Why Stimulus Bills Won't Kickstart the Economy

[eddo]

eddo' date='09 August 2010 - 11:37 AM

Gotta agree with hugo and IWS-

I'm not republican. The republican party of today sucks almost as bad as the democrats. Repubs are closer to my ideals that the dems are, but are still pretty far out there.

You're having an each way bet, eddo?

what?

not at all. I don't like either the current Dem or Repub parties. out of those 2, the Repubs are closer. The Libertarians are even better than the repubs or dems. Me thinks you are trying to insert meanings into what i write.

 

Should I type slower?

 

'eddo' date='09 August 2010 - 11:37 AM'John McCain would've been just as bad a president in my opinion.

As bad as shrub or Obama?

Obama, and last 2 year Shrub.

McCain has done more flip-flopping to meet what he thinks people want him to say. It's time for him to retire. I did vote for him in 2008, but won't be voting for him in his Senate reelection bid.

 

'eddo' date='09 August 2010 - 11:37 AM' I backed Bush for the first 6 or so years.

Yet you claimed above to not being a republican? Confusing, to say the least. So you supported the illegal invasion of two soveriegn nations? You bought all that propaganda, eddo?

 

Why yes, I do claim to not be a republican. I've been registered as an independent for the entire time I have been registered to vote. I have never voted along party lines. Never. Bush was better than John Kerry, and way better than Al Gore.

 

and yes, I did support the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Still do.

 

'eddo' date='09 August 2010 - 11:37 AM]His last 2 years in office he made some dumb decisions. I will freely admit that.

His criminality convinced you? Or some other important premise I'm not aware of?

Just stupid decisions. the first stimulus bill was dumb. Granted, it bought me an Ipod and a new stereo for my truck- but it was ill conceived. Even dumber was the next guy trying a bigger one thinking it may work....

 

'eddo' having said that- Obama sucks ass. He's been pres for almost 2 years now, and unemployment is worse.

He inherited a chronically damaged society from your previous hero.

ok, but time to start owning it yourself. Bush isn't the president anymore. The Dems have had control of the House and Senate for almost 4 years, and the white house for 2. That means that they should have been able to make everything right by now. and what do we have? Worse unemployment, bigger deficits, and a prez that is still running a campaign...

 

'eddo' date='09 August 2010 - 11:37 AM'the deficit is higher.

You ever heard of the sub-prime mortgage fiasco, eddo? Or the global financial crisis?

See previous. Obama promised to fix it. He hasn't. The way it's going, he won't.

 

'eddo' date='09 August 2010 - 11:37 AM' he has tax cheats running the treasury.

Bush had a string of criminals in his inner circle. Some of them even had to take voluntary retirement as "fall guys" to try and save face for the rest of the crims.

So that makes it ok for Obama to do the same? Yeah, I didn't think so. Blaming the past administration doesn't make it ok for the current administration to be corrupt.

 

 

'eddo' date='09 August 2010 - 11:37 AMHe has more "czars" than anyone before him (and this whole concept of appointing czars stinks.)

 

Appointing czars? Care to name some of them, and their intended roles, eddo?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29391/

 

and before you go there, yes I know that Shrub appointed more than anyone before him. Again, just cause he did it doesn't make it right. I thought Obama was all about Change? So why does he keep doing things the same?

 

'eddo' date='09 August 2010 - 11:37 AM' timestamp='1281325025' post='110386']The troops are still in the middle east.

From illegal invasions that occurred before his time. He's taking advice from his military chiefs on those issues, eddo.

And Obama promised folks that we would be out in 9 months, and then he promised a year. Neither has happened. I'd call that lying. What do you call it?

 

'eddo' date='09 August 2010 - 11:37 AM' His "Hope and Change" turned out to be "More of the same, just with the race card mixed in"

That's lame.

 

Black or white, is it? High time the oppressed in America had a voice on important matters. You are aware that a black man is ten times more likely to be incarcerated for the same crimes committed by whites?

Yeah, that's relevant here....

My point was that Obama and his cronies toss in the race card at every change they get. Disagree with him? then you must be racist. Cause you can only be disagreeing with him cause he's half black!

 

'eddo' date='09 August 2010 - 11:37 AM' It's time to stop blaming the past, and start blaming the present.

It's all about the past. It's high time you people got that point. Every new prez inherits the horror shows left by the last one.

I gave him that for a bit, but the Dems have been in control to long and haven't accomplished much of anything. I call bullshit.

[snafu]

McCain has done more flip-flopping to meet what he thinks people want him to say. It's time for him to retire. I did vote for him in 2008, but won't be voting for him in his Senate reelection bid.

 

That's what a good a Senetor or politiction does. We vote them in to do what WE want him to do not what he thinks should be done.

[phreakwars]

Nobody ever likes to admit being a Republican, but it's how they always vote. Hilarious.

.

.

 

Kinda like admitting to being a liberal/progressive/liberal/etc...

 

 

 

Nope, were Democrats and proud of it. Some of us are Liberal, some are progressives, some are even liberal progressives, but none of us are ashamed to say we are Democrats.

 

What your trying to collate, would be like a Christian fundamentalist who denies being conservative or vise versa.

.

.

[ImWithStupid]

 

Now link us to a pro-Obama thread or post of your own. I dare ya. :lol:

 

http://Off Topic Forum.com/topic/30883-great-job/page__p__109273__fromsearch__1#entry109273

 

That's the most recent one.

[eddo]

McCain has done more flip-flopping to meet what he thinks people want him to say. It's time for him to retire. I did vote for him in 2008, but won't be voting for him in his Senate reelection bid.

 

That's what a good a Senetor or politiction does. We vote them in to do what WE want him to do not what he thinks should be done.

 

I would agree if what he said didn't change depending on who he was talking too...

[snafu]

A $3.8 trillion tax increase is coming down the pike, folks. America’s tax cuts which can incentivize small businesses to expand and hire more people (thus fulfilling the mission to grow more private sector jobs), or even just to keep our doors open, will expire in four months. That expiration equates to an increase on your tax bill, starting at midnight, December 31.

 

I’ll keep calling out President Obama and the Democrats until they tell the American people what the plan is to save the incentives – to not allow the mom and pops’ tax cuts to expire. Granted, liberals (including stubborn “fact-checkers” who claim I’m lying about the soon-to-be tax cut expiration) are trying to clobber me for holding them accountable and prodding them toward revealing their intentions (because they’ve had 18 months to publicly propose a plan to stave off the $3.8 trillion tax increase that will soon slam us, but have revealed no plan). If they have a bill to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, let’s see it. Time for them to put up or shut up.

 

But you don’t have to take my word for it. Take the word of the “fact-checkers” at PolitiFact, who, before moving the goal posts in their second dissembling “fact-check” on the Democrats’ tax hikes, wrote in their original “fact-check”:

 

There are no formal congressional proposals yet to keep the Bush tax cuts in place, so we don’t have precise estimates from official sources like the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Still, there’s a good bit of consensus on what the tax increases would look like, both if lower rates expired only for high earners and also for all incomes.

 

As Ed Morrissey noted:

 

And there’s a

big

problem with this argument, which is that “consensus” means

nothing

without passing a bill, and especially not without proposing one first. Thanks to Democrats in 2001 and 2003, those bills cutting the tax rates have hard-and-fast sunset provisions that create an expiration date

absent of any other action

. We are now less than four months away from that expiration date after seven years of seeing it coming, after more than 3 years of Democratic control of Congress, and after eighteen months of the Obama administration. Democrats don’t even have a proposal on the table yet, and the legislative calendar is rapidly shrinking to take action before the expiration date hits. Without action, we

will

see a $3.8 trillion tax hike across the entire spectrum of earners.

 

So much for “consensus” without action. PolitiFact is curiously stating that in his 2011 budget, the President mentioned some “plan” to do something about not raising taxes on all Americans. Um, don’t know about you, but I don’t find this general, vague promise of some “plan” all that reassuring. The Left also “plans” to do something about our out of control deficits and high unemployment, and the President “planned” for his nearly trillion dollar stimulus to keep unemployment under 8%. We’ve seen how successful that “plan” worked out. The President’s budget “plan” hasn’t worked out so well either. As the economist Bruce Bartlett explained at the time, the President’s budget – including the tax promise – was never much more than a vague statement of intent. Practically speaking, it was dead on arrival. Even Bartlett couldn’t have known how dead, though, because in the end Congress didn’t even succeed in passing a budget, let alone in taking a decision on the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

 

Bottom line: until we see a formal proposal – an actual bill before Congress – then get ready for that $3.8 trillion hit.

 

(By the way, the Left sure gets wee-wee’d up when they’re called on something like this, eh? And here I am, thousands of miles away from DC out on a commercial fishing boat, working my butt off for my own business, merely asking the Democrat politicos and their liberal friends in the media: “What’s the plan, man?”, and they seem to feel threatened by my question. So, I’ll go back to setting my hooks and watching the halibut take the bait, and when I come back into the boat’s cabin in a few hours, I’ll log back on here to read their reply. I’ll have succeeded if they’re forced to finally reveal to Americans how they plan to increase taxes, and what they intend to do with our money. In the meantime, I’m catching fish.)

 

- Sarah Palin, in Homer, Alaska

 

 

So who don't have a plan?:whistling:

[phreakwars]

So what's the plan? I didn't catch it, underline it for me and repost it.

.

.

[snafu]

A $3.8 trillion tax increase is coming down the pike, folks. America’s tax cuts which can incentivize small businesses to expand and hire more people (thus fulfilling the mission to grow more private sector jobs), or even just to keep our doors open, will expire in four months. That expiration equates to an increase on your tax bill, starting at midnight, December 31.

 

I’ll keep calling out President Obama and the Democrats until they tell the American people what the plan is to save the incentives – to not allow the mom and pops’ tax cuts to expire. Granted, liberals (including stubborn “fact-checkers” who claim I’m lying about the soon-to-be tax cut expiration) are trying to clobber me for holding them accountable and prodding them toward revealing their intentions (because they’ve had 18 months to publicly propose a plan to stave off the $3.8 trillion tax increase that will soon slam us, but have revealed no plan). If they have a bill to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, let’s see it. Time for them to put up or shut up.

But you don’t have to take my word for it. Take the word of the “fact-checkers” at PolitiFact, who, before moving the goal posts in their second dissembling “fact-check” on the Democrats’ tax hikes, wrote in their original “fact-check”:

 

There are no formal congressional proposals yet to keep the Bush tax cuts in place, so we don’t have precise estimates from official sources like the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Still, there’s a good bit of consensus on what the tax increases would look like, both if lower rates expired only for high earners and also for all incomes.

 

As Ed Morrissey noted:

 

And there’s a

big

problem with this argument, which is that “consensus” means

nothing

without passing a bill, and especially not without proposing one first. Thanks to Democrats in 2001 and 2003, those bills cutting the tax rates have hard-and-fast sunset provisions that create an expiration date

absent of any other action

. We are now less than four months away from that expiration date after seven years of seeing it coming, after more than 3 years of Democratic control of Congress, and after eighteen months of the Obama administration. Democrats don’t even have a proposal on the table yet, and the legislative calendar is rapidly shrinking to take action before the expiration date hits. Without action, we

will

see a $3.8 trillion tax hike across the entire spectrum of earners.

 

So much for “consensus” without action. PolitiFact is curiously stating that in his 2011 budget, the President mentioned some “plan” to do something about not raising taxes on all Americans. Um, don’t know about you, but I don’t find this general, vague promise of some “plan” all that reassuring. The Left also “plans” to do something about our out of control deficits and high unemployment, and the President “planned” for his nearly trillion dollar stimulus to keep unemployment under 8%. We’ve seen how successful that “plan” worked out. The President’s budget “plan” hasn’t worked out so well either. As the economist Bruce Bartlett explained at the time, the President’s budget – including the tax promise – was never much more than a vague statement of intent. Practically speaking, it was dead on arrival. Even Bartlett couldn’t have known how dead, though, because in the end Congress didn’t even succeed in passing a budget, let alone in taking a decision on the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

 

Bottom line: until we see a formal proposal – an actual bill before Congress – then get ready for that $3.8 trillion hit.

 

(By the way, the Left sure gets wee-wee’d up when they’re called on something like this, eh? And here I am, thousands of miles away from DC out on a commercial fishing boat, working my butt off for my own business, merely asking the Democrat politicos and their liberal friends in the media: “What’s the plan, man?”, and they seem to feel threatened by my question. So, I’ll go back to setting my hooks and watching the halibut take the bait, and when I come back into the boat’s cabin in a few hours, I’ll log back on here to read their reply. I’ll have succeeded if they’re forced to finally reveal to Americans how they plan to increase taxes, and what they intend to do with our money. In the meantime, I’m catching fish.)

 

- Sarah Palin, in Homer, Alaska

[phreakwars]

That's a plan? Looks more like a bitch and complaint job to me. How about a SPECIFIC plan of what the right wing is going to do, wants to do... something other then bitch and gripe and say what they think is wrong. They have had 2 years to come up with something. I still haven't seen anything.

 

Seems to me like their entire platform is "VOTE FOR US, BECAUSE WE CAN BITCH ABOUT THE OTHER GUY" then have no plan of their own.

 

Would you want someone who's bitching that a bomb isn't getting defused fast enough helping defuse the bomb when they have no plan of doing it?

.

.

[hugo]

Deficits mean future tax increases, pure and simple. Deficit spending should be viewed as a tax on future generations, and politicians who create deficits should be exposed as tax hikers.

 

Ron Paul

GW made tax increases inevitable. The deficits GW and now Obama are running will eventually have to be paid for.

 

“The blame for [the national debt] lies with the Congress and the President, with Democrats and Republicans alike, most all of whom have been unwilling to make the hard choices or to explain to the American people that there is no such thing as a free lunch.” — Senator Warren Rudman

[snafu]

Deficits mean future tax increases, pure and simple. Deficit spending should be viewed as a tax on future generations, and politicians who create deficits should be exposed as tax hikers.

 

Ron Paul

GW made tax increases inevitable. The deficits GW and now Obama are running will eventually have to be paid for.

 

“The blame for [the national debt] lies with the Congress and the President, with Democrats and Republicans alike, most all of whom have been unwilling to make the hard choices or to explain to the American people that there is no such thing as a free lunch.” — Senator Warren Rudman

 

 

How's that hugo? The Wars? Because we did need to take out Sadaam (14 resolutions and unanomus UN vote) and we did need to go to Afganistan. Taking away tax cuts for small business can only hurt the economy and job creation at this point.

[snafu]

Phreak what happened to no new taxes for people under $150 grand?

[phreakwars]

It was $250k and WHAT new taxes?

.

.

[RegisteredAndEducated]

Deficits mean future tax increases, pure and simple. Deficit spending should be viewed as a tax on future generations, and politicians who create deficits should be exposed as tax hikers.

 

Ron Paul

GW made tax increases inevitable. The deficits GW and now Obama are running will eventually have to be paid for.

 

“The blame for [the national debt] lies with the Congress and the President, with Democrats and Republicans alike, most all of whom have been unwilling to make the hard choices or to explain to the American people that there is no such thing as a free lunch.” — Senator Warren Rudman

 

 

How's that hugo? The Wars? Because we did need to take out Sadaam (14 resolutions and unanomus UN vote) and we did need to go to Afganistan. Taking away tax cuts for small business can only hurt the economy and job creation at this point.

 

Tax cuts are a "temporary fix" what we need to go to is a "fair tax" and stop hurting employers.

[hugo]

Deficits mean future tax increases, pure and simple. Deficit spending should be viewed as a tax on future generations, and politicians who create deficits should be exposed as tax hikers.

 

Ron Paul

GW made tax increases inevitable. The deficits GW and now Obama are running will eventually have to be paid for.

 

“The blame for [the national debt] lies with the Congress and the President, with Democrats and Republicans alike, most all of whom have been unwilling to make the hard choices or to explain to the American people that there is no such thing as a free lunch.” — Senator Warren Rudman

 

 

How's that hugo? The Wars? Because we did need to take out Sadaam (14 resolutions and unanomus UN vote) and we did need to go to Afganistan. Taking away tax cuts for small business can only hurt the economy and job creation at this point.

Some facts, snafu.

 

Pres. George W. Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted Federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush still is the biggest-spending president in almost 40 years. His 2006 budget does not cut enough pork to change his place in history, either.

 

Total government spending Government spending or government expenditure consists of government purchases, which can be financed by seigniorage, taxes, or government borrowing. It is considered to be one of the major components of gross domestic product. grew by 33% during Bush's first term. The Federal budget as a share of the economy grew from 18.5% of gross domestic product on former Pres. Bill Clinton's last day in office to 20.3% by the end of Bush's first term. Moreover, the Republican Congress enthusiastically has assisted the budget bloat. Inflation-adjusted spending on the combined budgets of the 101 largest programs it vowed to eliminate in 1995 has grown by 27%.

[snafu]

Deficits mean future tax increases, pure and simple. Deficit spending should be viewed as a tax on future generations, and politicians who create deficits should be exposed as tax hikers.

 

Ron Paul

GW made tax increases inevitable. The deficits GW and now Obama are running will eventually have to be paid for.

 

“The blame for [the national debt] lies with the Congress and the President, with Democrats and Republicans alike, most all of whom have been unwilling to make the hard choices or to explain to the American people that there is no such thing as a free lunch.” — Senator Warren Rudman

 

 

How's that hugo? The Wars? Because we did need to take out Sadaam (14 resolutions and unanomus UN vote) and we did need to go to Afganistan. Taking away tax cuts for small business can only hurt the economy and job creation at this point.

Some facts, snafu.

 

Pres. George W. Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted Federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush still is the biggest-spending president in almost 40 years. His 2006 budget does not cut enough pork to change his place in history, either.

 

Total government spending Government spending or government expenditure consists of government purchases, which can be financed by seigniorage, taxes, or government borrowing. It is considered to be one of the major components of gross domestic product. grew by 33% during Bush's first term. The Federal budget as a share of the economy grew from 18.5% of gross domestic product on former Pres. Bill Clinton's last day in office to 20.3% by the end of Bush's first term. Moreover, the Republican Congress enthusiastically has assisted the budget bloat. Inflation-adjusted spending on the combined budgets of the 101 largest programs it vowed to eliminate in 1995 has grown by 27%.

 

Ok while I will concur this is an outdated post. Obama now has him beat ten fold.