Will Obamacare Destroy the Democrats?

@slkshock7,

Quote:

That wasn't difficult....after about 10 minutes of googling.

10 minutes? Either you aren't very good with Google or you were hard pressed to find them.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Very nice red herring...but hypocrisy on other people's parts is hardly relevant to the discussion. And it certainly doesn't take anything away from my assertion that the ARRA is a huge waste of taxpayer dollars, likely causing more harm than good.

2 Replies

@slkshock7,

slkshock7 wrote:

Very nice red herring...but hypocrisy on other people's parts is hardly relevant to the discussion. And it certainly doesn't take anything away from my assertion that the ARRA is a huge waste of taxpayer dollars, likely causing more harm than good.

At least 1/3rd of the ARRA wasn't a waste of taxpayer dollars, by definition, as it consisted of tax cuts. I assume as a card-carrying Republican that you were in fact FOR that part of it?

You guys always seem to forget that Obama signed a bill that included over 250 billion dollars in tax cuts.

The purpose of the stim bill was to help the economy stay afloat; it did so. You now are making an unprovable, unsupportable assertion that the economy would have done just fine (or better, lol) without it.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@slkshock7,

It's nice that you think tax cuts are a waste of taxpayer dollars slk.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo wrote:

As for the stim bill, part of the purpose was to create jobs; the other 2 legs of it were, per wikipedia:

Quote:

The stimulus was intended to create jobs and promote investment and consumer spending during the recession.

2 out of 3 ain't bad.

You seem to pretend that it was NOTHING but a jobs bill, and that's simply false. It's just the metric that looks the worst right now, so you have latched right on to it in order to attack your political opponents. If the jobs situation was looking good, you would simply search for something else to criticize.

yes, 2 out 3 ain't bad, but without jobs, the ARRA is a failure...there's no disagreement about that except in the rose-colored glasses of the Dems.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo wrote:

The purpose of the stim bill was to help the economy stay afloat; it did so.

And you now are making an unprovable, unsupportable assertion that the economy wouldn't have done just fine (or better, lol) without it.

1 Reply

@slkshock7,

Quote:

yes, 2 out 3 ain't bad, but without jobs, the ARRA is a failure...there's no disagreement about that except in the rose-colored glasses of the Dems.

So you assert. But your assertion alone does not mean that it is a failure.

The fact that our economy didn't slide into another depression is a success in itself.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@slkshock7,

slkshock7 wrote:

Cyclo wrote:
The purpose of the stim bill was to help the economy stay afloat; it did so.

And you now are making an unprovable, unsupportable assertion that the economy wouldn't have done just fine (or better, lol) without it.

There is no evidence, none whatsoever, to show that the economy would have done better without the stim bill. None. I dare you to even attempt to present some. It doesn't even make logical sense. I get the feeling that you have very little actual knowledge of how the stim monies were spent or how many jobs it helped save at the State level.

You know for a fact that I can provide evidence showing the opposite, that it helped businesses and states stay afloat over the last year. So you're sort of blown on this aspect of the argument.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo wrote:

You know for a fact that I can provide evidence showing the opposite, that it helped businesses and states stay afloat over the last year

Have at it...I won't hold my breath...

1 Reply

@slkshock7,

slkshock7 wrote:

Cyclo wrote:
You know for a fact that I can provide evidence showing the opposite, that it helped businesses and states stay afloat over the last year

Have at it...I won't hold my breath...

You don't have to.

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2010/03/what_do_busines.html

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2010/03/wsjcounterfact.gif

The WSJ survey of economists forecasts much lower growth in GDP and more jobs lost if there was no stim bill, which is the consistent mainstream position amongst economists on this issue.

Also, do you really need me to present evidence that the stim bill lead to construction projects being done? You know that they are being done. Do you think those jobs just magically would have happened without the bill?

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Even Harvard economist Martin Feldstein, a very highly regarded conservative economist (he was chief of Reagan's counsel of economic advisors), came out in favor of the stimulus plan, although he disagreed with aspects of it. In January of this year, he also said he thought it was working and had helped to get the economy out of the recession.

Quote:

“I supported the idea we needed to have a fiscal stimulus, somewhat to the dismay of my conservative friends,” Feldstein said Sunday at a meeting of the American Economic Association in Atlanta. But the design of the stimulus was put in the hands of congress and it was poorly done, which meant it “delivered much less” in actual stimulus than its nearly $800 billion price tag suggested it should. While the stimulus has helped push the economy out of recession so far, other negative forces still at play raise questions about the effort’s ultimate durability. “There is a significant risk the economy could run out of steam sometime in 2010,” Feldstein warned.
http://www.businessinsider.com/martin-feldstein-congress-blew-the-stimulus-recovery-may-falter-in-2010-2010-1

Feldstein is still portending possible gloom and doom, he's saying the stimulus could have been better, and trouble might lie ahead. But he's also saying we needed to have a fiscal stimulus, and that it, "has helped push the economy out of recession so far". And that's from a very conservative economist, and one who was Reagan's chief advisor.

It's also hard to deny that today's jobs report is good news. Of course unemployment is still too high, but at least jobs are finally being created and people are being hired. Let's hope the trend continues, and there is no strong reason to feel it won't. Partisan bickering aside, we should all want to see more jobs created. We should all be be feeling happy about any positive signs in the economy. We should all have felt good about today's new job numbers.

I also suspect that, now that health care is out of the way, Obama will focus even more on the unemployment situation.

0 Replies

firefly wrote:

That's one reason why health care reform had to be done now, while the Democrats had the votes to do it.
*****************************
Yes and in Newsweek Magazine an article by Howard Fineman under the heading The Numbers Dont Lie, dated April 1st,2010, FIneman tells of a Democrat Senator who would not agree with you--

He said to Fineman that he reluctantly voted for the health-care bill out of loyalty to his party...but he privately complained that the measure was POLITICAL FOLLY, in part of the way it goes into effect--some taxes first, most benefits later, and rate hikes by insurance companies in between.

I think, firefly, that the Democrat Senator referred to above would not agree with you on your opinion that the health care reform had to be done now.

0 Replies

Firefly wrote:

slkshock7, wasn't it that kind of thinking, on the part of Republicans, that contributed to the Great Depression, and the Republicans' inability to deal with it--and consequently kept the Republicans out of the White House for 20 years?
********************

No, if that kind of thinking contributed to the Great Depression, it is clear that FRD's New Deal only exacerbated it. Do some reading about the Great Depression and you will find that it lasted at least five years and that there was a second mini Depression within the Great Depression of 1932-33--the Depression of 1937 and 1938--all due to FDR's attempt to punish Business( just as Obama is doing)

0 Replies

firefly wrote the quote below by Martin Feldman:

Martin Feldman( who knows fifty times more about the stimulus package that the Cyclops

“I supported the idea we needed to have a fiscal stimulus, somewhat to the dismay of my conservative friends,” Feldstein said Sunday at a meeting of the American Economic Association in Atlanta. But the design of the stimulus was put in the hands of congress and it was poorly done, which meant it “delivered much less” in actual stimulus than its nearly $800 billion price tag suggested it should. While the stimulus has helped push the economy out of recession so far, other negative forces still at play raise questions about the effort’s ultimate durability. “There is a significant risk the economy could run out of steam sometime in 2010,” Feldstein warned.
http://www.businessinsider.com/martin-feldstein-congress-blew-the-stimulus-recovery-may-falter-in-2010-2010-1

Note- slkshock--"The stimulus, says Feldman, was poorly done

note- Cyclopian one--It delivered "much less in actual stimulus than its nearly $800 Billion price tag suggested it should.

Note-slkshock--"While the stimulus has helped push the economy out of recession so far, OTHER NEGATIVE FORCES STILL AT PLAY R A I S E Q U E S T I O N S ABOUT THE EFFORT'S ULTIMATE DURABILITY,"

************************************************************************

Cyclops obviously has not read Feldman. Pity because Feldman comes from a real college-Harvard--not the blob of excrement called Berkeley!

0 Replies

I invite everyone to use Cyclops' link and to read the reactions of some of the readers to the phony and misleading graph posted by Cyclops.

Here was a typical comment from a WSJ source after the graph was posted-
quote
Let's see what the stimulus has really given us. Great news from the big three!

From Bloomberg:

The proportion of Americans who can’t find work is likely to “remain elevated for an extended period,” Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, White House budget director Peter Orszag and Christina Romer, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, said in a joint statement. The officials said unemployment may even rise “slightly” over the next few months as discouraged workers start job-hunting again.

http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/tg589.htm
***********************************************************************
Geithner, Orszag and Romer----Cyclops not even mentioned!!!

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Also, do you really need me to present evidence that the stim bill lead to construction projects being done? You know that they are being done. Do you think those jobs just magically would have happened without the bill?

Cycloptichorn

Yes, it might be a useful exercise for you to find one. The stimulus was a mixed bag of tricks using the government's ability to borrow to finance accelerated spending by various government agencies and to temporarily delay the day of reckoning for state and local governments burdened with overpaid, often unionized brueaucracies and excessive (and largely unfunded) pension liabilities.

While there was undoubtedly some continuation of government construction projects as a result of the bill, they were very small in proportion to the money spent, precisely because the largely unionized government brueaucracies move so slowly and absorb such a large fraction of the money they get. About a third of the stimulus money went to various grants to state governments. Now with the Federal grants running out, state and local governments are increasingly in financial crisis. Increasing shares of their budgets are going to finance Federally mandated increases in the scope of Medicaid coverage (and not paid for in the Federal legislation), and revenues from property, sales and income taxes are down. Ironically the Federal government has unilaterally added as much or more financial liability to the states than it relieved in the much touted "stimulus".

The added burden of government debt will be a drag on our economy for years, though no one will count that as an effect of the stimulus. Shortsighted (and cynical) politicians will (and are) claiming credit for the short term and largely illusory effects of added government spending while carefully evading accountability for the long term cost and damage. Their credulous claques (such as yourself) add to the noise and distraction by touting their deception.

1 Reply

The most important part of George OB's post was, in my estimation, his comment about the long term cost and damage. Where will the money for the Stimulus come from? Is it true that the total tax burden to the American Taxpayer( local, state and federal) will be around 45%? What will happen if, as someone suggested, the USA would lose its AAA rating?

Cyclops thinks that Obama can spend money with impunity. He cannot and even John Kennedy indicated that the best way for the Treasury to gather more funds was to lower taxes.

Since Obama is a re-distributionist, he would never lower taxes. He is aware that the upper fifty percent of US tax payers give the Federal Government about 96% of the tax proceeds. They will, of course, pay for this failed stimulus. One of the outcomes following these confiscatory taxes will be that small businesses together with large corporations will notice that their bottom lines will be severely impacted by the abortive Stimulus Package and Obamacare. Cuyclops does not know, because he has not done research on the Great Depression, that the response of businesses, big and small, to confiscatory tax rates, will be to limit their growth and to hedge their bets. This will not cause Employment to rise.

The Democrats will be in big trouble on Novermber 2nd, 2010.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo
From the article you referenced:

WSJ wrote:

The survey respondents broadly agreed. When asked which government policies played the biggest role in resuscitating the U.S. economy, 25 respondents chose low interest rates and 13 said it was the central bank's purchases of Treasurys and mortgages. Eight cited the bank stress tests and related capital-raising by banks. Just three said the stimulus played the biggest role.

That last sentence refutes everything you claim.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

The added burden of government debt will be a drag on our economy for years, though no one will count that as an effect of the stimulus. Shortsighted (and cynical) politicians will (and are) claiming credit for the short term and largely illusory effects of added government spending while carefully evading accountability for the long term cost and damage. Their credulous claques (such as yourself) add to the noise and distraction by touting their deception.

Sorry to say that I trust the word of professional economists over that of partisan posters on a message board, George. This is a political position you've taken, not an informed economic one. The effects of the bill certainly were not 'illusory' as you've written here; surveys of economists, like the one I posted above, contradict this idea. Not only that, a simple google search provides dozens and dozens of current articles about construction projects which are being funded by the Stim bill. Construction is probably the weakest area of our economy at this point and these monies are definitely helping companies stay afloat. One of my former employers, a sheet-metal bending company in Houston, is definitely staying in business due to the Stim bill.

It's easy to call these things illusory and unnecessary when you're a rich dude who doesn't give a **** what happens. You've stated here before that if things go south, you're just as likely to move to Ireland and live out your days in quiet comfort. That isn't a luxury that most have, so pardon us if we like our government to take steps to try and keep a worse recession or depression from happening.

I would also add that tax cuts and debt-financed wars add as much long-term drag on the economy as the Stim bill, yet none of you so-called deficit hawks gave a **** back when Bush was enacting these policies. This is another reason why your newfound concern rings so false.

I think you're still a little pissy about being wrong on the healthcare issue, personally Laughing

You may want to wait a little longer before declaring your opponents dead next time.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@slkshock7,

slkshock7 wrote:

Cyclo
From the article you referenced:

WSJ wrote:

The survey respondents broadly agreed. When asked which government policies played the biggest role in resuscitating the U.S. economy, 25 respondents chose low interest rates and 13 said it was the central bank's purchases of Treasurys and mortgages. Eight cited the bank stress tests and related capital-raising by banks. Just three said the stimulus played the biggest role.

That last sentence refutes everything you claim.

No, it does not. Just because an economist thinks that low interest rates helped more then the stim bill did, doesn't mean that they didn't think the stim bill helped as well. The two ideas are not contradictory.

C'mon, this is elementary logic, I shouldn't have to point stuff like this out to you.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Will Obamacare Destroy the Democrats?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know