The Obamanation

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

You start with growing the economy...and that has occurred for the first time in 2 years, as a result, in part, of the stimulus program.

You fail to recognize that most of the economists say it is an artifical recovery boistered by unsustainable spending.

And you still have offered nothing better and still cant explain how those 01 and 03 tax cuts at a cost of $1 trillion helped the middle class?

And you can't show where they hurt. We had more than half of the rate of unemployment at that time and people were doing fine. Anything to keep hard earned money out of the government coffers and in the pockets of those who earn it, who can make jobs with it, and put it directly back into the economy is a better plan than giving it to your party to spend whorishly on plans that have not to date and will not work. Well other than to raise our national debt.

[TheMercenary]

And this is your plan? You don't see a difference????

Even with Bush's tax cuts, federal revenues in 2007 were at the average as a percentage of GDP, 18.5 percent, going back to 1960. The deficit was just 1.2 percent of GDP, historically on the low side. Accumulated federal debt was 36 percent of GDP.

Obama proposes that the federal government spend over 25 percent of GDP in 2011, compared to a historical average of around 20.5 percent. He justifies this as necessary to continue to fight the recession.

Obama, however, projects that the recession will be fully over in 2011 and robust growth under way. Yet he proposes that federal spending continue to be nearly 24 percent of GDP through 2020.

In other words, rather than wind down the additional recession spending after recovery, Obama is proposing that it simply become a new, higher base.

After the World War II debt was reduced, accumulated federal debt never exceeded 50 percent of GDP until 2009, when it reached 53 percent. Under Obama's recommendations it would grow to 77 percent by 2020.

If Obama were to recommend a path to return spending to its historical share of economic output, in 2020 the deficit would be just $255 billion, about what the federal government spends each year on large capital projects, and just 1 percent of GDP. In other words, not a problem. And federal spending would have still increased by more than 4 percent a year since 2008.

Instead, Obama recommends a 2020 deficit of over $1 trillion and a troubling 4.2 percent of GDP.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...lt_100150.html

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

You fail to recognize that most of the economists say it is an artifical recovery boistered by unsustainable spending..

In fact, only the most conservative, supply side economists say that.

Many economists across the spectrum see the value of the stimulus plan, but disagree on the finer points.

So, in the end, your plan is more tax cuts and deficit reduction...and that, somehow, will create jobs.

Those 01 and 03 tax cuts failed to stimulate any economic growth and contributed $1 trillion to the debt.

You want more of the same and I want a different approach and I am willing to give it time to work, given that it was envisioned as a two year plan and that it has already contributed to economic growth.

*shrug* We'll just agree to disagree.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

In fact, only the most conservative, supply side economists say that.

Many economists across the spectrum see the value of the stimulus plan, but disagree on the finer points.

So, in the end, your plan is more tax cuts and deficit reduction...and that, somehow, will create jobs.

Those 01 and 03 tax cuts failed to stimulate any economic growth and contributed $1 trillion to the debt.

You want more of the same and I want a different approach and I am willing to give it time to work, given that it was envisioned as a two year plan and that it has already contributed to economic growth.

*shrug* We'll just agree to disagree.

But yet you still fail to note that the economists say the economic growth is artificial and only reflects the billions that we have poured into debt spending? Why do you ignore this fact and pretend like everything is ok? Your plan is not working.

[TheMercenary]

Trillion dollar deficits are not a solution to our financial well being as a nation. The debt has nearly doubled since Jan of 09.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Trillion dollar deficits are not a solution to our financial well being as a nation. The debt has nearly doubled since Jan of 09.

I agree..but something had to be done or the economy would have tanked even more, leading to potentially the worst depression in 75 years....very few dispute that fact....and objective observers understand that correcting a failing economy cannot happen overnight..or even in one year.

And all the critics still havent offered a better plan.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Granted. What I have said is that it is not working. And to pretend like this administration has no responsibility is equally incorrect.

I think it is worth a shot to provide $5,000 tax credit to small businesses for each new hire and using money repaid to the TARP fund to help community banks offer small-business loans through incentives to those banks.

But you have already declared this a failure.

We're not gonna agree...surprise.

[TheMercenary]

That is because any small business owner knows this is not going to make a difference in the long run. What is to prevent them from taking on a few people to get the tax break and then when it runs out just let them go as in the example I gave you?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

That is because any small business owner knows this is not going to make a difference in the long run. What is to prevent them from taking on a few people to get the tax break and then when it runs out just let them go as in the example I gave you?

I've read alot of positive feedback to the proposal from small businesses as well as skepticism from others. Generalizing doesnt really work.

And if some want to scam the system (any system) as you suggested, they will, while others will use it more constructively.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

That is because any small business owner knows this is not going to make a difference in the long run. What is to prevent them from taking on a few people to get the tax break and then when it runs out just let them go as in the example I gave you?

Because it costs more than $5000 to employ someone. They won't gain money by doing that unless they actually have profitable work for that employee to do.

Some companies may not be able to continue that employment without the extra $5000, but some will. And even for the ones who can't, they will have employed someone for the duration of the stimulus, and the person will hopefully be in the job market in a better economy. This is a job stimulus bill, after all, designed to boost the job market while the economy recovers.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Because it costs more than $5000 to employ someone. They won't gain money by doing that unless they actually have profitable work for that employee to do.

Some companies may not be able to continue that employment without the extra $5000, but some will. And even for the ones who can't, they will have employed someone for the duration of the stimulus, and the person will hopefully be in the job market in a better economy. This is a job stimulus bill, after all, designed to boost the job market while the economy recovers.

IMHO if it is not sustainable for more than one year it is a total waste of taxpayer dollars and only preventing a more meaningful recovery.

[Happy Monkey]

How does putting people to work, even if it's only for a year for some of them, prevent a more meaningful recovery?

[TheMercenary]

Because in one year they will be right back where they were again and we will have spent all that money for a non-fix. Looking at the larger issue here.

[Happy Monkey]

They won't be back where they were. Some of the people won't be fired, and even the ones who are will have had a year's worth of employment; a year's worth of income; a year off of the unemployment rolls; and a year's worth of participation in the economy.

It is to be hoped that the $5000 will buy more than that for as many as possible, but it's a good deal even if that's all it buys.

And how is any other recovery prevented by this?

So where are Merc and Classic?

They are always the first to post economic and jobs reports as soon as they are released by the govt.

But they missed the report last week on the 5.7 percent annual growth rate in the fourth quarter (of 09), the fastest pace since 2003 and the report today on the unemployment rate for Jan dropping to 9.7%. Small incremental improvements...but who can argue that they are not moving in the right direction?

Perhaps they are at the National Tea Party Convention where all the fun is.

The opening speaker at the first National Tea Party Convention called President Obama a "committed Socialist ideologue" who was elected because "we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote."

The bitching about socialism and fascism... the Nazi signs and rhetoric...the calls for the end to multi-cutluralism and the return of a literacy test for voting...the threats to take back the govt (by force, if necessary) or secede.

And the best is yet to come... tomorrow's general session on "“Correlations between the current Administration and Marxist Dictators of Latin America”...followed by Palin's $100,000 speech at the closing banquet.