Effects on Output and Employment

[Moby]

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/96xx/doc9619/Gregg.pdf

Read the last page. I'm all for tax cuts but I'd rather we pay our bills. We've gone $5 to $6 trillion in debt in a very short period of time and have a recession and possibly depression to show for it.

This report claims that tax cuts just don't produce as much GDP as spending. There might be a reason why no republican president has improved unemployment since Reagan. Get people working. Then start paying our bills. Then go for tax cuts.

Enough of this services for free shit.

[Smurf-Herder]

From the same people who you quote:

CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul

President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.

CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. [The House bill] would have similar long-run effects, CBO said in a letter to Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, who was tapped by Mr. Obama on Tuesday to be Commerce Secretary.

The House last week passed a bill totaling about $820 billion while the Senate is working on a proposal reaching about $900 billion in spending increases and tax cuts.

But Republicans and some moderate Democrats have balked at the size of the bill and at some of the spending items included in it, arguing they won't produce immediate jobs, which is the stated goal of the bill.

The budget office had previously estimated service the debt due to the new spending could add hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost of the bill -- forcing the crowd-out.

CBOs basic assumption is that, in the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a third of a dollars worth of private domestic capital, CBO said in its letter.

CBO said there is no crowding out in the short term, so the plan would succeed in boosting growth in 2009 and 2010.

The agency projected the Senate bill would produce between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent higher growth in 2009 than if there was no action. For 2010, the plan would boost growth by 1.2 percent to 3.6 percent.

CBO did project the bill would create jobs, though by 2011 the effects would be minuscule.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/

[Moby]

Interesting that the article written by the News Paper owned by one of the billionaires that controls the Neoconservative media doesn't post links to the actual report.

Haven't you been hysterical over another billionaire that doesn't own any popular national news source being involved in politics. Yet here you go quoting information from another billionaire involved in politics. I find that interesting.

[bairdi]

Interesting that the article written by the News Paper owned by one of the billionaires that controls the Neoconservative media doesn't post links to the actual report.

Haven't you been hysterical over another billionaire that doesn't own any popular national news source being involved in politics. Yet here you go quoting information from another billionaire involved in politics. I find that interesting.
Moby....here is a link to the actual report which isn't really a report but a letter to Senator Judd Gregg. IMHO the Times article is a bit misleading using a pick and choose strategy to slant the report to reach their desired conclusions.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/96xx/doc9619/Gregg.pdf

[Smurf-Herder]

You got a problem with the Times of London?

How many other sources do you want that say the same thing?

[foxbaron]

How about this.

We have folks losing their homes to forclosure for various reasons. We have people losing their jobs left and right. Investments are in the tank.

Instead of giving these banks all this cash, for reasons I don't even understand, why not make these payments to the banks relate to people's house payments or rent payments instead.

How about a moratorium on house payments and rent payments for six months. If we are gonna give away all this money to the banks why not make it in exchange for people's house and rent payments. Give everybody a six month break in what they pay out every month for a mortgage or rental costs. Each person can either save the money for six months or pay down their debt or buy stuff if they want but wouldn't that stimulate the economy more? Beats the taxpayer paying for a CEO to redecorate his office or have an employee get away at some resort.

[SeedyROM]

The country cannot go up forever, you people need to sink your teeth into economics beyond what the media writes. The government puts the brakes on the economy and it frequently uses food and energy to slow the economy. This breakdown had those elements plus a runaway train of real estate investors and companies hyping prices and all the scandals plus 2 parties that refused to work together.

Its a well known secret in economics that the very things we consume are used to slow the economy. All the scandals and political infighting came at a really bad time when we needed those people to work together to cut price escalations sooner with new legislation but the Dems would not budge on housing, neither party budged on energy even though dems controlled both houses as oil went from $65 to $147.

Are they that stupid or are they using economic tools to slow the economy???
When you can answer that one, you better understand the political machine.

Complaining about Rep growth versus Dem growth is useless since it has little to do with which party controls the whitehouse and it has everything to do with inflation and controlling the growth so it lasts well beyond our individual lifespan.

Fact is, Reps control the whitehouse more often than Dems. A lot of executive fraud went unchecked due to relaxed regulation passed by both parities. The bottom line is if we didn't have tools to slow the economy we'd see outrageous inflation and the fall would be harder, longer and far more costly. When the parties fail to work together, we get kicked a lot harder.

This decline is compareable to the 1980's decline, it is nothing like 1929, nothing whatsoever. 1929 saw 25% unemployment, people living in tents with no jobs nor govt aid. Washington failed, unlike the 1999 decline that was riddled with executive scandal the 2 parties worked together. The system fell apart after Newt gingrich left the Speakers role and resigned due to infidelity. Since then the House and Senate have been a miserable failure!

[SeedyROM]

You got a problem with the Times of London?

How many other sources do you want that say the same thing?

There is nothing wrong with your source. Sirmoby is harassing you because he likes to violate the rules and he knows it. Moby needs a 10 day ban to cool his pantyhouse off!

[Smurf-Herder]

There is nothing wrong with your source. Sirmoby is harassing you because he likes to violate the rules and he knows it. Moby needs a 10 day ban to cool his pantyhouse off!

I was watching the Senate Live, on C-Span 2 yesterday.

There was a Republican amendment to divert $70 million away from contraceptives (it was taken out of the bill after outcries, then put back in) and put the money towards Mortgage Foreclosure programs instead, and the Democrats voted against it.

They'd rather have bike trails and condoms than actually saving peoples homes.

[Hog Trash]

Interesting that the article written by the News Paper owned by one of the billionaires that controls the Neoconservative media doesn't post links to the actual report.

Haven't you been hysterical over another billionaire that doesn't own any popular national news source being involved in politics. Yet here you go quoting information from another billionaire involved in politics. I find that interesting.Billionaires and neocon media.....You never give up, do you?! The only network that didn't support Obama was Fox News Network, which is far from a majority.

If neocons control the media, then Obama must be their number one allie since the majority of the media pushed hard to ensure he got elected to the presidency.

[SeedyROM]

I was watching the Senate Live, on C-Span 2 yesterday.

There was a Republican amendment to divert $70 million away from contraceptives (it was taken out of the bill after outcries, then put back in) and put the money towards Mortgage Foreclosure programs instead, and the Democrats voted against it.

They'd rather have bike trails and condoms than actually saving peoples homes.

The is proof dems have not changed thier ways of the last 8 years, dems are just as stubborn and stupid as they were when Bush was in office. These people are out of control. Contraceptives and bike trails do not create jobs, these people are disgusting. I think Reps faile din many ways too, they spent money wildly and lacked accountability. When Bush wanted laws changed he should have pounded the table harder even if it meant spooking the markets. I would have exposed the democrats agenda of do nothing politics and ignorance. Bunch of simpleltons in DC especially Dems.

[SeedyROM]

Billionaires and neocon media.....You never give up, do you?! The only network that didn't support Obama was Fox News Network, which is far from a majority.

If neocons control the media, then Obama must be their number one allie since the majority of the media pushed hard to ensure he got elected to the presidency.

Obama is in bed with neocons. The neocons rose up from the democratic party so since Obama is hiring neocons, he's meeting with neocons, then it makes Obama a neocon for doing business with neocons. So doesn't that make Sirmoby a neocon? He or she surely acts like a neocon at times, so lets call Sirmoby a neocon!! Yes we Can!!:lmao2: :D :lmao2: