The Cellar - Obama spanks Wall Street.

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - Obama spanks Wall Street. (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=19459)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redux (Post 531437)

Tax cuts have never produced jobs in the short term., unless you have data that would suggest otherwise...cite please.

I never stated they would. They do how ever save people money and keeps money in the pocket of the taxpayer. If you think other wise please tell me how I am wrong on that.

Quote:

I would urge you to take the time to look at the CBO analysis of the bill in its present form ...nearly 2/3 of the funds will be expended in 18 months and potentially creating more than 3 million jobs..there are no guarantees, economics is not an exact science. Much of the rest is to ensure longer term job stability.

Perhaps you have other objective data....cite please!

How does citation work out for ya? :D

Fact Check . org

Quote:

FACT CHECK: Will stimulus create more than 3 million jobs like Democrats say? Maybe not
By ALAN FRAM , Associated Press

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats say it nearly every day: Their huge economic stimulus package must be rushed to passage because it will create or save 3 million to 4 million jobs.

In fact, those figures are uncertain enough that even some economists who produced them are basically saying: We gave it our best shot.

"The models are based on historic experience," said Mark Zandi, referring to formulas he and other economists use to predict economic behavior. "And we're outside anything we've experienced historically. We're completely in a world we don't understand and know."

Zandi is chief economist at Moody's Economy.com of West Chester, Pa. His projection last week that the House-passed stimulus measure would create 3 million jobs by the end of 2010 — scaled down from a 4 million estimate he made days earlier — have been cited repeatedly by Democrats as justification for the $819 billion legislation.

"Yes, there's a high level of uncertainty," said Zandi, a Democrat who advised Republican presidential candidate John McCain last year. "But my estimates are as good as you're going to get, and they're good enough to be useful in trying to evaluate whether we should do this or not."

Democrats also frequently cite an early January estimate by two economists working for Obama. Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, now top White House economic advisers, said a plan roughly similar to the House-passed version would yield 3.3 million to 4.1 million jobs by late 2010 that wouldn't otherwise exist — but added a catch.

"There is considerable uncertainty in our estimates," their report said, warning that the package's impact on the economy and job creation "are hard to estimate precisely."

Separately, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office — lawmakers' official fiscal analyst — estimates that by the end of 2010, the House bill would mean 1.2 million to 3.6 million additional jobs.

The economists' caution highlights the difficulty of gauging how the stimulus would affect an ailing but still huge $14 trillion economy that is shedding 500,000 jobs a month.

There's little doubt the measure — which could grow to $900 billion when the Senate completes its version soon — would help ease unemployment from its sheer size alone. The question is: By how much?

To answer that, economists generally use a two-step process.

First they project how much the legislation would make the economy grow. Then they predict how many jobs that growth would create.

The second part is less complicated because economists tend to rely on rules of thumb. The White House, for example, assumed that each 1 percent increase in the economy's size would produce 1 million jobs.

The initial calculation — how much will the stimulus make the economy grow — is tougher. To make it, economists rely on a mix of facts and assumptions.

They know how much money the House bill contains: $30 billion for road construction, $87 billion to help states pay for Medicaid, $145 billion for $500-per-worker tax breaks, and other components.

From there, though, they make educated guesses, based partly on economic data compiled over many decades.

How quickly will federal agencies spend their stimulus money? Will state and local governments use their shares to avoid firing workers, provide services, cut taxes or as nest eggs? When will people receive tax cuts, and will they spend or save them? How much economic growth does a dollar spent on road-building produce, compared to a dollar used to extend unemployment benefits?

In many instances, economists have slightly different answers, which translate to bigger differences when they produce their job estimates.

"One of the biggest problems for these models is, are you drawing the right conclusions from the past" about future behavior, said Nigel Gault, chief U.S. economist for Global Insight of Lexington, Mass. "Or are there ways in which things have changed in the world?"

Benefit payments, such as aid to the poor, and tax cuts can move quickly to people. Government purchases of goods and services can take longer, especially construction projects which can take years to complete.

But generally, economists consider government spending more reliable than tax cuts for creating jobs. That's because people and businesses sometimes save part or all of their tax cuts instead of spending them, especially if money is tight.

Underscoring how delicate these projections are, on Jan. 21 Zandi predicted the House bill would create 4 million jobs, based on assumptions that all its money would be spent by the end of 2010.

Days later, the Congressional Budget Office projected that more than one-third of the bill's spending and tax cuts would not occur until after 2010. In response, Zandi dropped his job creation estimate to 3 million.

The economists' caution highlights the difficulty of gauging how the stimulus would affect an ailing but still huge $14 trillion economy that is shedding 500,000 jobs a month.

There's little doubt the measure — which could grow to $900 billion when the Senate completes its version soon — would help ease unemployment from its sheer size alone. The question is: By how much?

To answer that, economists generally use a two-step process.

First they project how much the legislation would make the economy grow. Then they predict how many jobs that growth would create.

The second part is less complicated because economists tend to rely on rules of thumb. The White House, for example, assumed that each 1 percent increase in the economy's size would produce 1 million jobs.

The initial calculation — how much will the stimulus make the economy grow — is tougher. To make it, economists rely on a mix of facts and assumptions.

They know how much money the House bill contains: $30 billion for road construction, $87 billion to help states pay for Medicaid, $145 billion for $500-per-worker tax breaks, and other components.

From there, though, they make educated guesses, based partly on economic data compiled over many decades.

How quickly will federal agencies spend their stimulus money? Will state and local governments use their shares to avoid firing workers, provide services, cut taxes or as nest eggs? When will people receive tax cuts, and will they spend or save them? How much economic growth does a dollar spent on road-building produce, compared to a dollar used to extend unemployment benefits?

In many instances, economists have slightly different answers, which translate to bigger differences when they produce their job estimates.

"One of the biggest problems for these models is, are you drawing the right conclusions from the past" about future behavior, said Nigel Gault, chief U.S. economist for Global Insight of Lexington, Mass. "Or are there ways in which things have changed in the world?"

Benefit payments, such as aid to the poor, and tax cuts can move quickly to people. Government purchases of goods and services can take longer, especially construction projects which can take years to complete.

But generally, economists consider government spending more reliable than tax cuts for creating jobs. That's because people and businesses sometimes save part or all of their tax cuts instead of spending them, especially if money is tight.

Underscoring how delicate these projections are, on Jan. 21 Zandi predicted the House bill would create 4 million jobs, based on assumptions that all its money would be spent by the end of 2010.

Days later, the Congressional Budget Office projected that more than one-third of the bill's spending and tax cuts would not occur until after 2010. In response, Zandi dropped his job creation estimate to 3 million.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/38809947.html

As this guy said:

Last update: February 2, 2009 - 12:28 PM
Featured comment

in Other Words
It's all BS. The great majority of money will just move EXISTING jobs from the private to public sector. Unions are paid off,trial lawyers … read more are paid off, Democratic states get paid off.Certainly a few jobs may result fron the spending, but not until year 2013 when The Obama will be the one unemployed.

Shame you cant hold the "guy" in your editorial to the same standards you hold me and others here with whom you might disagree and badger him to cite sources for his claims. But of course, since you agree with him, who needs cites!

Here is the issue.

The economy is fucked up more than anytime in our lifetime and getting worse.

There are three basic ways to "fix" it.

1) Do nothing and it will fix itself.

2) Stimulate the economy with tax cuts....the supple side/trickle down theory.

3) Stimulate the economy by creating jobs through government spending...the great depression/new deal theory.

If you like the first...provide any evidence that it will work.

Same with the second....show how the failed supply side solution will work this time.

I think the best option is the third and the non-partisan CBO agrees. Their analysis projects a potential impact of creating up to 3 million jobs in the the fist 18 months. And as I said, there are no guarantees...economics is not an exact science.

The current mix of 60% spending/40% tax cuts would even be ok with me.

Its easy to keep crying "bullshit"...its tougher to propose a solution.

You are great with the superficial one lines (what change, where's the beef, its all BS, its all the Dems fault for the last two year, stats are lies)

You certainly havent shown much depth of discussion.

So whats you're solution? Simple question...no bullshit, please!

How would you suggest fixing the economy?

I'll even make it easy for you...pick a number:
1) do nothing
2) tax cuts
3) government spending
4) none of the above
5) all of the above
6) i have no fucking idea..i just like being negative
..and support it with objective primary sources, not editorials like the above, which by their very nature are biased and never cite sources.

Demonstrate to the dwellers that you really arent as superficial and negative as you come across. :)

Can you tell me how the Pelosi/Reid?Obama plan (whatever) differs from that which Japan did for a decade?

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 531522)

Can you tell me how the Pelosi/Reid?Obama plan (whatever) differs from that which Japan did for a decade?

According to Nobel economist Paul Krugman and many others, the comparison to Japan that appears to be the talking points of those opposed to spending here, ignores two facts:

Japan was timid in spending and in fact overrepresented how little they spent on job creaton, and yet still created jobs.

Until, after one-two years, they decided to try to balance the budget and raised the national sales tax, killing whatever economic progress they made up to that point.

Media cite Japan's "lost decade" to criticize Obama's economic stimulus plan, but economists disagree

To do it right will take more courage than the Japanese...understanding that the impact on the deficit will be significant (although no more significant than Bush's tax cuts and Iraq war, which contributed to raising the US debt from just under $5 trillion when he took office to $10 trillion when he left office)

But I would ask again...what would you suggest as a more viable option with a greater likelihood of success?

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 531522)

Can you tell me how the Pelosi/Reid?Obama plan (whatever) differs from that which Japan did for a decade?

It makes one mistake that the Japanese made. It protects the problem. The Pelosi/Reid/McConnel/Bernanke/Paulson/Tax cut myth solutions only do the same thing.

Threat of bankruptcy is essential to force the necessary changes including destruction of top management jobs (and few employee job losses), the breakup and sale of massive inefficient organizations (ie GM, AIG, US Steel, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, Chrysler, some drug companies, Sears/Kmart) that routinely stifle innovation and make money by only playing money games, heavy regulation (government or open market) on industries that are historically corrupt without that regulation (ie stock brokers, investment bankers, energy traders), and to cause companies to innovate again rather than believe the purpose of a company is to make money.

Japanese did nothing to address the problem because they protected the problem. Eventually, a prolonged recession (due to continued protection from free market forces) forced those changes to happen. Many Japanese companies - especially their banks - needed massive shakeup that only a bankruptcy threat can provide.

The American government has, instead, protected the problem such as AIG, Chrysler, GM, banks, and other institutions that need new management or be sold off S&L style.

But then the economic stimulus plan that Obama will get only blunts the short term economic problems and does not address what creates recessions. Its not what he wanted. But then many here also foolishly still believe that tax cuts create economic growth. And so the stimulus plan is more tax cuts - at the expense of economic solutions.

So what is your vote on this Tom? Are you for it or against it - why?
Maybe we should have a poll on this. I think it would be interesting. Anyone who knows how to do a poll, please?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TGRR (Post 531411)

Face facts, Merc...there is no actual difference between the parties.

Very little it seems.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clodfobble (Post 530566)

The executive salary caps (basically no more than $500,000 for any company accepting government money.....

Ok. What does this mean?

"The restrictions will most affect large companies that receive "exceptional assistance," such as Citigroup.

The struggling banking giant has taken about $45 billion from the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program."

Does it mean that there are no restrictions to say, a renown failing newspaper that might accept just 1 billion in US taxpayer money? Is one billion "exceptional assistance" and will the cap effect the executives of the company that accepts the cash?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 531472)

...in Other Words
It's all BS. The great majority of money will just move EXISTING jobs from the private to public sector. Unions are paid off,trial lawyers … read more are paid off, Democratic states get paid off.Certainly a few jobs may result fron the spending, but not until year 2013 when The Obama will be the one unemployed.

ummmm, bullshit, and you know it. You KNOW people who are out of work and desperately need a job. So how would giving money to the state, so they can do some of the construction jobs planned, take away existing jobs? These people have been looking for a steady job for months. There are none!

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 531639)

Well said. And I think they should get rid of all the tax cuts (except the ones they originally actually wanted) and put the spending money back in that republicans demanded they take out, and force them to fillibuster or just pass it without any republicans. Call their bluff. See if they really are willing to shut down the government again, when we are in such dire straights. I mean really. McCain wrote a bill that was nothing BUT tax cuts, and every republican voted for it. Have they learned NOTHING?

Paul Krugman is the one they should be listening to. He has a better grasp of the situation than any other economist I've heard talk about it. And, he wrote a book about it (predicting it) before it happened, back in 1999 or something.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop (Post 531767)

Long before we can do that, first, we must decide what is necessary to _fix_ the economy. Many still advocate throwing money at the economy to fix it. Same nonsense was from extremist liberals and conservative alike. Ironically, the same Republicans who openly advocated this concept under George Jr are now screaming about TARP costs while advocating what we know never works long term - tax cuts without spending cuts.

Long before anyone can decide how to respond, we as a people must first define a difference between throwing money at a problem (ie money given without strings to bad banks) verses investing in long term projects that actually have an ROI. Every project by government or private industry has a Return on Investment for society. A concept that many still do not understand as we advocated nonsense such as the privatization of Social Security - only because it was promoted by a political agenda.

Whereas infrastructure investments were long needed and should have an ROI, still, many want that to restore the economy this year. If yes, then it is not economic stimulus - only welfare. Typically solutions mean projects today fix the economy in four years. Meanwhile, bankruptcy, job loses and income reductions are necessary especially in economic areas most unproductive and harmful - ie Wall Street, Detroit, hedge funds, and anywhere that top management foolishly said the purpose of a company is to make a profit; ignored what only matters - the product.

A philosophy if we really want to fix this economy? The product is everything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redux (Post 531419)

I wouldnt go that far.

There may be little difference in the manner in which they act, but there are significant differences in their respective policy approaches to government.

They both hate rights. The Dems attack amendments II and X first, and the GOP attacks I, IV, and IX before the others, but they both hate the fact that they can't (at least yet) jam steering wheels up the arse of the electorate and drive it around.

They're both incompetent (thank God).

They both concentrate on handing the treasury over to their lobbyists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop (Post 531436)

*rolleyes* They had no control over anything. They had, what, a majority of 1 or 2 in the Senate? That isn't enough to pass anything. And bush just vetoed everything anyway, unless it was something he wanted.

The truth is, democrats always try to get along. They always make concessions. Republicans NEVER do. When Clinton was in office, they completely shut down the government for, what was it, 2 weeks or something? When have democrats ever been so unreasonable? And... republicans would do it again today, even with our economy slipping into the abyss, because they don't give a shit about the people of this country. They only care about their base, and their ideology.

Clinton shut the government down (twice), when he turned the GOP's budget away for excessive spending, not the other way around.

It was about the only thing the schmuck did that was worth a damn.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TGRR (Post 531794)

It was about the only thing the schmuck did that was worth a damn.

Haiti, the Balkans, the averted Pakistan Indian war, welfare, responsible budgets, the 1996 Federal Communication Act, completely defagging Saddam (which we did not realize at that time), stopping massive worldwide terrorism planned for the Millennium (including LAX, NY Time Square, Toronto, Egypt, Amman Jordan, etc.), worldwide respect for America never seen since the Cuban Missile Crisis, ...

Quote: