UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (31) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: CryingofLot49 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 2003  
Subject: So, how about that Date: 8/4/2011 11:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Mega-Stimulus package that Obama & Co shoved down our throats...seems to be working wonders with unemployment and the economy, eh?



/in before 'It should have been BIGGER' retorts.
Print the post Back To Top
Author: willisworn Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1971 of 2003
Subject: Re: So, how about that Date: 8/23/2011 12:27 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
What percentage of it was spent on infrastructure?

And, it's bad form to "in before" in an OP

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CryingofLot49 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1972 of 2003
Subject: Re: So, how about that Date: 8/23/2011 10:23 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Ooooh, sorry about that. What's if its an homage to classic 'in befores?'

I'm sure President Downgrade has some data on your query.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ryan68 Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1973 of 2003
Subject: Re: So, how about that Date: 8/23/2011 11:53 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I forget, do we count holes being dug or holes being filled or both?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CryingofLot49 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1974 of 2003
Subject: Re: So, how about that Date: 8/23/2011 12:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
1) Dug hole
2) Filled hole
3) Watched first guy work, at Union Supervisor pay-grade
4) Counted first 2 guys
5) Co-ordinated hiring of first 4 guys
6) Senior Union Supervisor to organize entire group
7) Social media rep for Digging/Filling

So, like... twelve?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ryan68 Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1975 of 2003
Subject: Re: So, how about that Date: 8/23/2011 12:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Well, I'm pretty sure - at least in Michigan - you have to call a utility company before you can dig anywhere; they come out and give the okay. So, I would count the Miss Dig folks as a job or three, at least, saved if not actually created.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CryingofLot49 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1976 of 2003
Subject: Re: So, how about that Date: 8/23/2011 4:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Oh, well if we're talking about jobs 'saved,' then it's clearly around 100 million.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ryan68 Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1977 of 2003
Subject: Re: So, how about that Date: 8/23/2011 4:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Oh, well if we're talking about jobs 'saved,' then it's clearly around 100 million.

Well, keep in mind, a job created in Texas doesn't count. People only move there for the nice 108 degree weather, don't you know?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CryingofLot49 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1978 of 2003
Subject: Re: So, how about that Date: 8/23/2011 4:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
People only move there for the nice 108 degree weather, don't you know?

Oh, I lived there one summer, I remember!

Don't forget the hotbed of cultural activities. Now they have both kinds of live music - country AND western.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: willisworn Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1979 of 2003
Subject: Re: So, how about that Date: 8/23/2011 9:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I've heard estimates of 7% to 15% of the stimulus being spent on infrastructure.

I'm *pretty* sure that Keynes would have advocated more...

Anyway, ever since Volcker used Friedman's ideas to kill inflation, we've been pretty much stuck on a loose money supply at the fed.

Why you're blaming Obama for anything is beyond me. This recession is clearly the result of Greenspan's policies, chiefly the belief that the derivatives market could self regulate.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ryan68 Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1980 of 2003
Subject: Re: So, how about that Date: 8/23/2011 9:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

I'm *pretty* sure that Keynes would have advocated more...


Okay. But as a thought experiment let's assume it is possible for the Keynesian Theory to be incorrect. What percentage would have to be spent on infrastructure for you to say it was tried and failed? Why didn't the Keynesians in the administration get it right?

Keynesians advocate tax cuts, too, so I'm not entirely sure why you want the debate to drift toward the inadequacy of infrastructure spending. Seems slightly akin to data-mining...

Are you taking the Krugman route that Keynes is the 'answer' that's never been tried?

In any event, they had - fair or not fair - their one whack at the Keynesian pinata, seems unlikely they'll get another and that hardly seems the fault of anti-Keynesians.

I do agree - though I know your comment was aimed at CoL - that president's tend to get more blame and more credit then they deserve.

That being said, Obama got everything he went for his first two years and if things were going well he'd be doing a victory lap. They're not going well...you don't think the president, whoever it is, is going to come in for criticism? I think even at today's lows in approval ratings, that Obama isn't too far from where Reagan was at this point. Purely talking about poll numbers here, because Reagan did have a stronger recovery - again, fair or unfair to credit him or not - going for himself heading into the next election cycle.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CryingofLot49 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1981 of 2003
Subject: Re: So, how about that Date: 8/23/2011 10:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

Why you're blaming Obama for anything is beyond me.


The $4 Trillion debt increase since he was elected? No?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CryingofLot49 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1982 of 2003
Subject: Re: So, how about that Date: 8/24/2011 3:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

The $4 Trillion debt increase since he was elected? No?


Next year's projections are for another $1.3T. So, call it $5.3 Trillion by next September.

That's a spicy meatball!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ryan68 Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1983 of 2003
Subject: Re: So, how about that Date: 8/24/2011 3:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Next year's projections are for another $1.3T

That's this year's (FY2011) projected budget deficit. I think you're total is right, iirc.

2012, last I knew (CBO March), was slated for about a $1 trillion deficit. But, the CBO - as you probably know - has to assume current law prevails in the future (i.e Doc fix, AMT hits Middle Class, yada, yada).

Print the post Back To Top
Author: willisworn Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1984 of 2003
Subject: Re: So, how about that Date: 9/9/2011 12:46 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Okay. But as a thought experiment let's assume it is possible for the Keynesian Theory to be incorrect. What percentage would have to be spent on infrastructure for you to say it was tried and failed? Why didn't the Keynesians in the administration get it right?

Most or all of it, whatever was lost in the recession. And, there was nothing close to that even attempted.

Keynesians advocate tax cuts, too, so I'm not entirely sure why you want the debate to drift toward the inadequacy of infrastructure spending. Seems slightly akin to data-mining...


No, my point was that it's unfair to call Keynes out on this, when we've been operating under a Friedman economy since Paul Volcker.

And, Keynes would not have approved of tax cuts in a boom. Tax cuts come during the recession. The revenue generated during the boom is spent to offset the aggregate loss in demand.

And, how much of the Obama deficit spending was on the wars he didn't start?

Where was Naj when Bush was doubling spending and cutting taxes?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ryan68 Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1985 of 2003
Subject: Re: So, how about that Date: 9/9/2011 9:41 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2

Most or all of it, whatever was lost in the recession. And, there was nothing close to that even attempted.


So, if I'm understanding properly, you're saying the entire ~$800 stimulus should have been spent on infrastructure? Federal government spending and deficits were at post-WWII highs, but it wasn't enough?

I don't even think that was (or is) possible to spend all that on infrastructure. They apparently had problems spending what they did authorize.

I would ask how good is a theory (that's not a knock on Keynes the man, who is dead afterall, but rather the modern day proponents of whatever they think he meant) that can't be tried?


And, Keynes would not have approved of tax cuts in a boom. Tax cuts come during the recession.


Like Bush's in 2001?


And, how much of the Obama deficit spending was on the wars he didn't start?


Krugman: "Should disaster aid, as a matter of sound public finance, be offset by immediate cuts in other spending? No. The time-honored principle, backed by economists right and left, is that temporary bursts of spending--which usually arise when there's a war to fight, but can also arise from other causes, including financial crises and natural disasters--are a good reason to run temporary budget deficits."
(NYT's 9/1/2011)

So, he had that spending and the stimulus as part of the theory...and it wasn't enough.


Where was Naj when Bush was doubling spending and cutting taxes?


By 2006 (y'know, the year Obama in the Senate was voting against the debt ceiling increase) the deficit was 1.9% of GDP and, iirc, the CBO was projecting a 10-year $1.7 trillion (or $170 billion per year on average) addition to the debt.

2007 saw the deficit recede further to 1.2%.

Contrast this with Obama's most recent budget, which would add $9.5 trillion over 10 years, and in 2021 (Year 10), the deficit would be 4.9% of GDP. Per CBO...and per memory...so double-check if you wish...

Buffett thinks spending should be 20-21% of GDP, revenue 18-19%, with deficits of around 2%. Well, that's 2006 and 2007 in a nutshell.

Bush was and is blamed for the economic meltdown. I'm sure if things had ended well, Bush would have taken credit. So, of course, he deserves some of the blame.

I just apply that same principal to Obama. If things were going well (and at one point weren't we adding 200k+ jobs a month during Obama's term?) today, he'd be taking credit. It isn't going well. He deserves some of the blame.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CryingofLot49 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1986 of 2003
Subject: Re: So, how about that Date: 9/9/2011 11:37 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Where was Naj when Bush was doubling spending

Posting about how unhappy I was about the overspending during 2003-04 in his first term [if not earlier, but circa 2003ish], and also posting about how unhappy I was about the Prescription Drug benefit, and also writing letters to the WH complaining about them, in addition to posting all those complaints right here at TMF.

Saying 'Where were...' just makes you sound like an ignoramus if you're calling to call people out and be 100% wrong about it, but assume the worst anyway. Try to act more adult -- I know's it's hard for you!


So, yeah, I dislike the overspending by the stuttering idiot of a epic failure in the WH these past years, just as I hated it when the previous POTUS did it.

The difference, is under Bush the deficit was a trivial percentage of GDP, not 10% year after year. And, of course, some would say the deficit spending during the 2002 recession was necessary - Keynesians among them.

But I still vociferously complained about the 8%+ growth in spending during Bush's first two years in office.

Of course, Bush didn't cut taxes at all, he lowered tax rates. Taxes collected went up by almost $500Bn after the 2003 change in marginal tax rates, and that's after the 30% increase the CBO assumed would occur after the spurring of economic growth. Nevertheless, you prefer to wallow in ignorance and unfounded, incorrect accusations.

You're such a sad, sad little man. We've even been over this before a few months ago:

http://boards.fool.com/your-repeated-innumeracy-and-blatant-...

CBO predictions of Tax Revenue in August 2003, post the passing of tax cuts, note the 1-yr lag before things really get going, economy-wise:

In $Billions 2004 2005 2006 2007*

Predicted $1,825 $2,064 $2,276 $2,421

Actual $1,880 $2,153 $2,407 $2,568 Total

Unexpected Surplus $55 $89 $131 $147 $422bn


The CBO was off by almost half-a-billion in just the past 3 years. And they projected 30% growth to begin with!
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/44xx/doc4493/08-26-Report.pdf

Additionally, in the first 3 years of the Tax Cut, growth averaged 4%, and an ALLTIME US RECORD OF 12 quarters of 3%+ GDP growth in a row.

The 2004 budget deficit was ~ $412Bn, 2007's deficit was $162Bn, or a $250bn improvement since tax cuts were passed in 3 years.


'Oct. 11, 2007 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. government posted the smallest budget deficit in five years as tax revenue reached a record and spending rose at the slowest pace in George W. Bush's presidency.

The deficit narrowed to $162.8 billion in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, the third straight annual decline...the Treasury Department said today in Washington. '

I know this is hard for you because you've been brainwashed, but Bush's policies on this front actually worked and LOWERED the Deficit by a huge amount. All the way down to 1.7%.

The reason Barry is now widely seen as a failure, esp on the economic front, is that HIS ECONOMIC POLICIES AND SPENDULUS HAVE FAILED!

His entire administration is seen as extremely anti-business - both by business leaders and the media and commentators outside the US as seen by his attacks on various industries from banking to oil to pharma to insurance to guitar-making, to his appointments to the NLRB who say that Boeing can't build a new plant in South Carolina!

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ryan68 Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1987 of 2003
Subject: Re: So, how about that Date: 9/9/2011 2:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Tyler Cowen linked the other day to this Leonhardt piece on infrastructure from 2008.

Some of the highlights or lowlights, if you will, from the article:

A lack of adequate financing is part of the problem, without doubt. But the bigger problem has been an utter lack of seriousness in deciding how that money gets spent....

...Government agencies usually don’t even have to do a rigorous analysis of a project or how it would affect traffic and the environment, relative to its cost and to the alternatives — before deciding whether to proceed. In one recent survey of local officials, almost 80 percent said they had based their decisions largely on politics, while fewer than 20 percent cited a project’s potential benefits....

...They help explain why our infrastructure is in such poor shape even though spending on it, surprisingly enough, has risen at a good clip in recent decades. Spending is up 50 percent over the last 10 years, after adjusting for inflation. As a share of the economy, it will be higher this year than in any year since 1981....
(emphasis added)

All-in-all, a good read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/business/economy/19leonhar...

Best,
Ryan

Print the post Back To Top
Author: patchdodd Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1988 of 2003
Subject: Re: So, how about that Date: 9/9/2011 4:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
It's not very accurate - or honest - to measure Bush's spending record by budget deficit. He conducted a trillion dollar war off budget.

Looking at the years where you think he performed well:


Year Budget Deficit Actual Debt Increase (Internal + External) % GDP
2004 $412B $832B 7.5
2005 $319B $842B 6.8
2006 $296B $833B 6.3
2007 $163B $862B 6.2



And considering that these were Bush's best economic years and considering that the economy tanked under his stewardship it is really hard to get excited by the idea that his tax policies and spending policies really delivered anything special. It may be another decade before the US fully recovers and even that predicated on no further damage done.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ryan68 Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1989 of 2003
Subject: Re: So, how about that Date: 9/9/2011 4:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

It's not very accurate - or honest - to measure Bush's spending record by budget deficit. He conducted a trillion dollar war off budget.


Honest? That's pretty strong since my numbers come from the most recent OMB figures.

I don't think you understand what drives the difference between the budget deficit and the actual debt increase.

What would it look like if you did the exact same comparison using Clinton's years? According to you, the budget deficit and the actual debt increase should equal, right? There was no "off budget" war, right?

You do that comparison, then come back and discuss honesty.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ryan68 Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1990 of 2003
Subject: Re: So, how about that Date: 9/9/2011 4:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Oh, and a common courtesy to those you call dishonest might be to supply a reference for the data you are using.

So, patchdodd, where do your numbers come from? Is OMB numbers - not the ones I used earlier - but the ones from Table 7.1 from the Historical Tables of the President's Budget wrong?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

Print the post Back To Top
Author: patchdodd Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1991 of 2003
Subject: Re: So, how about that Date: 9/9/2011 5:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Those are the numbers I used. I assume they are not wrong.

I was replying to naj by the way, with whom I have a reasonable give-and-take relationship. I have no idea who you are, but there is no reason to be all attacky-boy about this.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ryan68 Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1992 of 2003
Subject: Re: So, how about that Date: 9/9/2011 5:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Well, if I'm being "all attacky-boy" it's because I (mistakenly) thought you were calling me dishonest. Which, to me, would be a good reason to strongly defend oneself, but I apologize for not thinking naj is the dishonest one...;-)

Your numbers are wrong, btw (unless you have a link proving OMB wrong). Looking over Naj's numbers they do include the costs of war.

Because something is paid for by using a Supplemental Bill - bypassing the Budgetary process - doesn't mean it isn't counted in the numbers.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ryan68 Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1994 of 2003
Subject: Re: So, how about that Date: 9/19/2011 9:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Patchdodd,


Year Budget Deficit Actual Debt Increase (Internal + External) % GDP
2004 $412B $832B 7.5
2005 $319B $842B 6.8
2006 $296B $833B 6.3
2007 $163B $862B 6.2


Do you have any link confirming your numbers?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: willisworn Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1995 of 2003
Subject: Re: So, how about that Date: 11/1/2011 3:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
You're such a sad, sad little man. We've even been over this before a few months ago:

LOL

Wow, no wonder the smart people who used to inhabit this board are long gone.

Naj, you're *&^%$ &^%$.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: willisworn Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1996 of 2003
Subject: Re: So, how about that Date: 11/1/2011 3:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
So, if I'm understanding properly, you're saying the entire ~$800 stimulus should have been spent on infrastructure?

No, you idiot, I'm saying that you're mocking Keynes when his policies aren't being followed.

Try and keep up.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: willisworn Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1997 of 2003
Subject: Re: So, how about that Date: 11/1/2011 4:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Posting about how unhappy I was about the overspending during 2003-04 in his first term [if not earlier, but circa 2003ish], and also posting about how unhappy I was about the Prescription Drug benefit, and also writing letters to the WH complaining about them, in addition to posting all those complaints right here at TMF.

Bull

You've never posted anything critical of Bush.

The difference, is under Bush the deficit was a trivial percentage of GDP, not 10% year after year.

LOL

Yeah, Obama inherited a recession. How can you possibly compare the two? Please don't embarrass yourself further by bringing up 2001 again.

We've even been over this before a few months ago:

Which I ignored because you didn't address the question, which was about tax avoidance.

It is theoretically IMPOSSIBLE for tax cuts to generate more revenue without relying on tax avoidance loopholes. Even Reagan's biggest defenders will allow that "increased revenues" had something to do with reporting more income.

If it's not, answer me this: what does the velocity of money have to increase in order to offset a n% decrease in tax rates?



Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ryan68 Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1998 of 2003
Subject: Re: So, how about that Date: 11/1/2011 4:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

No, you idiot, I'm saying that you're mocking Keynes when his policies aren't being followed.

Try and keep up.


Whatever. No wonder CoL toys with you.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ryan68 Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1999 of 2003
Subject: Re: So, how about that Date: 11/1/2011 9:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Me on 8/23/11:


What percentage would have to be spent on infrastructure for you to say it was tried and failed?


willisworn's reply on 9/9:

Most or all of it.


My reply to him on 9/9:


So, if I'm understanding properly, you're saying the entire ~$800 stimulus should have been spent on infrastructure?


The ever-polite WW replies two months later:

No, you idiot, I'm saying that you're mocking Keynes when his policies aren't being followed.


Why don't you complete your little internal debate on what point you were making on infrastructure spending.

I didn't mock Keynes, btw, if you re-read my replies. I can see your sensitive about your Mr. Keynes. Good golly, man, get a grip.

It's great that whatever lunatic asylum you sit in they wheel you down to the computer room ever two months to check in here. Good luck and...

buh-bye nutjob...

-Ryan

Print the post Back To Top
Author: willisworn Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 2000 of 2003
Subject: Re: So, how about that Date: 11/2/2011 8:40 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
LOL

No, my point was that it's unfair to call Keynes out on this, when we've been operating under a Friedman economy since Paul Volcker.

I've been consistent on this the whole time.

Nice troll thread, by the way, guys.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: willisworn Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 2001 of 2003
Subject: Re: So, how about that Date: 11/2/2011 8:43 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Whatever. No wonder CoL toys with you.


Yeah, Naj is a dork and this is a troll thread. He's also lying about the Bush tax cuts generating any sort of increase in Tax Revenue. Even Bartlett has conceded this:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/are-the-bush-ta...

Few people remember that a major justification for the 2001 tax cut was to intentionally slash the budget surplus. President Bush said this repeatedly during the 2000 campaign, and it was reiterated in his February 2001 budget document.

In this regard, at least, the Bush-era tax cuts were highly successful. According to a recent C.B.O. report, they reduced revenue by at least $2.9 trillion below what it otherwise would have been between 2001 and 2011. Slower-than-expected growth reduced revenue by another $3.5 trillion.

Spending was $5.6 trillion higher than the C.B.O. anticipated for a total fiscal turnaround of $12 trillion. That is how a $6 trillion projected surplus turned into a cumulative deficit of $6 trillion.


I came here to start a serious discussion about tax loopholes and you hacks started a bunch of nonsense.

No wonder the Fool sucks.

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (31) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement