Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Economics


Thanks Tree25Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 14th, 2017, 09:47 AM   #31
forgot my old user name
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
Putting the stimulus in place stimulated the economy, just putting a program in place to buy clunkers, meant auto makers hiring and ramping up production, before the program bought it's first clunker.
Funding programs causes hiring, the money gets spent later, but the effect is almost immediate.
And the economy was deep in the hole in 2009, it had shrunk quite a bit from the crash, and it wasn't a typical recession, caused by high inventories, where the economy shrinks a bit until inventories fall and then cranks up.
This was a collapse of the credit system. There was not a lot of credit to finance the expansion of the economy.
More stimulus would have meant a stronger, faster economy.
We have another recession coming, watch closely how it works.
Before Paul Krugman completely sold out, he was doing the media blitz with every program that would invite him on to talk about the economy early in the new Obama Administration. And one point he kept hammering on over and over again, was that the proposed Stimulus package was too small and too loaded with tax cuts to business and upper income brackets that could just pocket the money or invest it anywhere...including overseas!

For my part, Krugman&allied Keynsian economists, and lesser lights like Michael Moore, don't seem to get the point that economic policy doesn't work in a vacuum! The USA of 2009 did not have the same conditions of abundant resources, low debt levels, and a much, much younger population back then.

So, I don't buy liberal economic theories any more than the libertarian varieties, but I recall at the time that the guys running the numbers like Krugman, all insisted that a stimulus package that would improve conditions for middle and lower classes, would have to be over $1 Trillion...and that's a scary number for politicians who fear attack more than doing nothing!
right to left is offline  
Old January 14th, 2017, 09:56 AM   #32
forgot my old user name
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
More to my point. If in fact the majority of people who want jobs have them then we should be able to look at the welfare rolls and tell people who have been completely subsidized for 6mo or more and tell them they have X amount of time to find employment before they are completely cut off.
No similar thank you note from me! The facts are that many people living in today's crazy, uncertain times are suffering from a variety of conditions(most commonly depressive disorders) that can make them virtually unemployable. You might offer an incentive system that provides advantages for those entering or more often-returning to the labor force. Under NO circumstances should mothers with young children be cut off benefits as occurred in your "generous welfare society" when St. Bill Clinton passed a bipartisan welfare reform bill in the 90's that I've been hearing some of the negative fallout about ever since.
right to left is offline  
Old January 14th, 2017, 10:00 AM   #33
forgot my old user name
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
So. What's your point? We still needed a stimulus.
I guess the point was the recession ended in 09 for upper income brackets...especially the rentier class. So that should be good enough, as the Law of Supply Side Economics declares that benefits will trickle down as the rich enrich themselves further.
Thanks from Fayt
right to left is offline  
Old January 14th, 2017, 11:25 AM   #34
Celebrating diversity
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
Welfare abuse isn't a problem in this country, well paying jobs are. So let's focus on that .
What do "well paying jobs" have to do w/ deficits? And why is that any concern of the state?

Last edited by Sabcat; January 14th, 2017 at 11:45 AM.
Sabcat is offline  
Old January 14th, 2017, 11:32 AM   #35
Celebrating diversity
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by right to left View Post
No similar thank you note from me! The facts are that many people living in today's crazy, uncertain times are suffering from a variety of conditions(most commonly depressive disorders) that can make them virtually unemployable. You might offer an incentive system that provides advantages for those entering or more often-returning to the labor force. Under NO circumstances should mothers with young children be cut off benefits as occurred in your "generous welfare society" when St. Bill Clinton passed a bipartisan welfare reform bill in the 90's that I've been hearing some of the negative fallout about ever since.
People who are unable to work for health reasons deplete the resorces of the Social Security program, so that is an entirely different argument.

And yes, a jobless women who only gets a raise when she gestates more offspring is an issue that must be addressed. If you cannot afford the children that you already have stop procreating. End of story. Being a single mother should not be a government job. That is not a behavior that should not be rewarded.
Sabcat is offline  
Old January 14th, 2017, 11:35 AM   #36
Fayt Storm ON [OFF]
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 15,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
What do "well paying jobs" have to do w/ deficits? And why is that any concern f the state?
Okay screw good jobs lets have more people in need of government assistance. That's your logic just now, right?

When more people have better paying jobs, it will decrease the deficit due to more taxes being paid.
Fayt is offline  
Old January 14th, 2017, 11:44 AM   #37
Celebrating diversity
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
So. What's your point? We still needed a stimulus.
Sabcat is offline  
Old January 14th, 2017, 11:48 AM   #38
Celebrating diversity
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
Okay screw good jobs lets have more people in need of government assistance. That's your logic just now, right?

When more people have better paying jobs, it will decrease the deficit due to more taxes being paid.
Remove all of the income tax and all working people will receive a 30% raise.
Thanks from coke
Sabcat is offline  
Old January 15th, 2017, 01:13 AM   #39
forgot my old user name
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
Remove all of the income tax and all working people will receive a 30% raise.
Lower taxes on earned income/raise taxes on capital gains and other low taxed investment income.
right to left is offline  
Old January 15th, 2017, 01:15 AM   #40
forgot my old user name
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
People who are unable to work for health reasons deplete the resorces of the Social Security program, so that is an entirely different argument.

And yes, a jobless women who only gets a raise when she gestates more offspring is an issue that must be addressed. If you cannot afford the children that you already have stop procreating. End of story. Being a single mother should not be a government job. That is not a behavior that should not be rewarded.
Are mother's allowance benefits that great where you live, that women are having children just so they can collect benefits?
right to left is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Economics

Tags
deficits, matter



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Trump Isn’t All Wrong About Trade Deficits—- excalibur Current Events 1 August 5th, 2016 02:08 PM
USA’s chronic trade deficits Supposn Economics 75 July 8th, 2016 12:23 AM
The Deficits Republicans Don't Want to Talk About LongWinded Current Events 22 January 28th, 2015 02:28 PM
Trade deficits are always detrimental to their nations’ GDPs. Supposn Economics 10 May 13th, 2014 12:16 PM
Trade Deficits Are Always Detrimental To Their Nations’ Gdps. Supposn U.S. Federal Policy 0 March 28th, 2011 11:08 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.