 budget years

NEW PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS CREATED
1.76 million jobs/year during Clinton 8 years
369,000 jobs/year over Bush 7 years

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME & CHANGE IN MEDIAN INCOME
$49,163 at end of Clinton's term, with a $6,000 Increase in 8 Years
$48,023 at start of Bush's last year, with $1,100 decrease in 6 Years

U.S. TRADE DEFICIT
$380 billion at end of Clinton's term
$759 billion at start of Bush's last year

STRENGTH OF U.S. DOLLAR
1.07 Euros per Dollar at end of Clinton's term
0.68 Euros Per Dollar at start of Bush's last year
Are we better off as a nation than we were 8 years ago?
I don't know about as a nation, but I can say as an individual/married couple. We're much better off now than 8 years ago. I'm much better off than I was almost 2 decades ago. All my friends lost their money and savings in the dot com investment and decline, and now the housing overpurchasing. I made modest investments in the 90s and only bought as much house as I could comfortably afford in the 00s.

I also agree with the idea of how much does the president influence the economy, I have since '91 increased my net worth steadily with disipline and constant work and vigilance.

I also think that the previous president has much more influence on the current president economy. Thus, Reagan/Bush I affected Clinton more than Clinton did anything for himself. Clinton impacted Bush II.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Last edited by Cynthetiq; 01-27-2008 at 02:10 PM..
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 01-27-2008, 03:16 PM   #12 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
I would agree with you both that there is a transitional affect.....at least for the first 2-3 years of the succeeding President's term.

But, you cannot ignore the policies of Clinton to cut the growth of spending in his last three years, and Bush, who proposed massive tax cuts on two separate occasions, accompanied by annual budgets with uncontrolled growth for seven years, a war and occupation funded outside the budget process but added to the national debt and passed on to future generations, an unwillingness to take any action on trade policy for seven years (particularly regarding China) contributing to the trade deficit, huge tax breaks to multi-national energy companies making record profits at the same time as rising energy prices......
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 01-27-2008 at 03:20 PM..
dc_dux is offline  
Old 01-27-2008, 03:48 PM   #13 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
DC,

I agree spending during the Bush administration has been historically high by most measures with the exception of deficit spending as a percentage of GDP. However, given the ratio of discretionary to non discretionary spending it seem to me no matter who sits in the Oval office the general spending trend is out of control. On the other side of the equation we have taxes collected. Taxes collected by the federal government has gone up even after the "Bush Tax cuts". No matter how you look at it, either taxes collected and spent by the government or money that stayed in the hands of citizens the money did not disappear and the money is still some where doing something affecting the economy. And that money can be taken away from citizens anytime the government wants it, I can argue that the tax cuts are not material to the long-term underlying trends in the deficit and debt. Spending is the key factor in my opinion. But, I assume we disagree on the impact of the tax cuts, however, do you think a Democratic President and a Democratic controlled Congress will bring spending under control?

I actually want Democrats to have control of the oval office and Congress, I am interested in knowing what they really want to do. I wonder if they will address Social Security and Medicare, and I wonder if they will fix those problems before nationalizing health care, which will be another massive non-discretionary budget item for future generations.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 01-27-2008, 04:14 PM   #14 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
I would hope the Democrats would restore the pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rules they have been campaigning on:
If you want more tax cuts you have to pay for them. If you want new mandatory spending you have to pay for it. If you do not pay for it, you have to muster a supermajority vote on the floor of the House/Senate for more tax cuts or new mandatory spending.
We'll see if that happens.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 01-27-2008, 04:17 PM   #15 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
I'd have to say that sometimes there's more than just a transitional.

401(k) creations in the 80's under Reagan allowed for many investors to have the monies to move around during the 90's dot com.

Advertising changes under Reagan which allowed for infomercials created billions of dollars in sales over the past decades.

Airline deregulation under Carter allowed for many more airlines to compete in the market place creating a wealth of jobs in the marketplace in the 90's.

There are many more examples.

The paygo wasn't that part of the Promise to America with Mr. Gingrich spearheading it?
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 01-27-2008, 04:23 PM   #16 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
The Republican "Contract with America" called for a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget and/or line item veto. It was more show than anything, particularly since few in either party really want that...and Gingrich took it off the table as soon as he became Speaker.

The Democrats running for President and many of those running for Congress have adopted the PAYGO budgetary rules I cited above....thats not to say, they wont do the same as Gingrich.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 01-27-2008 at 04:27 PM..
dc_dux is offline  
Old 01-27-2008, 04:26 PM   #17 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
my point was that Republicans have touted that "responsibilty" as well, but seem to have not followed through on it.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 01-27-2008, 04:29 PM   #18 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
But the last Democratic president did follow through with cuts in the growth of spending in his last three budgets.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 01-27-2008, 09:59 PM   #19 (permalink)
Deja Moo
 
Elphaba's Avatar
 
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Looks like we agree on something, I bet it is for different reasons but we have come to the same conclusion.

Even the economist Keynes (his name is almost synonymous with the use of government spending to stimulate the economy) came to the conclusion that government spending does not have a lasting impact on economic stimulus.

Increased production of real goods and services is the only thing that will generate real economic growth. The folks in Washington can play shell games all day long with moving money around, but unless people produce more the shifting of money was a waste in terms of economic stimulus.

So you are correct. Either we pay for this today with increased taxes, nullifying the package or we pay (or our children) in the future with increased taxes - hurting future economic growth.

If the government really wants to stimulate the economy, we need tax cuts targeted to the production of goods and services. Oops, thats some supply side stuff again. I know how much you dislike that concept. But when a family takes their $1,200.00 to pay-off a credit card debt, that won't create one new job. On the other hand if you give a tax break to a small business trying to grow you may get an entity that hires people to produce valued goods and services. So you have real people making real income from producing real goods and services that other real people want to consume.

The basis is investing in the infrastructure for increasing production leads to lasting economic growth.
Ace, I can't agree with you more in most of what you have posted here. Unfortunately, I don't think there is enough time to revitalize the economy through investment in rebuilding the infrastructure, before a serious recession sets in. It angers me that both political parties are willing to go along with nothing more than a temporary placebo. I believe that Bush would have been remembered as a great president if he had followed Eisenhower's infrastructure initiatives, rather that ignoring his warning that has led to our war economy.
__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007
Elphaba is offline  
 

Tags
$18, $700, 2000, 2008, billion, debt, increase, national, year


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:09 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360