Spendifferous Stimulus

[Canceled2]

Republicans negotiate 100 billion cut from stimulus. Is it enough?

click here

 

[uscitizen]

The amount is not the big issue, how it is spent is.
I personally think it should be a bottom up stimulus, not a top down one like the first one.
I was totally opposed to the first one btw. And am somewhat opposed to this one.

 

[Canceled2]

The amount is not the big issue, how it is spent is.
I personally think it should be a bottom up stimulus, not a top down one like the first one.
I was totally opposed to the first one btw. And am somewhat opposed to this one.

A bottom up stimulus? How does that work for a long term solution, or any kind of real solution? Since when did the poor create wealth and employment opportunities for Americans? You know, those kinds of stimulus that are long lasting and productive for the whole? The majority of this spending bill, as it is not a stimulus bill, is not expected to have a long term benefit and no immediate one; i.e. in about a year we can see some improvements that will last about 18 months. The expectation after this, is that we will see a shrinking of our GDP.

 

[uscitizen]

A bottom up stimulus? How does that work for a long term solution, or any kind of real solution? Since when did the poor create wealth and employment opportunities for Americans? You know, those kinds of stimulus that are long lasing and productive for the whole? The majority of this spending bill, as it is not a stimulus bill, is not expected to have a long term benefit and no immediate one; i.e. in about a year we can see some improvements that will last about 18 months. The expectation after this, is that we will see a shrinking of our GDP.

The poor would spend the money on things thus creating jobs to make those things, thus creating more income, etc.

they would also pay down debt making our economy much more solid.

They would buy homes and cars.

Why prop up a business with little demand for it's products?

One BIG reason our GDP grew was because of the price of oil. What happens to the value of produced products when the price of a product doubles and is consumed in vas quantities like oil?

And on whose backs was that supported?

this was false unsustainable growth, since this was a jobless recovery and considering inflation earned wages actually dropped.

 

[Canceled2]

The poor would spend the money on things thus creating jobs to make those things, thus creating more income, etc.

they would also pay down debt making our economy much more solid.

They would buy homes and cars.

Why prop up a business with little demand for it's products?

One BIG reason our GDP grew was because of the price of oil. What happens to the value of produced products when the price of a product doubles and is consumed in vas quantities like oil?

And on whose backs was that supported?

this was false unsustainable growth, since this was a jobless recovery and considering inflation earned wages actually dropped.

The poor are not going to get enough money to buy anything made in America that is going to create jobs or keep our economy afloat.

90% of US jobs are provided by employers of small business.

The GDP is set to shrink under the Obama spending bill. This is not about how it grew, which is a positive no matter the reason. Oil is the single largest commodity in the world out pacing its closest competitor, coffee, by billions of dollars...your point about oil is what?

 

[Onceler]

" The majority of this spending bill, as it is not a stimulus bill"

Spending IS stimulus. You may not agree with that economic theory, but many do; many more, in fact, than not.

Beyond that, 40% of this bill is comprised of tax cuts. It's a very balanced bill.

 

[uscitizen]

Ice, did you support the first bailout bill?

 

[Canceled2]

" The majority of this spending bill, as it is not a stimulus bill"

Spending IS stimulus. You may not agree with that economic theory, but many do; many more, in fact, than not.

Beyond that, 40% of this bill is comprised of tax cuts. It's a very balanced bill.

The majority of this bill is comprised of entitlement spending, not investment spending. The majority of tax cuts are in reality tax credits given to those who would not even pay any taxes. When tax cuts and spending cuts are both done properly economic stimulus takes place and governement deficits are reduced.

Interesting facts about tax cuts here

 

[Canceled2]

Ice, did you support the first bailout bill?

Nope.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

" The majority of this spending bill, as it is not a stimulus bill"

Spending IS stimulus. You may not agree with that economic theory, but many do; many more, in fact, than not.

Beyond that, 40% of this bill is comprised of tax cuts. It's a very balanced bill.

logical fallacy, just because it is popular does not mean it is right

 

[Onceler]

logical fallacy, just because it is popular does not mean it is right

Yurtie? I'm not talking about public opinion. I'm talking about people in the field of economics.

While you're here, I'll bump the other thread where you added your brain-dead drivel.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Yurtie? I'm not talking about public opinion. I'm talking about people in the field of economics.

While you're here, I'll bump the other thread where you added your brain-dead drivel.

dunceler....it is irrelevent that the opinions are public or expert...you based the authority of their opinions because "most" economists believe a certain way:

Spending IS stimulus. You may not agree with that economic theory, but many do; many more, in fact, than not.

that is a logical fallacy:

Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. Example: "At least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions." Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong!

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum ad numerum


before you call somebody stupid, you had better get an education on what is being discussed, that way you won't have to go through another embarrassing moment like this

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Republicans negotiate 100 billion cut from stimulus. Is it enough?

click here

It's too much. The stimulus needed to be 1 trillion or more. As it was it was too little. And they cut some of the most important parts of it as well - like aid to state and local government. It's like going into the medicare budget and cutting out heart surgeries as superfluous spending.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Since when did the poor create wealth and employment opportunities for Americans?

It's a sad day for America when statements like this are acceptable to say in public. Anyone who says that should have the shit kicked out of them, they deserve it.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The majority of this spending bill, as it is not a stimulus bill, is not expected to have a long term benefit and no immediate one; i.e. in about a year we can see some improvements that will last about 18 months. The expectation after this, is that we will see a shrinking of our GDP.

To avoid depression, we will have to be facing trillion dollar deficits for the next few years. If we choose not to do so, it will hurt our economy so much that we'd never be able to pay of the deficit as fast anyway.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The majority of this bill is comprised of entitlement spending, not investment spending. The majority of tax cuts are in reality tax credits given to those who would not even pay any taxes. When tax cuts and spending cuts are both done properly economic stimulus takes place and governement deficits are reduced.

Interesting facts about tax cuts here

It doesn't matter who you cut taxes on. It doesn't even matter if they pay taxes. It just matters that the stimulus get out there.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

dunceler....it is irrelevent that the opinions are public or expert...you based the authority of their opinions because "most" economists believe a certain way:



that is a logical fallacy:

Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. Example: "At least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions." Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong!

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum ad numerum


before you call somebody stupid, you had better get an education on what is being discussed, that way you won't have to go through another embarrassing moment like this

This wasn't argumentem ad numerum. it was an appeal to the experts. Which is technically a fallacy, but alright as long as I'm just expressing how little I care about your stupid, ignorant opinion. The time for tax-cut platitudes is over. Conservatism is dead.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

This wasn't argumentem ad numerum. it was an appeal to the experts. Which is technically a fallacy, but alright as long as I'm just expressing how little I care about your stupid, ignorant opinion. The time for tax-cut platitudes is over. Conservatism is dead.

read what he said:

Spending IS stimulus. You may not agree with that economic theory, but many do; many more, in fact, than not.

he is saying the economists are right because many more believe X than do not believe X...

i can't believe the level of ignorance from some on this board, especially the ones who claim others are ignorant....nice job of making yourself look silly waterstain

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

read what he said:



he is saying the economists are right because many more believe X than do not believe X...

i can't believe the level of ignorance from some on this board, especially the ones who claim others are ignorant....nice job of making yourself look silly waterstain

He was referring to "economists", not just generic people off the street. It is an appeal to experts, not numbers.

 

[Damocles]

It's both. It appeals to "many" who think something as well as "experts agree".