The Obamanation

[Undertoad]

Didn't happen? The growth from 2003-2006 was quite brisk, third quarter 2003 after the cut was phenomenal. Negative growth didn't happen until third quarter 2007. It wasn't Clinton- or Reagan-era growth, but it was growth for sure. Unemployment dropped from 6% when the 03 tax cut happened to 4.5 by 2007.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Didn't happen? The growth from 2003-2006 was quite brisk, third quarter 2003 after the cut was phenomenal. Negative growth didn't happen until third quarter 2007. It wasn't Clinton- or Reagan-era growth, but it was growth for sure. Unemployment dropped from 6% when the 03 tax cut happened to 4.5 by 2007.

The costlier of the two Bush tax cuts, the first in 01 at a cost of over $1trillion had little short term (month to month) impact on jobs in 02 and 03:

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/Surv..._view=net_1mth

The job growth in 04-07, after the second Bush tax cut in 03 (over $500 billion) was at a healthy rate although real earnings were flat or decreased suggesting that the job growth (mostly in lower paying jobs) was not necessarily stimulating the economy.

But in case where we are now after the $1.8 trillion in tax cuts?

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Redux

But in case where we are now after the $1.8 trillion in tax cuts?

Shrug. In the middle of the 18th recession since they started collecting economic data, which may become a depression due to the mortgage meltdown crisis.

I think Keynes would say either spending or tax cuts are both reasonable ways of managing the start of a recession. One works on one side of the Keynesian equation, the other works on the other side. One gives money to the government to spend, and the other gives it to the economy to spend.

Government revenues were higher not long after the tax cuts. But the problem is, Bush lost the Keynesian notion when he continued spending like a drunken sailor in 2004-2007. The deficit fell somewhat, but can you imagine where we'd be if we were in surplus right now? There would be room for all that additional spending; instead, 100% of this thing has to be financed, which will make it another couple hundred billion given to China.

[slang]

Talk radio has been hammering this porkulous bill for a week now. It's the wish list of liberal causes and groups that have been left out for the past 10 years or so IMO.

Watching the tides change from one extreme to another this bill is completely predictable and that's just the rules of the game. Who ever is in control takes care of "thier people". I completely get that.

What I thought was interesting was to find a chunk of the porkulous bucks for Filipinos. Specifically veterans that have been under the control of the US mil. Ok.

Reading further, this chunk is set aside for Filipino vets ....from WWII!

My next thought was, "didn't we ( the US ) give those veterans a big pension or lump sum in the late 40's under Magsaysay?" The answer would be yes, we did. That was under the Rogers Bill.

On April 23, 1946, Magsaysay was elected as an Independent to the Philippine House of Representatives. In 1948, President Roxas chose Magsaysay to go to Washington as Chairman of the Committee on Guerrilla Affairs, to help to secure passage of the Rogers Bill, giving considerable benefits to Philippine veterans.

I've been unable to locate my book to cite the exact sum but it was indeed granted. Was it considerable? I can't remember. The vets were very happy about it whatever the amount was.

So my point is.....

If this group of Filipino veterans benefits was included in the bill, a group that had already been paid nearly 60 years ago.....they were digging deep to find recipients for this money.

Stimulus for the American economy? Or the world?

Granted, it's a small amount in the scheme of things but talk about kitchen sink!

Originally Posted by slang

Talk radio has been hammering this porkulous bill for a week now. It's the wish list of liberal causes and groups that have been left out for the past 10 years or so IMO.

Talk radio likes to cherry pick the data to stir up their listeners.

I am not suggesting that the fact you presented is wrong, but simply that it is not representative of the overwhelming majority of provisions of the bill.

The Senate is taking out much of the pork and/or popular projects that arent stimulative...to the tune of $100+ bill less than the House bill.

US News has a good summary:

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provides $888 billion in investments and tax cuts. Of this total, $694 billion will enter the economy by the end of Fiscal year 2010, meaning that 78 percent of the monies allocated will reach the American people by September 30, 2010, providing an immediate boost to the overall economy and creating an estimated four million jobs.

The Act provides for the following critical investments:

* Tax cuts for Working Families - $247 billion
* Job-creating Investments in Infrastructure and Science - $165 billion
* Job-creating Investments in Health - $153 billion
* Job-creating Investments in Education and Training - $138 billion
* Job-creating Investments for an Energy Independent America - $82 billion
* Job-creating Tax Cuts for Small Businesses - $21 billion
* Helping Americans Hit Hard by the Economic Crisis - $72 billion
* Law Enforcement, Oversight, Other Programs - $10 billion

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/...he-senate.html

Its worth reading all five pages of the summary to understand the bill a little better than how it is presented on talk radio.

There is still more I would take out but that is what compromise is all about...give and take, with the majority rightfully having the greater voice and ultimately getting more of what they want...along with the greater responsibility if it fails to meet expectations.

[slang]

Originally Posted by Redux

Talk radio likes to cherry pick the data to stir up their listeners.

This specific portion of the bill was mentioned in a blog and I found it doing a search.

The source link is from the ArmyTimes and not talk radio. It is absolutely true that there are issues that "talk radio" in general covers that get people riled up. In this example as with many others that I hear on the radio, I went to check up on this a bit myself.

On average I believe that at least half of those hot button issues on TR are to be concerned with and overwhelmingly true.

There have been some biggies that have been false. There have been some biggies that have been true. There are also details that through my wordly travels know for fact are not true.

So that's where I'm at.

Originally Posted by Redux

I am not suggesting that the fact you presented is wrong, but simply that it is not representative of the overwhelming majority of provisions of the bill.

Thank you for expressing your point in such soft friendly language. There are many here that do not. You hold a lot of credibility already even though we're polar opposites on the political spectrum.

Originally Posted by Redux

its worth reading all five pages of the summary to understand the bill a little better than how it is presented on talk radio.

Yes, it's great. Everything is listed out and all the grammar is perfect, the spelling is perfect and the format is perfect. It's very credible as source.

The entire article is very convincing.

But.

Let's take a look at page two. It's beautiful as the others.

If you take a look down the page you will find this:

"$17 billion in one-time payments to seniors, disabled veterans and others will provide an immediately usable payment of $300 to seniors on Social Security, low-income recipients of Supplemental Security Income, disabled veterans and veterans on pensions, Railroad Retirement beneficiaries, and others who may not qualify for the Making Work Pay."

If the red-bolded word "others" means the Filipino veterans from WWII that have already been paid, what might the other descriptions translate to in the details of the bill?

Take a look further down on page two:

"$5.1 billion for the Department of Homeland Security to secure the homeland and promote economic activity."

Would the bolded-red phrase be a huge stimulus gift of red roses to all the staff at the Pentagon? We can guess no but it's vague.

Just like the word "others". Is that money listed on the actual bill attached to peoples' names or groups' names? I'm guessing yes.

Why aren't they included in this fabulous looking article about the bill?

Talk radio often times digs in and tells us. No, not in the perfect format that is shown to us in US News but they often times get us to dig further.

Some things are bogus and some things are not.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Didn't happen? The growth from 2003-2006 was quite brisk, third quarter 2003 after the cut was phenomenal. Negative growth didn't happen until third quarter 2007.

We discussed this same thing back then. Cited were the Kennedy tax cuts and the resulting upturn. Who was it who also reminded what happened many years later because of those Kennedy tax cuts? Recession.

Deja vue. Tax cuts only for the rich have contributed to an economic malaise. When the first tax cuts started a recession, they used more tax cuts to mask the inevitable. Welcome to an economy created by Cheney's tax cuts.

Tax cuts are based on the theory that free money can cure all economic ills. But as predicted when we had this same discussion, free government money would make the economy get better (it did not boom - just improved). And now we must pay for all that free money with recession. Those who ignored the history of those Kennedy tax cuts are doomed to repeat it - and still deny it?

Bottom line - the Dow is lower than it was when George Jr entered office because he tried to fix the economy by throwing money at it while stifling innovation. We can expect his 'throw money at problems like a grenade' economics to cause a 36% drop in American incomes after causing the average American income to drop 2% over his past eight years. You would call that a better economy?

Most of the mid 2000s growth was fictitious paper growth and years of deregulation - Enron accounting was alive and well. Ie housing prices increased 40% too high. Assets attached to nothing real. Instant wealth when war consumes capital (that causes massive recessions four and seven years later ie Vietnam). Wealth created by putting more people deeper in the debtor column. Massive wealth converging on the rich. Economic numbers 'looked' better because the average American was spending 140% of his disposable income rather than 80% in order to 'keep up' and because money was so cheap (interest rates). More money spent on consumption rather than productive R&D and innovations. Numbers look good when real economic growth did not exist.

Average American incomes dropping by 2% while "Reagan proves that deficits don't matter" - destroying the Clinton balanced budget to have a drunken party and call that economic growth? Now we pay for his economic policies and tax cuts. Bottom line - growth finishes massively negative compared to world standards. Government throwing money like a grenade created minor economic improvements in those cited early years followed by much larger losses later.

"The only tax cut is one that cuts spending". An economic reality that George Jr has now proven but again.

Unfortunately, in making concessions to Republicans, the so called stimulus plan is now something like 42% tax cuts. That is the equivalent of requiring everyone to replant their lawns every year – another law that can create economic growth according to the numbers UT was citing. Those tax cuts mean the recession will be longer and worse years later into the next decade. Who noted what happened to the economy after those Kennedy tax cuts created a temporary boom? Deja vue. We see the resuting economics turmoil again because of tax cuts and other money games.

Originally Posted by Redux

But in case where we are now after the $1.8 trillion in tax cuts?

Where it was predicted back in early 2000 when the full story of the Kennedy tax cuts were cited. "Only tax cut is one that cuts spending". Otherwise any gains are more than destroyed by the resulting recession. Money can never solve economic problems despite the many who even cited Kennedy tax cuts to justify George Jr's same economic solutions. Unfortunately, the myth continues to be promoted by politicians who work to prolong the inevitable recession.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Didn't happen? The growth from 2003-2006 was quite brisk, third quarter 2003 after the cut was phenomenal. Negative growth didn't happen until third quarter 2007. It wasn't Clinton- or Reagan-era growth, but it was growth for sure. Unemployment dropped from 6% when the 03 tax cut happened to 4.5 by 2007.

But wasn't that a house of cards built on irrational exuberance and carefully orchestrated fraud?

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

But wasn't that a house of cards built on irrational exuberance and carefully orchestrated fraud?

YATTA, BITCHES!

Make no mistake, we are experiencing the beginning of the worst economic times since the dustbowl. Possibly worse, if you want the truth.

But people don't want the truth, do they? The wheels have fallen off the monster truck of state, but since we're still sliding on the chassis rather than rolling over, everyone pretends that things aren't that bad. The band is still playing, so we can all rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic, and pretend that the band will play on.

Well, wake the fuck up. Things really ARE that bad...the lights are going out all over the world, and nobody knows when - or if - they will ever come on again. The proof of this was listening to that waterhead Paulson at the Fed babble on last month about how the recovery will begin in the second half of the fiscal year. Now, how the FUCK would he know that? He doesn't. He's making a prediction that sounds reassuring, but is far enough out that he assumes nobody will remember it when summer rolls around, the harvest is in...and we are not saved.

Herbert Hoover said the same thing, back at the beginning of 1932: "Prosperity is right around the corner". As a note to those of you who don't study Doom, 1932/33 was the worst fiscal year of the depression.

The worst part about this is that the problem WAS fixable. The bailout was intended to allow the banks to steal capital from us, so they could loan money (specifically, OUR money to US). Our economy functions on lines of credit, and all that was required to turn this from disaster to a mere recession was for them to actually LOAN THAT MONEY OUT. However, thanks to a weak-sister congress, the language of the bailout bill changed it instead into a massive giveaway with no accountability. The bankers took the money, smiled, and then wrote themselves some bonus checks and used the rest of the money, apparently, to buy up assets. When asked about it, they laughed in congress' face, and told them that they don't have to tell anyone where the money went, and by the way, give us the other $350 Bn, please.

Well, I have something to say to those bankers. Something that should have been said long ago, when they first refused to renegotiate the toxic mortgages that started this whole mess. Listen closely, my fat larcenous friends, for this is very, very important:

WE WILL FUCKING EAT YOU.

That's right. I, for one, will not starve because of your greed. When the deal goes South and it all comes crashing down, I will eat you before I starve. I will use your skull as a wine glass. I will gnaw on your bones with my very own teeth.

My son informs me that eating people is actually very unhealthy. Something about "prions" and mad cow disease. But what does he know? He hasn't been around long enough to really understand DOOM. He lives at that wonderful age of 15, where Really Bad Things happen to other people, and tomorrow's biggest worry is whether or not he'll get to feel up Suzy Rottencrotch under the bleachers during the homecoming game.

Well, I'll ask him again, in a few years, after the lights have gone out and the coyotes begin eying us with interest. When he's learned how to make fuel out of alcohol, and we all live by pillaging those who still try to stand still and grow things. Bankers will be a rare delicacy by then; no longer low hanging fruit dangling from the light poles.

Be warned. The easy times, the years of light and prosperity are behind us, brought low by the same greed and stupidity that has plagued the human race since Og the Caveman decided to corner the market on edible berries. Rough times are ahead, and even if we DON'T get to eat bankers, we can at least stockpile A1 Sauce.

Or kill me.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by TGRR

snip~ The bailout was intended to allow the banks to steal capital from us, so they could loan money (specifically, OUR money to US). Our economy functions on lines of credit, and all that was required to turn this from disaster to a mere recession was for them to actually LOAN THAT MONEY OUT. ~snip

I didn't think they we going to lend that money(ours) out.
I thought they would use that money(ours) as collateral so they could borrow more money(ours) from the Fed at 0% interest, and loan it out(to us) at 5% to 29% interest.
Then when we pay that money back, the banks could pay back the Fed(us), pocket the interest to pay back the bailout(to us), and pay their green's fees.
No?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Didn't happen? The growth from 2003-2006 was quite brisk, third quarter 2003 after the cut was phenomenal. Negative growth didn't happen until third quarter 2007. It wasn't Clinton- or Reagan-era growth, but it was growth for sure. Unemployment dropped from 6% when the 03 tax cut happened to 4.5 by 2007.

Clinton created a much better economy than Bush did, and he raised taxes. You can't really compare this economy to that of the early 2000's. It's different in too many ways.

Also, I remember hearing (no I don't have a citation) during much of the past few years that the unemployment was actually worse than the numbers, because of people whose unemployment had run out, or who were working part time, not being counted. Bush did have a tendency to flub the numbers, or change the wording so things appeared better than they were, in order to support his agenda.