stop lying, Bush Paulen plan, provide bailout $$$ and ask for no accountability. The Obama/Tim Gaitner require accountability. the result of W's job performance, as it relate tocatching bin-Laden find the WMD find the leaker of CIA agent adding honesty and integrity to the office of the Presidency fiscal responsibility rescuing Katrina victims rescruing the failing financial industry the stupidity of the comment doesn't warrant a response. can you say accountability and completeness of tasks
To be fair to T_J, I'm sure he believes we need some type of stimulus, but he's probably thinking of another type of stimulus, not deficit spending. IE Tax cuts and more incentives for small businesses and investors. That was my view back when the stimulus was introduced and I still believe it would've been more effective.
What weird form of English are you speaking? Your grammar is just horrific. It's very distracting and undermines your ability to persuade because it leads the reader to believe that you are poorly educated.
WMD, CIA, Katrina? LOL I thought we were talking about the TARP. accountability? You mean GS got their TARP funds pulled because of "accountability"?
Congress spends the money, not presidential administrations. Presidents suggest (budget), congress drafts the appropriation (spending bill). The president then must either spend the money or veto the bill. In 2008, 21% of the budget-defense spending 21% of the budget- social security 20% of the budget in 2008- Medicare, Medicaid, CHIPS 11% of the budget- food stamps, fed housing, etc 8% of the budget-pay the interest on the debt ___ 81% Which means that the government basically runs on the last 20% of the total budget. That includes everything from infrastructure to education Government is the Savior of the World
Yes... Economic stimulus is the government using fiscal policy to jump start or support an economy. Did I miss anything, professor?
And you're doing it by deliberately obscuring the context of the spending in order to create a flawed analogy. We've established this already.
I care more about the end result than how we got there. The level of deficit we are running could eventually lead to big inflation, destabilization of US currency. Which would hurt the lower income and middle class a lot more. Of course it comes to to Bush running a deficit => bad, Obama running a bigger deficit => good. Then again this is D&D, its hardly surprising.
When even Joe Biden says Obama misread the economy, then how can you guys defend this unqualified fraud? A tiny fraction of the 'stimulus bill' actually represented stimulus. Less than 10%. The rest was social programs that the libs hadn't been able to pass in years. Now you've got an Obama economic advisor saying we need ANOTHER stimulus. Here's a thought -- how about we not stimulate the further deterioration of the value of the dollar? How about we create incentives, not disincentives, to do business in the United States? How about we lower, not raise, energy costs? How about we reward success, not failure?
I hope we really cut the budget say in two years. Should we just let most of the banks and GM fail? Maybe. You can debate on how to get the country of of a recession or depression. There are two different views on the issue. Bush however did most of spending while facing none of these issues. I hope Obama keeps his promise to cut the budget. I am not sure you should ask a dying person to go on a diet.
And to be fair to the bottom line, we have to admit that tax cuts = deficit spending if you don't cut government spending simultaneously. That's where all the projected budget surplus went from 2000-2008. Not saying it's good or bad, but I don't think you can say "I favor tax cuts instead of deficit spending," without a few caveats or further explanation.
I am well aware of that, and I do agree there needs to be an accompanying cut in government spending. But even if we wanted to run a bigger deficit, more incentives towards small business and tax cuts such as capital gains would still be more effective, IMO.
This is an outrageously false statement. Why don't you back that up with some data, B-Bob? The tax cuts and low interest rates allowed the economy to recover from 9-11 and the tech bubble bursting. There were way too many exogenous events (negative in nature) for you to draw your false conclusion. As a scientist, you ought to understand this (if you are good). Bush's fiscal and monetary policies gets very little credit for stimulating the economy after 9-11 and the stock market collapse, which is a shame. It was a very effective program that produced results during a very difficult period. The libs often talk about the 8 years as if all 8 of them were horrific from an economic standpoint, but the reality is that most of them were good years. All people remember were the credit crunch/subprime slime, which wasn't the result of any Bush policy. More disingenuous garbage from the libs... I don't take my financial advice from scientists and hippies... which probably is why I have vast sums of wealth.
you're smarter than this - why do you insist on embarrassing yourself by making such an intellectuallly stunted point? Government spending and tax cuts are good and bad depending on the context , not depending on who does them. If historians said World War II was good, yet War in Iraq was bad - is that a result of them just playing partisan politics in favor of FDR, and against GWB? Because at the end of the day they were both wars, right? Or is there something else qualifying the assessment. Answer the question please. You made this same flawed argument several months ago despite every reliable piece of empirical evidence being against it - please lay out the basis for your counterintuitive proposal that tax cuts do more to stimulate the economy than spending. Have you come upon some new research in your laboratory that we should be aware of? Thanks in advance.
The majority of the stimulus money won't make its way into the economy until the end of 2010 and a big chunk of it is through it's tax credits for workers. You guys are jumping the gun a little in calling it a failure, aren't you? And if inflation is like a fever, a depression is like the plague. Inflation is the better option, it's more treatable. And yes, artificially low interest rates did help soften the tech bubble. If the administration didn't let the guys collecting the origination fees also do the loan approvals you might have had something. But in capitalism, unregulated markets are open to greed and abuse.
