Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Tea Party was nonexistent way way back in 1991 when Fannie Mae President Jim Johnson, with plenty of help from Slick Willie, Chris, Barney, Maxine & the rest of those social-engineering Democrats deliberately gutted mortgage underwriting standards in the name of 'social justice'.
When Bubba Clinton called upon lenders to bring 'creative and innovative' underwriting standards into a marketplace which had worked impeccably for several decades, lenders saw that as a green light to sell those houses to anybody regardless of their qualifications, and that's what they did.
Um... no. Obama wants to raise taxes to offset HIS OWN multi-trillion dollar deficit (over $4 trillion now according to CBS News), so it would indeed be considered exogenous.
The result: nearly 3% reduction in real GDP for every 1% (GDP) tax increase.
Except that, according to Chrisy Romer, it doesn't, and, Obama inherited a $1.2 trillion deficit for 2009. The CBO's estimates were issued two-weeks before Obama was president.
I know you are an extreme partisan and want to blame Obama for everything but you cannot, in all honesty, blame him for something before he was president.
Is there any doubt that the actions of the Tea Party Republicans have brought us to the brink of depression... Then blame liberals... You don't drastically cut back government spending in a recession, unless your goal is to cause a depression... Also keep in mind that virtually all of the debt was created by the Republicans with their unfunded wars and tax cuts for the wealthy...
Except that, according to Chrisy Romer, it doesn't
The paper says quite plainly that raising taxes to reduce the deficit causes a nearly 3 times the rate decrease in real GDP.
Quote:
and, Obama inherited a $1.2 trillion deficit for 2009.
Mostly of his own making. Remember the bankster bailout bill that Obama took credit for?
Quote:
"For two weeks, I was on the phone every day with [Treasury] Secretary Paulson and the congressional leaders making sure that the principles that have ultimately been adopted were incorporated in the bill," Obama said.
The paper says quite plainly that raising taxes to reduce the deficit causes a nearly 3 times the rate decrease in real GDP.
This is an exact quote from the Romer paper:
Quote:
Finally, we find suggestive evidence that tax increases to reduce an inherited budget deficit do not have the large output costs associated with other exogenous tax increases.
On Jan. 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was projected to be $1.2 trillion.
You are blaming Obama for deficits he didn't create.
You have just outlined three fallacies and I alternatively contend that you do not understand basic macro economics.
1) cutting government spending in a time of non-peak demand, which means the government laying people of; cancelling private contractors and/or reducing transfer payments does the OPPOSITE of 'job creation in the private sector.'
Wrong...government spending = spending tax payers money, sucking $'s out of the private sector and prolonging the problem since that spending will not create "permanent" jobs. When business of any kind gets in trouble it needs to either file bankruptcy or crash on its own. That is what sustains our economy...not government interference. I'm sorry you have apparently learned economics from some skewed (being nice here) entity...probably university/college level...which is wrong and which causes many of our economic problems. Try running a business out in the real world...I have!
Quote:
When government fires people, those people aren't going out and buying new cars for fixing up their houses. When government cancels contracts, companies reduce their workforce not hire more workers. When seniors get their Social Security cut, they spend less which reduces consumption and negatively impacts employment.
Government fires people = many of those people are smart enough to create their own small business and will hire more employees themselves which equals expanding the private enterprise area creating a better economy. Government should never have the employees base...at any level...that they currently have. The greater percentage of Federal government workers are in areas that are unconstitutional and the State, county and city levels are the result of foolishness, stupidity, decisions made by people in over their heads or "buying votes." We the voters need to clean up the mess.
Quote:
2) Regulation is a necessary part of government power because the government must make the rules of the road. While clean water and clean air regulations might cost companies who must spend money to buy devices to reduce pollution, those regulation reduce the costs of those downstream, who otherwise are would have higher medical and death costs due to pollution. China poisons its people and its environment. The only way they could hold the Beijing Olympics was by banning automotive travel long enough to make the air breathable. You don't think having unbreathable air is a drain on the economy?
Having grown up "WITH" Mother Nature, I can guarantee that "MOST" of government regulations are in place "ONLY" to raise $'s for government. They do inhibit our economy and get worse every day...out of control. I would have to write a book here to explain all the areas in which you are dead wrong.
Quote:
3) There is no economic evidence that higher tax-rates reduce business investment. None. Businesses invest to earn profits. They will continue to do so as long as there is profit to be made. A business that planned on earning $2 million in profit on a project isn't going to cancel the project if they have to pay an additional $200,000 in taxes, and earn only $1.8 million.
Garbage...try running a successful business with the above foolish philosophy! Business will NEVER pay the $200,000. The truth is that that $200,000 in taxes will NOT be paid by that business...that cost will be passed on down to the end consumer plus the cost of bookkeeping, etc., to pay the additional tax, plus that total will be passed to the next entity...shipping, warehouse facility, store/car-lot owner/whatever on to the consumer. The end result is that the cost of living goes up and the government sucks $'s out of the private citizen's pocket with no increase in anything for that private citizen but higher prices for the same level of living.
The above, sounds to me, like a spin artist from government or someone educated by someone/entity who was educated by someone/entity, etc., etc., who read it in a book somewhere back there. It doesn't work that way in reality!
Is there any doubt that the actions of the Tea Party Republicans have brought us to the brink of depression... Then blame liberals... You don't drastically cut back government spending in a recession, unless your goal is to cause a depression... Also keep in mind that virtually all of the debt was created by the Republicans with their unfunded wars and tax cuts for the wealthy...
Obama and democrats spent more in two years when they had full control of the U.S. government then the previous 2 president.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
