Moderator: Andrew
RedWingFan wrote:7 Wishes wrote:I think you may have misunderstood, and I know you don't know the facts...yet. Here they are:
You forgot to reference your source again genius!
treetopovskaya wrote:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704533204575047713014346530.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
RossValoryRocks wrote:RedWingFan wrote:7 Wishes wrote:I think you may have misunderstood, and I know you don't know the facts...yet. Here they are:
You forgot to reference your source again genius!
He's going to come back and say the treasury department...but the info is no where to be found there...
7 Wishes wrote:For God's sake, guys, there are no less than five sources listed. Bloody hell.
Just deal with the fact that the GOP talks out of one side of its mouth. I particularly love how not ONE member of the House or Congress has mentioned the recent Tea Party...WTF?!!! Its keynote speaker says there should be literacy tests given to any prospective voters (hello, Senator Wallace)...and basically calls anyone who voted for Obama an idiot, even though he had a bigger plurality of the vote than anyone in history. Lovely. Hypocrisy and racism at its worst and mum's the word.
separate_wayz wrote:I'd like to see the evidence that government purchases have any multiplier effect whatsoever.
When Robert Barro of Harvard University took a look at non-defense, peacetime government expenditures, he got a multiplier that was insignificantly different from zero.
That's: z-e-r-o.
Meaning: government expenditures likely have *no* multiplier effect, and (even worse) crowd-out other components of GDP, like consumption, private investment, and net exports. In other words, not only is there no free lunch (i.e., a government multiplier greater than 1), government takes your lunch and eats it.
If this is true (a "multiplier" around zero), it means that private consumption, private investment and net exports can all be raised by cutting government spending, not increasing it.
(By the way .... the Obama administration is assuming a government multiplier of 1.5, meaning that every additional dollar of government expenditure raises GDP by $1.50.)
Lula wrote:separate_wayz wrote:I'd like to see the evidence that government purchases have any multiplier effect whatsoever.
When Robert Barro of Harvard University took a look at non-defense, peacetime government expenditures, he got a multiplier that was insignificantly different from zero.
That's: z-e-r-o.
Meaning: government expenditures likely have *no* multiplier effect, and (even worse) crowd-out other components of GDP, like consumption, private investment, and net exports. In other words, not only is there no free lunch (i.e., a government multiplier greater than 1), government takes your lunch and eats it.
If this is true (a "multiplier" around zero), it means that private consumption, private investment and net exports can all be raised by cutting government spending, not increasing it.
(By the way .... the Obama administration is assuming a government multiplier of 1.5, meaning that every additional dollar of government expenditure raises GDP by $1.50.)
ever hear of a little government spending program known as ww2? one third of the stimulus was tax cuts anyway. there goes that radical marxist obama trying to be bi-partisan again.
separate_wayz wrote:Lula wrote:separate_wayz wrote:I'd like to see the evidence that government purchases have any multiplier effect whatsoever.
When Robert Barro of Harvard University took a look at non-defense, peacetime government expenditures, he got a multiplier that was insignificantly different from zero.
That's: z-e-r-o.
Meaning: government expenditures likely have *no* multiplier effect, and (even worse) crowd-out other components of GDP, like consumption, private investment, and net exports. In other words, not only is there no free lunch (i.e., a government multiplier greater than 1), government takes your lunch and eats it.
If this is true (a "multiplier" around zero), it means that private consumption, private investment and net exports can all be raised by cutting government spending, not increasing it.
(By the way .... the Obama administration is assuming a government multiplier of 1.5, meaning that every additional dollar of government expenditure raises GDP by $1.50.)
ever hear of a little government spending program known as ww2? one third of the stimulus was tax cuts anyway. there goes that radical marxist obama trying to be bi-partisan again.
Robert Barro looked at the "little government spending program known as ww2" (as you call it) and concluded that when taking into account that the economy was already expanding off its low of 1933 (excepting the deep 1937-8 recession), that people adjusted expectations by believing the added wartime outlays to be partly temporary (so that consumer demand would not fall much), and that the military conscription of the Second World War had a distortionary effect on labor markets and total employment, it is entirely unreasonable to ascribe all the GDP growth during the Second World War to military expenditures. For the record, Barro looked at changes in GDP around the First World War and the Korean War as well, and didn't see any significant multiplier effects (certainly not greater than 1). In any event, today we're talking about peacetime, non-defense expenditures so the comparison is useless.
By the way, there were no "tax cuts" in the stimulus. If you're referring to the $8000 first-time home buyer tax credit, those are scored as tax expenditures. They are reductions in the tax base for specific tax subsidies (i.e., subsidies for qualified purchasers of houses).
Lula wrote:separate_wayz wrote:Lula wrote:separate_wayz wrote:I'd like to see the evidence that government purchases have any multiplier effect whatsoever.
When Robert Barro of Harvard University took a look at non-defense, peacetime government expenditures, he got a multiplier that was insignificantly different from zero.
That's: z-e-r-o.
Meaning: government expenditures likely have *no* multiplier effect, and (even worse) crowd-out other components of GDP, like consumption, private investment, and net exports. In other words, not only is there no free lunch (i.e., a government multiplier greater than 1), government takes your lunch and eats it.
If this is true (a "multiplier" around zero), it means that private consumption, private investment and net exports can all be raised by cutting government spending, not increasing it.
(By the way .... the Obama administration is assuming a government multiplier of 1.5, meaning that every additional dollar of government expenditure raises GDP by $1.50.)
ever hear of a little government spending program known as ww2? one third of the stimulus was tax cuts anyway. there goes that radical marxist obama trying to be bi-partisan again.
Robert Barro looked at the "little government spending program known as ww2" (as you call it) and concluded that when taking into account that the economy was already expanding off its low of 1933 (excepting the deep 1937-8 recession), that people adjusted expectations by believing the added wartime outlays to be partly temporary (so that consumer demand would not fall much), and that the military conscription of the Second World War had a distortionary effect on labor markets and total employment, it is entirely unreasonable to ascribe all the GDP growth during the Second World War to military expenditures. For the record, Barro looked at changes in GDP around the First World War and the Korean War as well, and didn't see any significant multiplier effects (certainly not greater than 1). In any event, today we're talking about peacetime, non-defense expenditures so the comparison is useless.
By the way, there were no "tax cuts" in the stimulus. If you're referring to the $8000 first-time home buyer tax credit, those are scored as tax expenditures. They are reductions in the tax base for specific tax subsidies (i.e., subsidies for qualified purchasers of houses).
nice to see you can copy and paste a wall street journal op-ed. your highfalutin gobbledygook notwithstanding, when the government contracts with a private company, the private sector is not crowded out. maybe in normal economic times. not during a depression when the private sector is doa. whether it's a government contract or a private contract, employees are just grateful to be able to provide for their families.
separate_wayz wrote:Lula wrote:separate_wayz wrote:Lula wrote:separate_wayz wrote:I'd like to see the evidence that government purchases have any multiplier effect whatsoever.
When Robert Barro of Harvard University took a look at non-defense, peacetime government expenditures, he got a multiplier that was insignificantly different from zero.
That's: z-e-r-o.
Meaning: government expenditures likely have *no* multiplier effect, and (even worse) crowd-out other components of GDP, like consumption, private investment, and net exports. In other words, not only is there no free lunch (i.e., a government multiplier greater than 1), government takes your lunch and eats it.
If this is true (a "multiplier" around zero), it means that private consumption, private investment and net exports can all be raised by cutting government spending, not increasing it.
(By the way .... the Obama administration is assuming a government multiplier of 1.5, meaning that every additional dollar of government expenditure raises GDP by $1.50.)
ever hear of a little government spending program known as ww2? one third of the stimulus was tax cuts anyway. there goes that radical marxist obama trying to be bi-partisan again.
Robert Barro looked at the "little government spending program known as ww2" (as you call it) and concluded that when taking into account that the economy was already expanding off its low of 1933 (excepting the deep 1937-8 recession), that people adjusted expectations by believing the added wartime outlays to be partly temporary (so that consumer demand would not fall much), and that the military conscription of the Second World War had a distortionary effect on labor markets and total employment, it is entirely unreasonable to ascribe all the GDP growth during the Second World War to military expenditures. For the record, Barro looked at changes in GDP around the First World War and the Korean War as well, and didn't see any significant multiplier effects (certainly not greater than 1). In any event, today we're talking about peacetime, non-defense expenditures so the comparison is useless.
By the way, there were no "tax cuts" in the stimulus. If you're referring to the $8000 first-time home buyer tax credit, those are scored as tax expenditures. They are reductions in the tax base for specific tax subsidies (i.e., subsidies for qualified purchasers of houses).
nice to see you can copy and paste a wall street journal op-ed. your highfalutin gobbledygook notwithstanding, when the government contracts with a private company, the private sector is not crowded out. maybe in normal economic times. not during a depression when the private sector is doa. whether it's a government contract or a private contract, employees are just grateful to be able to provide for their families.
It's always funny to hear the goofballs on here attack the messenger -- it's either "cut and paste!", or "how dare you quote Fox News!", or "you're citing a poll by Scott Rasmussen?!?" [insert audible gasp]. I summarized -- there was no cut and paste. If you want the original working paper, you can read it here, but I thought you'd need help with the big words, so I didn't quote from it. Attacking the messenger by the left-wing nut-jobs on here (and other blogs) is getting tiresome -- it doesn't change the fact that the Democratic party and this administration don't have a clue about economic policy. I do think it has to do with leftwingers unable to face reality, or deal with a challenge to their nonsense.
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/facult ... %2B_2_.pdf
(Ooops .... is that too much highfalutin gobbledygook again?)
Lula wrote:separate_wayz wrote:Lula wrote:separate_wayz wrote:Lula wrote:separate_wayz wrote:I'd like to see the evidence that government purchases have any multiplier effect whatsoever.
When Robert Barro of Harvard University took a look at non-defense, peacetime government expenditures, he got a multiplier that was insignificantly different from zero.
That's: z-e-r-o.
Meaning: government expenditures likely have *no* multiplier effect, and (even worse) crowd-out other components of GDP, like consumption, private investment, and net exports. In other words, not only is there no free lunch (i.e., a government multiplier greater than 1), government takes your lunch and eats it.
If this is true (a "multiplier" around zero), it means that private consumption, private investment and net exports can all be raised by cutting government spending, not increasing it.
(By the way .... the Obama administration is assuming a government multiplier of 1.5, meaning that every additional dollar of government expenditure raises GDP by $1.50.)
ever hear of a little government spending program known as ww2? one third of the stimulus was tax cuts anyway. there goes that radical marxist obama trying to be bi-partisan again.
Robert Barro looked at the "little government spending program known as ww2" (as you call it) and concluded that when taking into account that the economy was already expanding off its low of 1933 (excepting the deep 1937-8 recession), that people adjusted expectations by believing the added wartime outlays to be partly temporary (so that consumer demand would not fall much), and that the military conscription of the Second World War had a distortionary effect on labor markets and total employment, it is entirely unreasonable to ascribe all the GDP growth during the Second World War to military expenditures. For the record, Barro looked at changes in GDP around the First World War and the Korean War as well, and didn't see any significant multiplier effects (certainly not greater than 1). In any event, today we're talking about peacetime, non-defense expenditures so the comparison is useless.
By the way, there were no "tax cuts" in the stimulus. If you're referring to the $8000 first-time home buyer tax credit, those are scored as tax expenditures. They are reductions in the tax base for specific tax subsidies (i.e., subsidies for qualified purchasers of houses).
nice to see you can copy and paste a wall street journal op-ed. your highfalutin gobbledygook notwithstanding, when the government contracts with a private company, the private sector is not crowded out. maybe in normal economic times. not during a depression when the private sector is doa. whether it's a government contract or a private contract, employees are just grateful to be able to provide for their families.
It's always funny to hear the goofballs on here attack the messenger -- it's either "cut and paste!", or "how dare you quote Fox News!", or "you're citing a poll by Scott Rasmussen?!?" [insert audible gasp]. I summarized -- there was no cut and paste. If you want the original working paper, you can read it here, but I thought you'd need help with the big words, so I didn't quote from it. Attacking the messenger by the left-wing nut-jobs on here (and other blogs) is getting tiresome -- it doesn't change the fact that the Democratic party and this administration don't have a clue about economic policy. I do think it has to do with leftwingers unable to face reality, or deal with a challenge to their nonsense.
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/facult ... %2B_2_.pdf
(Ooops .... is that too much highfalutin gobbledygook again?)
whatever.if i recall correctly you also summarized an academic paper that proved that fox news was the most balanced news channel on tv. then 7 had to point out to you that your research paper looked at a total of just one fox news show. blindly throwing links around hoping they verify your pre-determined conclusions means nothing. once a liar always a liar. the only person on this forum with less credibility is journeytroll.
separate_wayz wrote:Yawn.
I think you just proved that you're at the bottom of the heap, Loon-a. No credibility, and no smarts (even the common sense variety).
Tell you what -- get your GED, and then we'll we'll talk, Loon-a.
Lula wrote:separate_wayz wrote:Yawn.
I think you just proved that you're at the bottom of the heap, Loon-a. No credibility, and no smarts (even the common sense variety).
Tell you what -- get your GED, and then we'll we'll talk, Loon-a.
loona? oh. i get it. because my name is lula right? don't quit your day job buddy. whatever that is. tho i'm guessing it involves knee pads, vaseline, and a security clearance for the bush family ranch.
separate_wayz wrote:Lula wrote:separate_wayz wrote:Yawn.
I think you just proved that you're at the bottom of the heap, Loon-a. No credibility, and no smarts (even the common sense variety).
Tell you what -- get your GED, and then we'll we'll talk, Loon-a.
loona? oh. i get it. because my name is lula right? don't quit your day job buddy. whatever that is. tho i'm guessing it involves knee pads, vaseline, and a security clearance for the bush family ranch.
No thanks. I'll let your mom keep the knee pads and vaseline. (She wasn't that good anyway.)
Again, I realize that you're upset that the Obama presidency (and the Democratic-socialist majority in congress) is going down the shitter, but please try to stay on topic, okey-doke?
(Did you get that GED yet? Just curious.)
Lula wrote:separate_wayz wrote:Lula wrote:separate_wayz wrote:Yawn.
I think you just proved that you're at the bottom of the heap, Loon-a. No credibility, and no smarts (even the common sense variety).
Tell you what -- get your GED, and then we'll we'll talk, Loon-a.
loona? oh. i get it. because my name is lula right? don't quit your day job buddy. whatever that is. tho i'm guessing it involves knee pads, vaseline, and a security clearance for the bush family ranch.
No thanks. I'll let your mom keep the knee pads and vaseline. (She wasn't that good anyway.)
Again, I realize that you're upset that the Obama presidency (and the Democratic-socialist majority in congress) is going down the shitter, but please try to stay on topic, okey-doke?
(Did you get that GED yet? Just curious.)
easily one of the lamest comebacks in all of mr.com history. i'll kindly ask you to refrain from pestering me again. your plagiarized inaccurate posts are simply not worth the binary code.
7 Wishes wrote:The facts show that, again and again, Republican economic policies are flat-out failures.
So you guys fuck up the economy, increase the size of the federal government, and try to impose hypocritical moral standards and religious doctrine into law...all the while claiming to be the champion of the "regular guy". Bullshit. You're the party of the rich white male, and nothing else.
RossValoryRocks wrote:Lula wrote:separate_wayz wrote:Lula wrote:separate_wayz wrote:Yawn.
I think you just proved that you're at the bottom of the heap, Loon-a. No credibility, and no smarts (even the common sense variety).
Tell you what -- get your GED, and then we'll we'll talk, Loon-a.
loona? oh. i get it. because my name is lula right? don't quit your day job buddy. whatever that is. tho i'm guessing it involves knee pads, vaseline, and a security clearance for the bush family ranch.
No thanks. I'll let your mom keep the knee pads and vaseline. (She wasn't that good anyway.)
Again, I realize that you're upset that the Obama presidency (and the Democratic-socialist majority in congress) is going down the shitter, but please try to stay on topic, okey-doke?
(Did you get that GED yet? Just curious.)
easily one of the lamest comebacks in all of mr.com history. i'll kindly ask you to refrain from pestering me again. your plagiarized inaccurate posts are simply not worth the binary code.
It's not the TRUE Lula folks...it's TNC posting as her. She would never post to a person like this. EVER.
And SW...the REAL Lula is a teacher, and a damn fine one, even if I disagree with her politics on most things, she is very educated and a very fine person.
TNC taking over her account like this in no way impacts what the REAL Lula is about.
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
RedWingFan wrote:Didn't Andrew have a policy about this in the not so distant past?
Rockindeano wrote:Just tickles my asshole to think of the Wombat getting all fueled up over on the other side of the world.
Fact Finder wrote:The bill also establishes a statutory Pay-As-You-Go procedure requiring that new non-emergency legislation affecting tax revenue or mandatory spending not increase the Federal deficit – in other words, that any new spending or tax cuts be paid for with new taxes or spending cuts.
The_Noble_Cause wrote:Fact Finder wrote:The bill also establishes a statutory Pay-As-You-Go procedure requiring that new non-emergency legislation affecting tax revenue or mandatory spending not increase the Federal deficit – in other words, that any new spending or tax cuts be paid for with new taxes or spending cuts.
Can anyone explain why this was repealed in the first place?
RossValoryRocks wrote:The_Noble_Cause wrote:Fact Finder wrote:The bill also establishes a statutory Pay-As-You-Go procedure requiring that new non-emergency legislation affecting tax revenue or mandatory spending not increase the Federal deficit – in other words, that any new spending or tax cuts be paid for with new taxes or spending cuts.
Can anyone explain why this was repealed in the first place?
That would be an excellent question, but it wasn't repealed they let it end. THe over all answer is that it was STUPIDITY.
Wikipedia, which I usually loathe as a source has a good run down of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO
God, if it wasn't our government doing it, it would be funny!
7 Wishes wrote:Stu, I love ya, man. And I'm looking forward to drowning a few pints at MR Fest II, if you go.
But if you're not a Republican, I'm a balding Swedish short-order cook.
Fact Finder wrote:January 2007 the Dems take control of Congress. At that time..
Unemployment was 4.6% , today it's 10%
Dow Jones was at 12,400 , today it's at 10,000
Federal Deficit was $162 Billion , today it's at One and a half Trillion
Federal Debt was $8.7 Trillion , today it's at $14 Trillion
just sayin'.
Return to Snowmobiles For The Sahara
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests