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 idea that the Bush tax-cuts saved the economy is a fantasy and bankrupt idea with no empirical support. The Bush term had the lowest growth and the fewest job gains ever. To spin the tax-cuts as beneficial requires a heap of wishful thinking with a gallon of Kool Aid.
I don't know what your chart of the velocity of money is suppose to prove about the stimulus not working. The two are unrelated.
Also, to claim that the stimulus had no effect is just as bankrupt an idea.
Wow, what a coincidence, those are the same exact results after I bought a new pair of shoes.
Your charts are bullcrap, since 95% of the stimulus had not even been spent, and yet your bogus charts attributed the stimulus anyway. Obama and the dems threw billions of dollars to the wind, and you libs credit it for everything and anything.
The idea that the Bush tax-cuts saved the economy is a fantasy and bankrupt idea with no empirical support. The Bush term had the lowest growth and the fewest job gains ever. To spin the tax-cuts as beneficial requires a heap of wishful thinking with a gallon of Kool Aid.
I don't know what your chart of the velocity of money is suppose to prove about the stimulus not working. The two are unrelated.
Also, to claim that the stimulus had no effect is just as bankrupt an idea.
Obama Supporter in 2008: "I am voting for Obama, because he will cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term - it will be down to about 200 Billion by 2013 he says. Deficit spending is destroying the nation and stealing our kids future!"
Same Obama Supporter in 2013: "We need to spend more, even if it means larger deficits than under Bush. Obama is so amazing for potentially getting the deficit down to 850 Billion with rosy projections that might not come to fruition. Bahhh Bahhh Bahhh...sheer my wool, it is covering my eyes...Bahhh!"
The idea that the Bush tax-cuts saved the economy is a fantasy and bankrupt idea with no empirical support.
Did the Great Recession begin in 2003 or 2008?
Fail for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
I don't know what your chart of the velocity of money is suppose to prove about the stimulus not working. The two are unrelated.
Uh, wut?
Money velocity is the number of times money changes hands throughout your economy.
The chart proves convincingly beyond any reasonable doubt that absolutely nothing in your economy is happening very slowly, and that has been the case for a very long time.
The Bush Tax Cuts and the war spending stimulated your economy --- as you can clearly see by the increase in money velocity, however short lived it was.
As I have repeatedly stated (on numerous threads), that was not Bush's intent. Bush is just as stupid as Obama, and neither they nor their idiot "you-Harvard" economists understand the problem. As I have repeatedly stated, it was merely coincidence that Bush happened to cut taxes at just the right time, and the wars and subsequent defense spending took place at just the right time.....had they not occurred you would have entered the Great Recession earlier than you did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
Also, to claim that the stimulus had no effect is just as bankrupt an idea
It had no effect. There was brief flurry of activity that died almost immediately. And even that wouldn't have been so bad, except that jeopardized your future -- not that you actually had one. Over the next 90 days, you'll lose 1 in 3 jobs "created" by the moronic FICA tax holiday, and then over the course of the rest of the year, you will lose the remainder of jobs "created" and be no better off than you were then.
You are in an economic situation that is not resolvable.
You have a surplus of labor created by numerous factors and there is no possible way for government to resolve that. You'll just have to let it work itself out on its own, and deficit spending is only making things more difficult.
Empirically...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnewberry22
So....To recap your thoughts are as follows:
-The Tax Cuts were a huge success
Those are your words, not mine. That would be a Straw Man....a gross misrepresentation and distortion....no doubt intentional.
The simple irrefutable fact is that your wages had been stagnant/declining for years, and you were bleeding jobs. Had the tax cuts not been enacted, it would have exacerbated the situation resulting in the Great Recession starting earlier than it actually did.
I sure you'll claim that the CBO projected the National Debt would have been paid off had it not been for the tax cuts and the two "unfunded" wars.
The CBO failed because they erroneously assumed that wages in the US would continue to rise, when in fact that was not the case, and wages had been declining for several years before the idiots at the CBO made their projection.
For the CBO's projections to come true, it would also require employment levels increase at the same levels they had been during the late 1990s. The CBO didn't understand that was an aberration due to Y2K/Millennium Fever.
Don't blame me because your overpaid public servants are stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnewberry22
-The Simulus didn't work (and your erroneous cite a chart of no relevance)
No relevance?
You have no idea what you're talking about (and neither does the other).
Money velocity is the number of times money changes hands.....I give you money, you give money to someone else who gives money to someone else who gives it to someone and so on. Yeah, I'm talking about consumer transactions....I engage in a consumer transaction...I spend $10.....part of that $10 goes to the business, part to the employees and part to the people who sold or made goods to the business, and then that money keeps flowing through the economy just like that.
The chart you claim that has "no relevance" shows that money is not circulating through your economy.....money is not changing hands.....consumer transactions are not taking place as quickly as they should be or could be.....people are not spending.....and if they are...then they are not spending in the proper sectors of the economy.....and health care is not a sector you want to be spending money in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnewberry22
-You advocate austerity in times of poor economic performance (see greece, spain, ireland, italy, etc)
The Bush Tax Cuts and the defense spending stimulated your economy to some degree, but not enough to restore it to its former glory. Obama spent in 4 years the same amount Bush spent and the results was lack-luster at most. You can see a brief surge -- but it's only brief.
If you haven't figured it out by now, then you never will....no amount of spending will restore the US to its former glory. The problems in your economy have nothing to do with "Aggregate Demand" (snicker).
The problem in your economy is surplus labor.
Relevantly....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTHokieFan
If you can prove the causalrelationship between the data and the stimulus, I will ban myself.
Money velocity is the number of times money changes hands throughout your economy.
The chart proves convincingly beyond any reasonable doubt that absolutely nothing in your economy is happening very slowly, and that has been the case for a very long time.
The Bush Tax Cuts and the war spending stimulated your economy --- as you can clearly see by the increase in money velocity, however short lived it was.
As I have repeatedly stated (on numerous threads), that was not Bush's intent. Bush is just as stupid as Obama, and neither they nor their idiot "you-Harvard" economists understand the problem. As I have repeatedly stated, it was merely coincidence that Bush happened to cut taxes at just the right time, and the wars and subsequent defense spending took place at just the right time.....had they not occurred you would have entered the Great Recession earlier than you did.
It had no effect. There was brief flurry of activity that died almost immediately. And even that wouldn't have been so bad, except that jeopardized your future -- not that you actually had one. Over the next 90 days, you'll lose 1 in 3 jobs "created" by the moronic FICA tax holiday, and then over the course of the rest of the year, you will lose the remainder of jobs "created" and be no better off than you were then.
You are in an economic situation that is not resolvable.
You have a surplus of labor created by numerous factors and there is no possible way for government to resolve that. You'll just have to let it work itself out on its own, and deficit spending is only making things more difficult.
Empirically...
Mircea
Those are your words, not mine. That would be a Straw Man....a gross misrepresentation and distortion....no doubt intentional.
The simple irrefutable fact is that your wages had been stagnant/declining for years, and you were bleeding jobs. Had the tax cuts not been enacted, it would have exacerbated the situation resulting in the Great Recession starting earlier than it actually did.
I sure you'll claim that the CBO projected the National Debt would have been paid off had it not been for the tax cuts and the two "unfunded" wars.
The CBO failed because they erroneously assumed that wages in the US would continue to rise, when in fact that was not the case, and wages had been declining for several years before the idiots at the CBO made their projection.
For the CBO's projections to come true, it would also require employment levels increase at the same levels they had been during the late 1990s. The CBO didn't understand that was an aberration due to Y2K/Millennium Fever.
Don't blame me because your overpaid public servants are stupid.
No relevance?
You have no idea what you're talking about (and neither does the other).
Money velocity is the number of times money changes hands.....I give you money, you give money to someone else who gives money to someone else who gives it to someone and so on. Yeah, I'm talking about consumer transactions....I engage in a consumer transaction...I spend $10.....part of that $10 goes to the business, part to the employees and part to the people who sold or made goods to the business, and then that money keeps flowing through the economy just like that.
The chart you claim that has "no relevance" shows that money is not circulating through your economy.....money is not changing hands.....consumer transactions are not taking place as quickly as they should be or could be.....people are not spending.....and if they are...then they are not spending in the proper sectors of the economy.....and health care is not a sector you want to be spending money in.
The Bush Tax Cuts and the defense spending stimulated your economy to some degree, but not enough to restore it to its former glory. Obama spent in 4 years the same amount Bush spent and the results was lack-luster at most. You can see a brief surge -- but it's only brief.
If you haven't figured it out by now, then you never will....no amount of spending will restore the US to its former glory. The problems in your economy have nothing to do with "Aggregate Demand" (snicker).
The problem in your economy is surplus labor.
Relevantly....
Mircea
No need to worry.
Casually....
Mircea
Uh no, I meant causal, not casual. Meaning show me that the stimulus caused those things. I'm waiting.
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.
.
