"Recovery Summer"

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Ahh, he has an education...we'll go with intentionally manipulative then.

-spence

you are the KING of that category

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

5) Government investment in growth technologies is a good investment and something I'd like to see Obama do more of

-spence

June 26, 2011
Obama trips promote profits for his donors, not jobs for Americans
Ed Lasky

Between golf outings (13 weekends in a row), musical soirees in the East Room, fantasy basketball pickup games, and trips to fundraisers for high rollers, Obama has made numerous trips to promote so-called clean-tech energy ventures. He has touted these companies as the wave of the future and as the hope for job growth in America. However, as is true of most actions Barack Obama takes there is an ulterior motive -- and it all has to do with himself.


The Washington Post reports that the focus of these clean-energy trips have been to ventures backed by huge donors to Barack Obama:


In all, Obama has visited 22 clean-tech projects in 19 separate trips....

Republicans and outside critics also have honed in on the political connections of some companies that have received federal help. The most attention has focused on Solyndra, a Silicon Valley solar company that ran into financial trouble after receiving a $535 million federal loan guarantee commitment....

Some of the biggest investors in Solyndra, which makes easy-to-install solar panels, were venture capital funds associated with Tulsa billionaire George Kaiser, a key Obama fundraiser. Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee's subcommittee on oversight and investigations, said he is "concerned that there was a hurry to get this money out of the door and that companies and individuals that supported the president were among the beneficiaries.''(snip)

But just weeks before Obama’s arrival, the company released sobering news from independent auditors evaluating its public offering plan. PricewaterhouseCoopers said Solyndra’s losses and negative cash flow raised “substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.” The report, covered by financial media, added to doubts on Wall Street.

Solar analyst Ramesh Misra, who works for the investment firm Brigantine Advisors, was skeptical about Solyndra’s signature product. Its solar panels are composed of an array of glass tubes that are expensive to produce, causing investment advisers to question whether the product could compete with less-expensive Chinese models. Misra, who has no financial interest in Solyndra or its rivals, questioned the administration’s decision.

“To think they could compete on any basis, that took a very big leap of faith,” Misra said.

“Solyndra stands out,” agreed Robert Lahey, an analyst with Ardour Capital who added that he thinks the government took a substantial risk in backing Solyndra.

A month after Obama’s visit, the company withdrew its public offering plans. A few weeks later, congressional auditors announced that Energy Department had given favorable treatment to some loan-guarantee applicants. A Government Accountability Office report found that the department had bypassed required steps for funding awards to five applicants, including Solyndra. The GAO did not publicly identify those five in its report; the Energy Department asked that some information about companies be excluded asbusiness sensitive.


Obama began his out-of-town clean-tech travel in March 2009. At a number of the companies the president visited, there were connections - not all of them close, to be sure - to his 2008 campaign. Over the months, Obama touted a Florida's utility's electric grid project (a company in an Obama fundraiser's portfolio was doing extensive business with the project) and a Nevada company that generates emission-free power from waste heat, the warmth radiated by machines or industrial processes (an Obama fundraiser is a partner in a venture fund that has a small stake in the company).


The benefit from these travels are immense. A company cannot buy this type of public relations. After all, Obama only frees up his spare time for pleasure trips.

While Obama touts these companies as being incubators for job growth, they are failures in this regard. Clean energy does not generate many jobs at all and those that are generated are often temporary, costs taxpayers a great deal of money per job, or are jobs generated overseas since so much of the equipment being produced has a made in China or made in Europe label stamped inconspicuously on them.


definitely need more of this

[justplugit]

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.

2) The projected budget deficits and National debt were caused by both parties. Personally I don't see any solution that doesn't involve both spending cuts and increased taxes.

3) A big reason the unemployment rate isn't dropping further is simply because American businesses have become more productive and the explosive growth that fuels rapid hiring is happening in other parts of the world. This isn't just because we've "shipped jobs overseas", it's because the hiring is taking place close to the action, just like it did in the US in the 1990s.

4) These emerging nations will gradually help the US economy

5) Government investment in growth technologies is a good investment and something I'd like to see Obama do more of

-spence

#1 your right Spence, people will debate this forever because it is also
speculative and conjecture.

#2 Agree it was caused by both parties, however imho spending cuts,
10% across the board, except military, as a start and TAX CUTS for small and medium size business will help with unemployment.

#3 That makes sense. However, sending jobs overseas started 35
years ago as high taxes and government over regulation is what started
the move.

#4 My Grandsons will have gray beards before emerging countries help
our US economy.

#5 Private investment in tech companies is a better route as competition
will get us there faster and the taxpayer won't have the expense of
another bureaucracy and having to pay benefits and retirement for government
employees.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Blah, blah, blah...

I've already mentioned this.

-spence

blah, blah YES....you did indeed regurgitate the lame excuses that were concocted by the NY Times....and Obama with his brilliant advisors did indeed forecast....To make the case for a big stimulus package, With the stimulus, the advisers said, unemployment would probably peak at 8 percent late this year.

but ohhhhhh....they made a boo boo...... they got all caught up in Hopey Changey

it's the baseline's fault ? didn't know the economy was that bad???...really??? did you listen to any of the rehtoric???....it was the worst EVER....till you needed this excuse..... of course....then....we didn't know it was THAT bad....

gimme a break...

Third Grade Educations or Intentionally Misleading?????

either way this is pathetic journalism .......they made a "mistake" and got a "little" carried away.....

[scottw]

Originally Posted by scottw

oops!

Forecasts for Growth Drop, Some Sharply
Published: Saturday, 25 Jun 2011 | 9:33 AM The New York Times

A drumbeat of disappointing data about consumer behavior, factory sales and weak hiring in recent weeks has prompted economists to ratchet down their 2011 economic forecasts to as little as half what they expected at the beginning of the year.

BUT DON'T WORRY

Bernanke May Try Spurring Economy by Prolonging Stimulus By Joshua Zumbrun and Steve Matthews - Jun 21, 2011 6:23 AM ET

Fed Chief Bernanke Leaves Door Open to Easing If Economy Weakens Further By Scott Lanman and Jeannine Aversa - Jun 23, 2011 12:00 AM ET .

.Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke left the door open to a fresh shot of monetary stimulus should the economic rebound he’s predicting fail to materialize.


Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

More Stimulus...More QE...That's the Ticket!!!!

Dollar seen losing global reserve status
By Jack Farchy in London

The US dollar will lose its status as the global reserve currency over the next 25 years, according to a survey of central bank reserve managers who collectively control more than $8,000bn.

More than half the managers, who were polled by UBS, predicted that the dollar would be replaced by a portfolio of currencies within the next 25 years.

That marks a departure from previous years, when the central bank reserve managers have said the dollar would retain its status as the sole reserve currency.

UBS surveyed more than 80 central bank reserve managers, sovereign wealth funds and multilateral institutions with more than $8,000bn in assets at its annual seminar for sovereign institutions last week. The results were not weighted for assets under management.

The results are the latest sign of dissatisfaction with the dollar as a reserve currency, amid concerns over the US government’s inability to rein in spending and the Federal Reserve’s huge expansion of its balance sheet.

“Right now there is great concern out there around the financial trajectory that the US is on,” said Larry Hatheway, chief economist at UBS

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by scottw

More Stimulus...More QE...That's the Ticket!!!!

"Benanke May Try Sturring Economy by Prolonging Stimulus."

Typical of the so called elite egg heads running our government.
Alot of these guys,like Bernanke, never worked in business a day in
their lifes. He's a Harvard Grad and taught at Stamford and NYU.
All theory and no practical experience or common sense.

By his theory the stimulus should have worked, but it didn't and now he
wants to do it again? Maybe it will work this time after all it is a theory.
Even if it did work it's a short term fix for a long term problem that just prolongs the problem.

He must be part of the" buy now pay later "generation. Guy gets a deal on
a $1500 suit charging it on plastic, brags about the deal, forgetting it will cost
him $2000 when and if he pays it off.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

#1 your right Spence, people will debate this forever because it is also
speculative and conjecture.

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

Look at the numbers.

#2 Agree it was caused by both parties, however imho spending cuts,
10% across the board, except military, as a start and TAX CUTS for small and medium size business will help with unemployment.

The military can easily take a 10% spending cut. The issue there is with the programs local Congress people have a desire to continue funding for. This is also a bi-partisan issue.

#3 That makes sense. However, sending jobs overseas started 35 years ago as high taxes and government over regulation is what started the move.

Globalization is what started the move. Just as manufacturing shifted to the US in the late 1800's we're pushing it onto Asia at the turn of the century.

#4 My Grandsons will have gray beards before emerging countries help our US economy.

Nope, it's already happening. I work with manufacturing companies every day in the US and the growth in Asia and BRIC countries is a huge part of their business which helps them them employ Americans.

#5 Private investment in tech companies is a better route as competition will get us there faster and the taxpayer won't have the expense of another bureaucracy and having to pay benefits and retirement for government employees.

This is a classic Keynesian scenario. The problem is that private business will almost always take the path of least resistance which means short term shareholder value. People may mock Obama wanting to invest in environmental tech that's slow to produce, but odds are the future success of America will be based on these technologies.

-spence

[striperman36]

we spent 20B Billion for a/c in Afghanistan!!

My buds don't get that.

[justplugit]

[QUOTE=spence;868764]That McCain would have had a massive (i.e. 1T++) 2009 budget deficit is neither speculation or conjecture.

Look at the numbers.

IF THERE ARE FACTUAL NUMBERS, WHY THE DEBATE?


The military can easily take a 10% spending cut. The issue there is with the programs local Congress people have a desire to continue funding for. This is also a bi-partisan issue.

YA SURE, WITH WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE MID EAST, THE NEED FOR NEW SOPHISTCATED WEAPONS TO FIGHT TERRORISM AND CHINA BUILDING UP IT'S MILITARY AND BUIDING CARRIERS WE SHOULD CUT BACK ON MILITARY SPENDING ?


Globalization is what started the move. Just as manufacturing shifted to the US in the late 1800's we're pushing it onto Asia at the turn of the century.

OUR PUSHING INTO ASIA MAY BE THE FIRST YOU'VE SEEN IN YOUR LIFTIME,
BUT COMPANIES STARTED MOVING FROM STATE TO STATE THEN OUT OF
THE COUNTRY 35 YEARS AGO BECAUSE OF GOVT. REGULATION AND TAXES.


Nope, it's already happening. I work with manufacturing companies every day in the US and the growth in Asia and BRIC countries is a huge part of their business which helps them them employ Americans.

WHERE CAN I FIND THESE FACTS AND FIGURES.


This is a classic Keynesian scenario. The problem is that private business will almost always take the path of least resistance which means short term shareholder value. People may mock Obama wanting to invest in environmental tech that's slow to produce, but odds are the future success of America will be based on these technologies.

YA MEAN LIKE HOW SILICONE VALLEY COMPANIES WERE LOOKING FOR SHORT TERM SHARE HOLDER VALUE WHEN THEY CREATED HIGH TECH?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Globalization is what started the move. Just as manufacturing shifted to the US in the late 1800's we're pushing it onto Asia at the turn of the century.

This is a classic Keynesian scenario. The problem is that private business will almost always take the path of least resistance which means short term shareholder value. People may mock Obama wanting to invest in environmental tech that's slow to produce, but odds are the future success of America will be based on these technologies.

-spence

manufacturing didn't "shift" to the US in the late 1800's, mechanization allowed American businessmen and inventors and investors to create American jobs and expand industry and fill the growing demands here and elsewhere...and it happened without Obama "investing" in anything...go figure

saying it "shifted" suggests that we recieved it or it was sent here from somewhere else...we created, we expanded..it's what we do...and I'm sorry, the "future success of America" will NOT be based on environmental tech...the only thing that you got right is that it is very slow to produce, if at all...particularly with Obama(GOVERNMENT) picking winners and losers...ask Spain the future success of America will be based on private business creating and innovating and filling demands without the big hand of Statist Central Planners determining, directing and taxing their every step....
............................


The problem is that private business will almost always take the path of least resistance which means short term shareholder value.
-spence

yeah, that private business is just a menace....

[scottw]

Originally Posted by scottw

manufacturing didn't "shift" to the US in the late 1800's, mechanization allowed American businessmen and inventors and investors to create American jobs and expand industry and fill the growing demands here and elsewhere...and it happened without Obama "investing" in anything...go figure

saying it "shifted" suggests that we recieved it or it was sent here from somewhere else...we created, we expanded..it's what we do...and I'm sorry, the "future success of America" will NOT be based on environmental tech...the only thing that you got right is that it is very slow to produce, if at all...particularly with Obama(GOVERNMENT) picking winners and losers...ask Spain the future success of America will be based on private business creating and innovating and filling demands without the big hand of Statist Central Planners determining, directing and taxing their every step....
............................


The problem is that private business will almost always take the path of least resistance which means short term shareholder value.
-spence

yeah, that private business is just a menace....

State Taxpayers May Eat $1.6 Million Loan for Defunct Green Bus Company
By Tom Gantert - Michigan Capitol Confidential – 06/20/2011

In September of 2009, Fisher Coachworks was mentioned in a press release from Gov. Jennifer Granholm as a “green technology” company that was part of the “new energy economy for Michigan.” Two years later, the state says Fisher Coachworks is out of business and the state has to write off $1.6 million it loaned the electric bus manufacturing company.

Edgar Benning, general manager of Flint’s Mass Transportation Authority, said in an email that Fisher Coachworks went out of business in the development phase of making two $1.1 million electric buses that Flint was going to purchase with grants from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, commonly referred to as the “stimulus plan.”

Fisher Coachworks officials could not be reached for comment.

Michael Psarouthakis, vice president of business acceleration for the Michigan Economic Development Corp., said Fisher Coachworks would not repay $1.6 million in loans it had received from the state. The MEDC had approved Fisher Coachworks for a $2.6 million loan, but never gave out the final $1 million because the company was struggling, Psarouthakis said.

“It was clear that they were going to have some serious financial difficulties even with our funding,” Psarouthakis said. “They needed significant funding above and beyond that.”

James Hohman, assistant director of fiscal policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, said some green energy companies wouldn’t make it without government aid.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by scottw

the future success of America will be based on private business creating and innovating and filling demands without the big hand of Statist Central Planners determining, directing and taxing their every step.....

You can take that to the bank.

[RIJIMMY]

The problem is that private business will almost always take the path of least resistance which means short term shareholder value.
-spence

I really cant believe you said that.


Oh and by the way......
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Unemployment rates rose last month in more than half of the nation's largest metro areas, driven higher by weak private-sector hiring and natural disasters.

The unemployment rate increased in 210 metro areas in May, the Labor Department said Wednesday. It fell in 131 cities and remained unchanged in 37. That's a sharp reversal from April, when unemployment rates dropped in more than 90 percent of metro areas.

Nationwide, the unemployment rate ticked up in May to 9.1 percent and employers added just 54,000 net jobs. Employers added an average of 220,000 jobs per month in the previous three months.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Nationwide, the unemployment rate ticked up in May to 9.1 percent and employers added just 54,000 net jobs..

I wonder what % of those 54,000 jobs were temporary summer jobs
sought by High School and College kids?

[spence]

Sorry, been down at a meeting with Disney. Be back to reject your counter arguments this weekend...

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Sorry, been down at a meeting with Disney. -spence

Fantasyland...perfect for you

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

IF THERE ARE FACTUAL NUMBERS, WHY THE DEBATE?

I'm not sure...if anyone wishes to present a rational case that McCain could have seen a dramatically smaller 2009 deficit I'd love to see it.

You'd think Scott could google something up?

YA SURE, WITH WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE MID EAST, THE NEED FOR NEW SOPHISTCATED WEAPONS TO FIGHT TERRORISM AND CHINA BUILDING UP IT'S MILITARY AND BUIDING CARRIERS WE SHOULD CUT BACK ON MILITARY SPENDING ?

I think if anything the last two wars have demonstrated that sophisticated technology has it's limits...and the billions that go into programs that never even see the battlefield is astounding.

Maintaining military superiority can still be a priority, but the idea of a strong military has almost been seen as an entitlement by Congress and a free pass to spend without fear of repercussion.

OUR PUSHING INTO ASIA MAY BE THE FIRST YOU'VE SEEN IN YOUR LIFTIME, BUT COMPANIES STARTED MOVING FROM STATE TO STATE THEN OUT OF THE COUNTRY 35 YEARS AGO BECAUSE OF GOVT. REGULATION AND TAXES.

Government regulation has certainly pushed a lot of industries out of the US, but much of this is due to environmental and other negative impacts on the voters. Industry has shown time and time again that when left alone it will pollute, exploit and take unnecessary risks all in the name of shareholder value.

This doesn't mean that business is evil, but a balance is probably in the best interest of everyone.

The US is a desirable place to do business with a history of innovation, free thinking and strong legal protection of intellectual property. We can justify higher corporate taxes, although I'd note that many multi-nationals seem to have found a way to evade a lot of their own tax burden. The effective tax rate doesn't seem to be nearly the second largest often cited.

Perhaps more importantly, lower taxes aren't always going to be a deciding factor in a global economy. Many companies want to develop products locally to suit specific tastes. With an increasing cost of energy and transportation production will be kept local as well.

I work with manufacturing companies and see many US businesses moving production back to the states as the low cost options of the past few decades are now proving to be more expensive in the end.

WHERE CAN I FIND THESE FACTS AND FIGURES.

Look at any Fortune 500 annual report and where their revenue growth is. If it wasn't for emerging nations pushing tens of millions into their own Middle Class the US economy would be a shambles right now.

YA MEAN LIKE HOW SILICONE VALLEY COMPANIES WERE LOOKING FOR SHORT TERM SHARE HOLDER VALUE WHEN THEY CREATED HIGH TECH?

I'm not sure I understand your point.

The net of all this is that competing in a global economy is going to look different than what made us so strong the previous century.

Complaining about taxes and regulation isn't going to help us when nations like Germany and China are using their governments to position their private industries on a better footing through education and incentives.

You do realize those socialists in Germany with all their high taxes and oppressive regulation export more than the USA even though their GDP is 4 times smaller?

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

I really cant believe you said that.

Why?

Oh and by the way......
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Unemployment rates rose last month in more than half of the nation's largest metro areas, driven higher by weak private-sector hiring and natural disasters.

The unemployment rate increased in 210 metro areas in May, the Labor Department said Wednesday. It fell in 131 cities and remained unchanged in 37. That's a sharp reversal from April, when unemployment rates dropped in more than 90 percent of metro areas.

Nationwide, the unemployment rate ticked up in May to 9.1 percent and employers added just 54,000 net jobs. Employers added an average of 220,000 jobs per month in the previous three months.

The unemployment rate isn't going to drop dramatically until we can create new growth industries.

Case in point. One manufacturing sub-segment (in aerospace) that I deal with is seeing a big increase in business right here in New England. Rather than add staff (i.e. burden) to meet increased demand, they're looking to apply technology to improve the productivity of the existing workforce.

So the unemployment rate stays the same, but the aerospace supplier and my company both benefit.

There's a reason to DOW is nearly 12,600 on Friday not even two years after a massive recession. But no, you just want to claim Obama is a failure.

If we could only get this government off our back...oy vey.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

There's a reason to DOW is nearly 12,600 on Friday not even two years after a massive recession. But no, you just want to claim Obama is a failure.

-spence

yeah...it's called QE2

Dow Up 20 Percent Since QE2 Began

Thursday, 30 Jun 2011 | 10:41 AM
The Federal Reserve headquarters in Washington, DC.

The market began its current rally ten months ago when Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke first hinted at a second quantitative easing (QE2) program during his speech at Jackson Hole, Wyoming on August 27:

“Notwithstanding the fact that the policy rate is near its zero lower bound, the Federal Reserve retains a number of tools and strategies for providing additional stimulus….A first option for providing additional monetary accommodation, if necessary, is to expand the Federal Reserve's holdings of longer-term securities.”

Thursday marks the end of a $600 billion bond-buying program by the Federal Reserve.

Even as the country’s unemployment levels remained high, the QE2 rally erased the market’s post-Lehman bankruptcy losses, pushing stocks all the way up to multi-year highs back in April of this year.

Sitting at those highs two months ago, the Dow had risen 28 percent from its levels prior to Chairman Bernanke’s speech, while the S&P 500 had jumped 30 percent and the Nasdaq Composite had soared 36 percent from their levels seen before the start of QE2.


Even as economic growth has shown signs of sputtering over the past couple of months, causing stocks to retreat off their April highs, the Dow and S&P are still up more than 20 percent since the end of last August.

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

Fed's Massive Stimulus Had Little Impact: Greenspan
Published: Thursday, 30 Jun 2011 | 5:24 PM ETSpecial to CNBC.com

The Federal Reserve's massive stimulus program had little impact on the U.S. economy besides weakening the dollar and helping U.S. exports, Federal Reserve Governor Alan Greenspan told CNBC Thursday.

In a blunt critique of his successor, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, Greenspan said the $2 trillion in quantative easing over the past two years had done little to loosen credit and boost the economy.

"There is no evidence that huge inflow of money into the system basically worked," Greenspan said in a live interview.

[scottw]

[QUOTE=spence;869518]You'd think Scott could google something up?

OR, I could post a lot of unsubstantiated nonsense...like you

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm not sure...if anyone wishes to present a rational case that McCain could have seen a dramatically smaller 2009 deficit I'd love to see it.

You'd think Scott could google something up?

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

I think if anything the last two wars have demonstrated that sophisticated technology has it's limits...and the billions that go into programs that never even see the battlefield is astounding.

Maintaining military superiority can still be a priority, but the idea of a strong military has almost been seen as an entitlement by Congress and a free pass to spend without fear of repercussion.

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.

Government regulation has certainly pushed a lot of industries out of the US, but much of this is due to environmental and other negative impacts on the voters. Industry has shown time and time again that when left alone it will pollute, exploit and take unnecessary risks all in the name of shareholder value.

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

This doesn't mean that business is evil, but a balance is probably in the best interest of everyone.

The US is a desirable place to do business with a history of innovation, free thinking and strong legal protection of intellectual property.

The protection of the individual right to his property was a main reason for the revolution and the Constitution

We can justify higher corporate taxes, although I'd note that many multi-nationals seem to have found a way to evade a lot of their own tax burden. The effective tax rate doesn't seem to be nearly the second largest often cited.

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.

Complaining about taxes and regulation isn't going to help us when nations like Germany and China are using their governments to position their private industries on a better footing through education and incentives.

You do realize those socialists in Germany with all their high taxes and oppressive regulation export more than the USA even though their GDP is 4 times smaller?

-spence

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

[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