"Recovery Summer"

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Many rational cases can be CONJECTURED. What is EVIDENT is the current deficit.

Without an understanding of why we have the current deficits we do how can you judge who's better suited to set future policy? The argument isn't that the current deficits are a good thing.

A strong military is not only an entitlement of the Federal Government, it is one of the few responsibilities granted by the Constitution, as opposed to the many unconstitutional responsibilities it has usurped from the states and the people and which are the major, if not sole, reason for the massive national debt.

I never said we shouldn't have a strong military, rather that that entitlement has been distorted.

This is a matter that, constitutionally should be left to the States to criminalize and prosecute.

I'm not sure that's really practical, for instance with environmental issues especially you have waterways and air that's shared across the entire country. Should Alabama eliminate clean air standards to attract coal fired power companies then let their methyl mercury blow over to Georgia?

Unequal and confiscatory style taxes without the consent of the taxed is a consfiscation of property and an abrogation of the property rights intended and garanteed by the Constitution. This can be applied to groups, corporations, or individual citizens. Which is why it is so pathetic, unprincipled, and uncostitutional to tax "the rich" at a higher rate than others under the guise of being "fair." To say they should pay a higher rate because they can afford it is to deny equal protection of the law, and if it is by fiat, without their consent, it is absolute confiscation of property.

The context here isn't about progressive taxation but rather the impact corporate tax rates have on where companies do business.

Taxes and regualtion nor complaining about them won't "help" us. Only maintaing or reviving our freedom to strive and to gain from profit motives and motives to acquire and keep property will help all in a world market place

Rather than regulation and taxation I see unpredictability as a bigger disincentive to investment right now. Companies who weathered the recession are sitting on piles of cash because they don't want to risk a lack of short-term credit disrupting operations like it did in 2008. Would a government free private sector provide a more predictable environment? Now that would certainly be conjecture...

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Without an understanding of why we have the current deficits we do how can you judge who's better suited to set future policy? The argument isn't that the current deficits are a good thing.


I didn't judge who's better suited to set future policy. It is irrelevant to judge what policy McCain would have set. The policies that are actually being set are reality. To compare them with conjectural policies that might have been set by the unelected candidate is a common trick to deflect from the matter at hand. As for an understanding of why we have massive current deficits and a massive national debt, as I said, the major, if not sole reason, is the Federal Government's usurpation of power and therefore responsibility to do things not delegated to it but reserved to the States and the people.

I never said we shouldn't have a strong military, rather that that entitlement has been distorted.

What has been distorted is the power of the Central Government and its unconstitutional intrusion into areas of governing and regulation not granted to it.

I'm not sure that's really practical, for instance with environmental issues especially you have waterways and air that's shared across the entire country. Should Alabama eliminate clean air standards to attract coal fired power companies then let their methyl mercury blow over to Georgia?

Your assuming that Alabama and it's citizens believe that methyl mercury is suitable to breath in Alabama--that noone in Alabama will sue the polluters nor that Alabaman legislators, lawyers, enraged and poisoned citizens would not care enough about their own health to demand that companies not pollute Alabama air.

The context here isn't about progressive taxation but rather the impact corporate tax rates have on where companies do business.

The context was "We can justify higher corporate taxes . . ." To do what? To pay for government programs that the Federal Government is not constitutionally allowed to create? Which is the same reason for "progressively" higher tax rates of individuals--all under the ruse that these taxes will only affect corporations and the rich, but won't affect the poor and middle class. Ha-ha. Of course it will in higher prices, lost jobs, lost businesses, lost investment, lost freedom, further departure from constitutional government, etc., etc.

Rather than regulation and taxation I see unpredictability as a bigger disincentive to investment right now. Companies who weathered the recession are sitting on piles of cash because they don't want to risk a lack of short-term credit disrupting operations like it did in 2008. Would a government free private sector provide a more predictable environment? Now that would certainly be conjecture...

-spence

Neither I, nor anyone I know, are anarchists. The Constitution is not an anarchistic manifesto. It mandates that we govern ourselves--individually, locally, by State, and by the Central Government in limited select functions granted to it by consent of the governed--all with the intent that the individual will be protected from the tyranny of the majority. What is most unpredictable and uncertain, is an over-arching Central Government that constantly expands its power over States, localities, and individuals in unrelenting various ways that were not granted to it. And there is great uncertainty in those sitting on loads of cash as to what direction or new tax or tax rate that has no principalled or constitutional reason, that this Central Government will create.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Without an understanding of why we have the current deficits we do how can you judge who's better suited to set future policy? The argument isn't that the current deficits are a good thing.

The "argument"...or original statement by you was

Originally Posted by spence
1) According to the CBO the Stimulus has had a large beneficial impact and by the reckoning of many may have averted a much bigger economic meltdown. People will debate this forever.
...............
and has morphed into..................
Originally Posted by spence

That McCain would have had a massive (i.e. 1T++) 2009 budget deficit is neither speculation or conjecture. Look at the numbers.

one has nothing to do with the other and the second is irrelevent while the first is completely ridiculous....."reckoning of many"?..."may have averted"??..."large beneficial impact"???????....talk about speculation and conjecture

I never said we shouldn't have a strong military, rather that that entitlement has been distorted. by spence


ENTITLEMENT???....there's plenty of "distorted entitlement" to talk about without lumping the military in

by spence
I'm not sure that's really practical, for instance with environmental issues especially you have waterways and air that's shared across the entire country. Should Alabama eliminate clean air standards to attract coal fired power companies then let their methyl mercury blow over to Georgia?


by spence
The context here isn't about progressive taxation but rather the impact corporate tax rates have on where companies do business.

the "context" is higher taxes...see next

Rather than regulation and taxation I see unpredictability as a bigger disincentive to investment right now. Would a government free private sector provide a more predictable environment? Now that would certainly be conjecture...

-spence

the "unpredictability" and disincentive to invest right now is over the uncertainty regarding future regulation and taxation and government policy and unsustainable debt

[scottw]

Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per JobThe stimulus is now causing the economy to shed jobs.
12:07 PM, Jul 3, 2011

By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON

When the Obama administration releases a report on the Friday before a long weekend, it’s clearly not trying to draw attention to the report’s contents. Sure enough, the “Seventh Quarterly Report” on the economic impact of the “stimulus,” released on Friday, July 1, provides further evidence that President Obama’s economic “stimulus” did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy, and a whole lot to stimulate the debt.


The report was written by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation), the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.

In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,” and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead.

Furthermore, the council reports that, as of two quarters ago, the “stimulus” had added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs — or 288,000 more than it has now. In other words, over the past six months, the economy would have added or saved more jobs without the “stimulus” than it has with it. In comparison to how things would otherwise have been, the “stimulus” has been working in reverse over the past six months, causing the economy to shed jobs.

Again, this is the verdict of Obama’s own Council of Economic Advisors, which is about as much of a home-field ruling as anyone could ever ask for. In truth, it’s quite possible that by borrowing an amount greater than the regular defense budget or the annual cost of Medicare, and then spending it mostly on Democratic constituencies rather than in a manner genuinely designed to stimulate the economy, Obama’s “stimulus” has actually undermined the economy’s recovery — while leaving us (thus far) $666 billion deeper in debt.

The actual employment numbers from the administration’s own Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the unemployment rate was 7.3 percent when the “stimulus” was being debated. It has since risen to 9.1 percent. Meanwhile, the national debt at the end of 2008, when Obama was poised to take office, was $9.986 trillion (see Table S-9). It’s now $14.467 trillion — and counting.

All sides agree on these incriminating numbers — and now they also appear to agree on this important point: The economy would now be generating job growth at a faster rate if the Democrats hadn’t passed the “stimulus.”

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

When the Obama administration releases a report on the Friday before a long weekend, it’s clearly not trying to draw attention to the report’s contents. Sure enough, the “Seventh Quarterly Report” on the economic impact of the “stimulus,” released on Friday, July 1, provides further evidence that President Obama’s economic “stimulus” did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy, and a whole lot to stimulate the debt.

I wonder if your author even bothered to read the actual report. You certainly didn't...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...rra_report.pdf

The analysis indicates that the Recovery Act has played a significant role in the turnaround of the economy that has occurred over the past two years. Real GDP reached its low point in the second quarter of 2009 and has been growing solidly since then, in large part because of the tax cuts and spending increases included in the Act. Employment, after falling dramatically, began to grow again on a sustained basis through 2010. As of the first quarter of 2011, the report estimates that the Recovery Act raised employment by 2.4 to 3.6 million jobs relative to what it otherwise would have been.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I wonder if your author even bothered to read the actual report. You certainly didn't...

he clearly did... "and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation)"

Quote:
The analysis indicates that the Recovery Act has played a significant role in the turnaround of the economy that has occurred over the past two years. Real GDP reached its low point in the second quarter of 2009 and has been growing solidly since then, in large part because of the tax cuts and spending increases included in the Act. Employment, after falling dramatically, began to grow again on a sustained basis through 2010. As of the first quarter of 2011, the report estimates that the Recovery Act raised employment by 2.4 to 3.6 million jobs relative to what it otherwise would have been.
-spence

I'm sure that he laughed at this part....comedy written by drunks?

who are you/they trying to kid Spence? "employment growing on a sustained basis"....HUH????
GDP growing "solidly"???..."played a significant role in the turn around"????...."raised employment"????

this is so sad and pathetic.....

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by scottw

I'm sure that he laughed at this part....comedy written by drunks?

who are you/they trying to kid Spence? "employment growing on a sustained basis"....HUH????
GDP growing "solidly"???..."played a significant role in the turn around"????...."raised employment"????

this is so sad and pathetic.....

FLOTUS is spending our money like a queen

[scottw]

"Real GDP reached its low point in the second quarter of 2009 and has been growing solidly since then, in large part because of the tax cuts and spending increases included in the Act. "



Economist: U.S. GDP growth ‘mediocre’

The U.S. GDP grew 1.9% in the first quarter of 2011, down from the 3.1% during the fourth quarter of 2010 and considerably lower than the 3.7% growth in the first quarter of 2010.


“That’s pretty mediocre growth, especially coming out of a recession,” Collins said of the GDP number.

.......................................

IMF: US GDP Growth Below 3% For Six Years Posted: June 30, 2011 at 9:02 am

It would be hard for the news about the financial status of the US to be worse. The debt cap may not be increased by August 2. Rating agencies have warned of cuts in the grade of US paper. Jobless claims have not improved. Q2 GDP was no better than 2%

The IMF has decided to pile on. It has just released its “Concluding Statement of the 2011 Article IV Mission to The United States of America”, which was finished on June 20.

The agency predicts US GDP growth will be below 3% for six years, much worse than the long-term predictions of the Administration or the Congressional Budget Office.

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

who are you/they trying to kid Spence? "employment growing on a sustained basis"....HUH????
GDP growing "solidly"???..."played a significant role in the turn around"????...."raised employment"????

The data presented in the report does indicate positive and sustained growth in both GDP and employment they attribute to the Stimulus.

Anderson doesn't seem to challenge the numbers, he just distorts them to give you a little chub. I've actually tried to follow his logic and am at a loss for how he reaches the conclusions he does...as is often the case with articles like this intended mostly for quick circulation with little nutrition.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I've actually tried to follow his logic and am at a loss for how he reaches the conclusions he does...-spence

this won't shock many here

[scottw]

[QUOTE=spence;869785]I wonder if your author even bothered to read the actual report. You certainly didn't...
SEVENTH QUARTERLY REPORT
JULY 1, 2011

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...rra_report.pdf


Quote:
The analysis indicates that the Recovery Act has played a significant role in the turnaround of the economy that has occurred over the past two years.???? Real GDP reached its low point in the second quarter of 2009 and has been growing solidly since then???????, in large part because of the tax cuts and spending increases included in the Act. Employment, after falling dramatically, began to grow again on a sustained basis through 2010?????. As of the first quarter of 2011, the report estimates that the Recovery Act raised employment(JUNE 2011 UNEMPLOYMENT DATA*
(U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS) OFFICIAL UNEMPLOYMENT: 9.2% ??????????) by 2.4 to 3.6 million jobs relative to what it otherwise would have been.

-spence

.................................................. ........................

let's compare the report...that ultimately was not worth reading... to reality

By Samuel R. Staley
The U.S. Department of Commerce released its economic growth estimates for the second quarter of 2011 and they are, well, dismal. And depressing. The economy grew just 1.3 percent from April to June of this year, well below the 2.5 percent necessary to chip away at unemployment. What’s worse, estimates of growth for the first quarter were revised downward to just 0.4 percent.

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis press release:

The increase in real GDP in the second quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from exports, nonresidential fixed investment, private inventory investment, and federal government spending that were partly offset by a negative contribution from state and local government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased.

The acceleration in real GDP in the second quarter primarily reflected a deceleration in imports, an upturn in federal government spending, and an acceleration in nonresidential fixed investment that were partly offset by a sharp deceleration in personal consumption expenditures.

The deceleration of personal consumer spending is particularly troubling for the Obama administration, since the entire stimulus package assumed that consumer spending was the key to reviving the economy. Goosing consumers would lead to long-term growth.

Moreover, a look at GDP growth since Obama took office surely has the president and his advisers worried:

2009 2nd Qtr: -0.7%
2009 3rd Qtr: 1.7%
2009 4th Qtr 3.8%
2010 1st Qtr: 3.9%
2010 2nd Qtr: 3.8%
2010 3rd Qtr: 2.5%
2010 4th Qtr: 2.3%
2011 1st Qtr: 0.4%
2011 2nd Qtr: 1.3%
first quarter 2011 were revised downward and if you follow along at all you know that the 2nd quarter will likely follow suit

Most of the growth in 2009 was independent of the government spending stimulus (and likely reflected the benefits of monetary policy and tax cuts). The economy began to sputter out around the time federal spending peaked. The emperor has no clothes.