WorldTraveller Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 "We're moving in the wrong direction and it's b/c of the stimulus which independent and CBO stuides showed helps. We can't know what would have happened absent stimulus but I don't like what is going on now so the stimulus failed." That's basically what I'm hearing. It's pretty retarded. No, what's retarded is your defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 No, what's retarded is your defense. Studies on economic impact v. your gut feeling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 (edited) No, all you have are faith based arguments, and then to back up your claim you bring up the standard parroted DNC talking point of "It was meant to stop a Depression from occurring", yet this argument was never presented beforehand, simply because we all know that it failed on every single reasonable objective, which are 1) It's intended forecasts 2) And the direction the economy is moving. But go ahead, just spout off another talking point or an "independent" study from economists that supported the Stimulus Bill, who have a stake in the game to desperately prove that it wasn't the sham that we all know it was. Edited July 30, 2012 by WorldTraveller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 No, all you have are faith based arguments, and then to back up your claim you bring up the standard parroted DNC talking point of "It was meant to stop a Depression from occurring", yet this argument was never presented beforehand, simply because we all know that it failed on every single reasonable objective, which are 1) It's intended forecasts 2) And the direction the economy is moving. But go ahead, just spout off another talking point or an "independent" study from economists that supported the Stimulus Bill, who have a stake in the game to desperately prove that it wasn't the sham that we all know it was. So what you are saying basically is we needed a bigger stimulus? Interesting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 What's pathetic to me is when conservative attack the stimulus as an example of big government gone wrong and use it to further their anti-government agenda. I've typically given you a little credit for being one of the more reasonable liberals here, so I'll be nice and suggest that just because conservatives don't like excessive government doesn't mean we're anti-government or want no government at all. That level of thinking is for the Parks and conners of the world. Try to separate yourself better. So it's a failure b/c it did work, just not as well as we all hoped? It wasn't what "we hoped." It was what we were told. The WH said it would spend a trillion dollars of OUR taxpayer dollars, and in exchange they would keep unemployment below 8% and have it down to 5.7% right now. They didn't "hope" they were shovel-ready jobs, they SAID they were. Shovel-ready. Right now. Fired up. Ready to go. One of the reasons liberals suck at governing so much is because you treat other people's money as your own private bottomless stash. The Obama administration took our money and said they were going to do X and Y with it to accomplish Z. Instead it used every other letter in the alphabet but those three, missed their own goals by gzillion miles, wasted our money, realized that "shovel-ready wasn't as shovel-ready as we expected" and now you stand around in this forum discussing our wasted tax dollars in the same manner that you discuss horseshoes and hand grenades? Nevermind. You're exactly like Park and conner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 we needed a bigger stimulus /Debbie Wasserman Schultz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 (edited) I've typically given you a little credit for being one of the more reasonable liberals here, so I'll be nice and suggest that just because conservatives don't like excessive government doesn't mean we're anti-government or want no government at all. That level of thinking is for the Parks and conners of the world. Try to separate yourself better. It wasn't what "we hoped." It was what we were told. The WH said it would spend a trillion dollars of OUR taxpayer dollars, and in exchange they would keep unemployment below 8% and have it down to 5.7% right now. They didn't "hope" they were shovel-ready jobs, they SAID they were. Shovel-ready. Right now. Fired up. Ready to go. One of the reasons liberals suck at governing so much is because you treat other people's money as your own private bottomless stash. The Obama administration took our money and said they were going to do X and Y with it to accomplish Z. Instead it used every other letter in the alphabet but those three, missed their own goals by gzillion miles, wasted our money, realized that "shovel-ready wasn't as shovel-ready as we expected" and now you stand around in this forum discussing our wasted tax dollars in the same manner that you discuss horseshoes and hand grenades? Nevermind. You're exactly like Park and conner. You would be hard pressed to look at the current GOP agenda in the house and call them anything but anti-government. And I didn't realize liberals suck so much at governing b/c people's money is their private stash I must have missed the conservative money management over the last 30 years from the GOP Edited July 30, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 (edited) The stimulus was idiotic. If you were to believe in a theory of creating artificial demand to prime the pump of the economy, despite a history of failure, you would still never enact such an abortion of a bill to achieve that end. Repaving freshly paved roads and building trails at national parks does dick **** to help the economy. Following that same logic would lead one to believe issuing food stamps helps the economy. You could reasonalby argue that some of the money given to municipalities softened the blow of their diminishing tax revenues resulting from the downturn and it enabled them to trim more gradually thus averting a devestating shock; that may or may not be true, but the bulk of this bill was pure waste. You come back and making a statement that it was an undeniable success, and your supporting evidence is the fact that the same people who told us it would keep unemployment under 8% are now telling us the economy would have been that much worse. That's pretty weak, dude; honestly. These are the same people who have told us for the last 3 years that we were in the summer of recovery and now we're looking at a double dip recession. They don't have any idea what the economy is going to do or what it was going to do. To suggest otherwise is naive at best. Save some credibility and next time make a plausible comment like, "the stimulus might well have done some good in some areas." It's a debatable point, but at least it's not absurd. You would be hard pressed to look at the current GOP agenda in the house and call them anything but anti-government. And I didn't realize liberals suck so much at governing b/c people's money is their private stash I must have missed the conservative money management over the last 30 years from the GOP This is where modern day Democrats have really gone off the deep end. I really think it's an unthinking reaction to Republicans moving to the center. Sure there are loony right-wing separatists and Religious fanatics that want to force you to shut your business on Sunday, put super-tight restrictions on R-rated movies, ban porn, etc. But those guys are on the fringe extremes. The loony leftists that want to tell us what to eat, what to drive, what to think, not to smoke, and want to micromanage our lives and businesses are the mainstream of your party. If we were living with a bare-bones government under far-right leadership I might be sympathetic to some democrat causes, but we live in a very liberal society under an immensely bloated government that we can no longer afford, and all I ever hear you guys complain about is lack of funding for government projects. And your go to solution is that we trim $1.5 trillion out of a $600 billion defense budget. Yall have lost your damn minds. Edited July 30, 2012 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 The stimulus was idiotic. If you were to believe in a theory of creating artificial demand to prime the pump of the economy, despite a history of failure, you would still never enact such an abortion of a bill to achieve that end. Repaving freshly paved roads and building trails at national parks does dick **** to help the economy. Following that same logic would lead one to believe issuing food stamps helps the economy. You could reasonalby argue that some of the money given to municipalities softened the blow of their diminishing tax revenues resulting from the downturn and it enabled them to trim more gradually thus averting a devestating shock; that may or may not be true, but the bulk of this bill was pure waste. Except the majority of the stimulus was NOT doing what you hate so much. 70% was giving money to local government and tax cuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Except the majority of the stimulus was NOT doing what you hate so much. 70% was giving money to local government and tax cuts. So your defense is that only 30% was bull ****. I haven't conceded giving 70% to local governments was a good idea; I've just given you the best defense for a bill I don't agree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 So your defense is that only 30% was bull ****. I haven't conceded giving 70% to local governments was a good idea; I've just given you the best defense for a bill I don't agree with. My defense of the stimulus is simply to point out that impact studies show it saved us approximately 2% unemployment. That's not good enough b/c I guess it was sold to you guys as a fix for the greatest downturn since the great depression. I guess it wasn't, I'm not shocked. Sorry you guys are. The other point is that the stimulus is 3 things, the smallest of which is what is so often bashed and even that portion had good in it. The tax cuts obviously helped a large amount of people feel the impacts of the downturn less and the local government spending helped them avoid immediate massive layoffs which further helped us fall less. The stimulus wasn't perfect and it didn't fix the entire collapse I don't know why that is so shocking to everybody. But to vilify it when studies show it helped...doesn't make sense. To rage that it it didn't lower unemployment enough when studies showed it did lower unemployment is nothing more than an argument is should have done more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 (edited) The money given to local/State governments was the biggest waste of all. First off, the basic premise of bailing out state/local governments that was crafted in such a corrupt fashion between Public Sectors and Politicians at the expense of local/state taxpayers is disgusting. But that is the moral argument, the fiscal argument is that local/state government jobs are funded by their taxes, so all the bailout did was give a short life line for those jobs. Once the money ran out, they still had their budgets to deal with, so those layoffs happened irregardless of the short-term payoff to his Public Union constituency, simply because local/state tax receipts weren't high enough to keep these workers. Second, the "tax cuts" are keynesian short-term tax cuts, that did nothing other than provide temporary relief to US consumers. It's one thing to structurally change the dynamics by overhauling the US tax code, it's another to give short-term tax cuts that do nothing other than provide a little sugar high. Edited July 30, 2012 by WorldTraveller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 The money given to local/State governments was the biggest waste of all. First off, the basic premise of bailing out state/local governments that had crafted corrupt deals between Public Sectors and Politicians at the expense of local/state taxpayers is wrong. But that is the moral argument, the fiscal argument is that local/state government jobs are funded by their taxes, so all the bailout did was give a short life line for those jobs. Once the money ran out, they still had their budgets to deal with, so those layoffs happened irregardless of the short-term payoff to his Public Union constituency, simply because local/state tax receipts weren't high enough to keep these workers. Second, the "tax cuts" are keynesian short-term tax cuts, that did nothing other than provide temporary relief to US consumers. It's one thing to structurally change the dynamics by overhauling the US tax code, it's another to give short-term tax cuts that do nothing other than provide a little sugar high. The stimulus WAS a sugar high. That is what it was by design. Crisis...inject sugar high to avoid falling of a cliff if possible. Bad plan? Maybe. Fair enough. But if the idea is that we needed to do something short term b/c we were heading for quick disaster then what you get is a sugar high. Plain and simple. You can't sit here and blame the stimulus for not being a comprehensive structural fix to all the problems you have with the entire American economy. The stimulus was just what it was called, a stimulus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 (edited) The stimulus WAS a sugar high. That is what it was by design. Crisis...inject sugar high to avoid falling of a cliff if possible. Bad plan? Maybe. Fair enough. But if the idea is that we needed to do something short term b/c we were heading for quick disaster then what you get is a sugar high. Plain and simple. You can't sit here and blame the stimulus for not being a comprehensive structural fix to all the problems you have with the entire American economy. The stimulus was just what it was called, a stimulus. Sure I can. And again, I'm not gonna let you attempt to put this aside, THEY DID NOT SELL IT AS A SUGAR HIGH! They sold it as a sustaining stimulus act that would lead us to a recovery. Their projections was that we would be on a downward trajectory with our Unemployment rate of under 6%. Also The Majority of Americans disapprove of the Stimulus Bill, and the fact that it was so poorly crafted, outsourced to Pelosi and Crew did more than just blow a trillion dollars down the drain, it eroded public confidence in any bold future action from government. If you were going to have a big Stimulus Bill, (which I could be for if crafted correctly) for !@#$s sakes, at least implement some long-term structural solutions to the bill. What do we have to show for it? We have an economy that is now in it's third year of decline. Its a crappy economy, and Obama doesn't have the slightest clue to reinvigorate it again. He has got to be the most economically incompetent president in Modern history. He's an ideologue that cares more about redistributing the wealth than anything else. His idea of economic prosperity is derived from RobinHood which is to take away money from the rich and give to the poor. Edited July 30, 2012 by WorldTraveller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 So now it was a temporary measure, to prevent a depression? The spin is amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 We've always been at war with Eastasia. East Asia is our ally We've always been at war with Oceana Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 My defense of the stimulus is simply to point out that impact studies show it saved us approximately 2% unemployment. That's not good enough b/c I guess it was sold to you guys as a fix for the greatest downturn since the great depression. I guess it wasn't, I'm not shocked. Sorry you guys are. The other point is that the stimulus is 3 things, the smallest of which is what is so often bashed and even that portion had good in it. The tax cuts obviously helped a large amount of people feel the impacts of the downturn less and the local government spending helped them avoid immediate massive layoffs which further helped us fall less. The stimulus wasn't perfect and it didn't fix the entire collapse I don't know why that is so shocking to everybody. But to vilify it when studies show it helped...doesn't make sense. To rage that it it didn't lower unemployment enough when studies showed it did lower unemployment is nothing more than an argument is should have done more. My point is not that it isn't good enough, but rather that I don't buy the projection. They have no credibility and the bulk of that bill did little to nothing that would have a long-term stimulative effect. I conceded it's POSSIBLE that there MIGHT or might not have been some marginal short-term benefits, but that projection isn't a solid foundation on which to base your assertion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 The stimulus WAS a sugar high. That is what it was by design. Crisis...inject sugar high to avoid falling of a cliff if possible. Bad plan? Maybe. Fair enough. But if the idea is that we needed to do something short term b/c we were heading for quick disaster then what you get is a sugar high. Plain and simple. Actually, that was TARP. You can't sit here and blame the stimulus for not being a comprehensive structural fix to all the problems you have with the entire American economy. The stimulus was just what it was called, a stimulus. No one's arguing it was even intended to address the structural issues. Most of the argument here is that it didn't (or, in the more extreme arguments, couldn't) accomplish what it was intended to do. LA put it best: by the administration's own metrics, it was a failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Well, here's a real success story! "American taxpayers provided Chrysler a $12.5 billion bailout in 2009 to save the company, $3 billion of which will never be paid back, according to the latest Inspector General Report." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Well, here's a real success story! "American taxpayers provided Chrysler a $12.5 billion bailout in 2009 to save the company, $3 billion of which will never be paid back, according to the latest Inspector General Report." But think of all the jobs that $3B created! (Just ignore the fact that they're for Fiat.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts