im waiting for a politician to feed the CBO some numbers they are certain will result in a series of clever graphs that spell out "BOOBIES" when placed in the correct order next to each other
or they could have accepted the federal funds offered to them instead of sending it back like some dumbass governors did. the stimulus package should have been five times what was passed
Do you have something that you can cite that shows state economies that accepted federal funds doing better than those that didn't? Also, LOL at a ~$4 trillion dollar stimulus.
That's the entire reason unemployment isn't at 7% right now, because of all the public sector cuts which never needed to happen.
Public sector cuts by whom? Broke state governments? Because you see when a state is broke they kind of have to cut things.
There is a theory, and not a rarely held one either, than during recessions it is better for a government to increase debt and spend than it is for a government to cut and attempt to reduce debt. After all, we are talking about economies here, not household finances.
It is much harder to apply Keynesian style policies at the state level. They can't sell bonds to cover debt as easily as the Fed can.
True. I feel there could have been stronger pushes to change such a system due to the economic crisis, however. A lot of right wing politicians around the world have been using the recession to justify cuts, saying that now is a time to reduce spending and debt, rather than spending now in order to avoid making the situation worse in the future. Not really that down on the US situation though, if it was literally impossible for the states to enact Keynesian programs then I feel that there is a problem with the system but that the states cannot be held as responsible for such.
that's why they get funding from the federal government which can borrow money so cheaply that they are practically getting paid to do so. a real stimulus would have ended the recession on the spot and it would be a distant memory. do you have a reason for not having a large stimulus besides "the debt!" which has no place in a conversation about how to recover economically from a big crash.
and yes, I do. wisconson lost a lot of jobs because scott walker sent back the stimulus money.
my point is that the perception that the conservative tax proposals on the table are an evisceration of the middle class and working poor across the board is a farce
Please explain this, given that the middle class is by definition a four person household making $50k/year
or they could have accepted the federal funds offered to them instead of sending it back like some dumbass governors did. the stimulus package should have been five times what was passed
Do you have something that you can cite that shows state economies that accepted federal funds doing better than those that didn't? Also, LOL at a ~$4 trillion dollar stimulus.
That's the entire reason unemployment isn't at 7% right now, because of all the public sector cuts which never needed to happen.
Public sector cuts by whom? Broke state governments? Because you see when a state is broke they kind of have to cut things.
There is a theory, and not a rarely held one either, than during recessions it is better for a government to increase debt and spend than it is for a government to cut and attempt to reduce debt. After all, we are talking about economies here, not household finances.
It is much harder to apply Keynesian style policies at the state level. They can't sell bonds to cover debt as easily as the Fed can.
True. I feel there could have been stronger pushes to change such a system due to the economic crisis, however. A lot of right wing politicians around the world have been using the recession to justify cuts, saying that now is a time to reduce spending and debt, rather than spending now in order to avoid making the situation worse in the future. Not really that down on the US situation though, if it was literally impossible for the states to enact Keynesian programs then I feel that there is a problem with the system but that the states cannot be held as responsible for such.
I haven't read up on Keynes since my first semester of college but do any of his theories take into account that most of these states were already running deficits well before the market crash? Because it doesn't sound like you're thinking about that at all.
that's why they get funding from the federal government which can borrow money so cheaply that they are practically getting paid to do so. a real stimulus would have ended the recession on the spot and it would be a distant memory. do you have a reason for not having a large stimulus besides "the debt!" which has no place in a conversation about how to recover economically from a big crash.
and yes, I do. wisconson lost a lot of jobs because scott walker sent back the stimulus money.
Wisconsin is still faring better than the national average and has a lower unemployment rate than when Walker took office. Also, last I read they were on the path to a balanced budget.
or they could have accepted the federal funds offered to them instead of sending it back like some dumbass governors did. the stimulus package should have been five times what was passed
Do you have something that you can cite that shows state economies that accepted federal funds doing better than those that didn't? Also, LOL at a ~$4 trillion dollar stimulus.
That's the entire reason unemployment isn't at 7% right now, because of all the public sector cuts which never needed to happen.
Public sector cuts by whom? Broke state governments? Because you see when a state is broke they kind of have to cut things.
There is a theory, and not a rarely held one either, than during recessions it is better for a government to increase debt and spend than it is for a government to cut and attempt to reduce debt. After all, we are talking about economies here, not household finances.
It is much harder to apply Keynesian style policies at the state level. They can't sell bonds to cover debt as easily as the Fed can.
True. I feel there could have been stronger pushes to change such a system due to the economic crisis, however. A lot of right wing politicians around the world have been using the recession to justify cuts, saying that now is a time to reduce spending and debt, rather than spending now in order to avoid making the situation worse in the future. Not really that down on the US situation though, if it was literally impossible for the states to enact Keynesian programs then I feel that there is a problem with the system but that the states cannot be held as responsible for such.
I haven't read up on Keynes since my first semester of college but do any of his theories take into account that most of these states were already running deficits well before the market crash? Because it doesn't sound like you're thinking about that at all.
that's why they get funding from the federal government which can borrow money so cheaply that they are practically getting paid to do so. a real stimulus would have ended the recession on the spot and it would be a distant memory. do you have a reason for not having a large stimulus besides "the debt!" which has no place in a conversation about how to recover economically from a big crash.
and yes, I do. wisconson lost a lot of jobs because scott walker sent back the stimulus money.
Wisconsin is still faring better than the national average and has a lower unemployment rate than when Walker took office. Also, last I read they were on the path to a balanced budget.
or they could have accepted the federal funds offered to them instead of sending it back like some dumbass governors did. the stimulus package should have been five times what was passed
Do you have something that you can cite that shows state economies that accepted federal funds doing better than those that didn't? Also, LOL at a ~$4 trillion dollar stimulus.
That's the entire reason unemployment isn't at 7% right now, because of all the public sector cuts which never needed to happen.
Public sector cuts by whom? Broke state governments? Because you see when a state is broke they kind of have to cut things.
There is a theory, and not a rarely held one either, than during recessions it is better for a government to increase debt and spend than it is for a government to cut and attempt to reduce debt. After all, we are talking about economies here, not household finances.
It is much harder to apply Keynesian style policies at the state level. They can't sell bonds to cover debt as easily as the Fed can.
True. I feel there could have been stronger pushes to change such a system due to the economic crisis, however. A lot of right wing politicians around the world have been using the recession to justify cuts, saying that now is a time to reduce spending and debt, rather than spending now in order to avoid making the situation worse in the future. Not really that down on the US situation though, if it was literally impossible for the states to enact Keynesian programs then I feel that there is a problem with the system but that the states cannot be held as responsible for such.
I haven't read up on Keynes since my first semester of college but do any of his theories take into account that most of these states were already running deficits well before the market crash? Because it doesn't sound like you're thinking about that at all.
that's why they get funding from the federal government which can borrow money so cheaply that they are practically getting paid to do so. a real stimulus would have ended the recession on the spot and it would be a distant memory. do you have a reason for not having a large stimulus besides "the debt!" which has no place in a conversation about how to recover economically from a big crash.
and yes, I do. wisconson lost a lot of jobs because scott walker sent back the stimulus money.
Wisconsin is still faring better than the national average and has a lower unemployment rate than when Walker took office. Also, last I read they were on the path to a balanced budget.
Wisconsin was faring better than the national average before walker took office and even mississippi has a lower unemployment rate than when walker took office
The country actually added an enormous amount of jobs from 2010-2012, despite the Republicans fighting tooth and nail.
Wisconsin's most recent jobs report for example is positive, but something like 1/4 of it has to be subtracted from teacher firings, excuse me "retirements". Furthermore Walker didn't do fucking anything to help the budget, he pushed it off until 2013 and I'm sick and tired of gooses standing up and proclaiming "how he made the tough choices" when he fucking didn't. He cut spending to give money to his campaign contributors in a display of political corruption that maybe Blagojavich couldn't even dream about
Then he pushed the paper around so the debt doesn't come do until next year, where he'll do the same fucking thing again like every WI governor for the last 20 years
or they could have accepted the federal funds offered to them instead of sending it back like some dumbass governors did. the stimulus package should have been five times what was passed
Do you have something that you can cite that shows state economies that accepted federal funds doing better than those that didn't? Also, LOL at a ~$4 trillion dollar stimulus.
That's the entire reason unemployment isn't at 7% right now, because of all the public sector cuts which never needed to happen.
Public sector cuts by whom? Broke state governments? Because you see when a state is broke they kind of have to cut things.
There is a theory, and not a rarely held one either, than during recessions it is better for a government to increase debt and spend than it is for a government to cut and attempt to reduce debt. After all, we are talking about economies here, not household finances.
It is much harder to apply Keynesian style policies at the state level. They can't sell bonds to cover debt as easily as the Fed can.
True. I feel there could have been stronger pushes to change such a system due to the economic crisis, however. A lot of right wing politicians around the world have been using the recession to justify cuts, saying that now is a time to reduce spending and debt, rather than spending now in order to avoid making the situation worse in the future. Not really that down on the US situation though, if it was literally impossible for the states to enact Keynesian programs then I feel that there is a problem with the system but that the states cannot be held as responsible for such.
I haven't read up on Keynes since my first semester of college but do any of his theories take into account that most of these states were already running deficits well before the market crash? Because it doesn't sound like you're thinking about that at all.
that's why they get funding from the federal government which can borrow money so cheaply that they are practically getting paid to do so. a real stimulus would have ended the recession on the spot and it would be a distant memory. do you have a reason for not having a large stimulus besides "the debt!" which has no place in a conversation about how to recover economically from a big crash.
and yes, I do. wisconson lost a lot of jobs because scott walker sent back the stimulus money.
Wisconsin is still faring better than the national average and has a lower unemployment rate than when Walker took office. Also, last I read they were on the path to a balanced budget.
Keynesian economics simply believes that it is better to run at a deficit in order to reduce unemployment and stimulate the economy during bad times. Essentially you spend your way out of a recession, the idea being that a short term increase in the deficit will be recouped by long term tax revenue as more people are working and making/spending money in the economy. The austerity measures many governments are undertaking do the opposite of that, they cut public spending in order to reduce the deficit in the short term but with long term problems, especially in terms of healthcare and segments of the workforce losing years of potential employment experience and training.
Krugman did an interview on newsnight over here, totally tore apart a couple of Tory MPs and their ideas of austerity measures by showing that it simply causes long term problems, rather than actually fixing the situation. Again, the situation may be different in the US, but as far as I have heard austerity measures are taking place over there with large numbers of cuts especially on the state level.
or they could have accepted the federal funds offered to them instead of sending it back like some dumbass governors did. the stimulus package should have been five times what was passed
Do you have something that you can cite that shows state economies that accepted federal funds doing better than those that didn't? Also, LOL at a ~$4 trillion dollar stimulus.
That's the entire reason unemployment isn't at 7% right now, because of all the public sector cuts which never needed to happen.
Public sector cuts by whom? Broke state governments? Because you see when a state is broke they kind of have to cut things.
There is a theory, and not a rarely held one either, than during recessions it is better for a government to increase debt and spend than it is for a government to cut and attempt to reduce debt. After all, we are talking about economies here, not household finances.
It is much harder to apply Keynesian style policies at the state level. They can't sell bonds to cover debt as easily as the Fed can.
True. I feel there could have been stronger pushes to change such a system due to the economic crisis, however. A lot of right wing politicians around the world have been using the recession to justify cuts, saying that now is a time to reduce spending and debt, rather than spending now in order to avoid making the situation worse in the future. Not really that down on the US situation though, if it was literally impossible for the states to enact Keynesian programs then I feel that there is a problem with the system but that the states cannot be held as responsible for such.
I haven't read up on Keynes since my first semester of college but do any of his theories take into account that most of these states were already running deficits well before the market crash? Because it doesn't sound like you're thinking about that at all.
that's why they get funding from the federal government which can borrow money so cheaply that they are practically getting paid to do so. a real stimulus would have ended the recession on the spot and it would be a distant memory. do you have a reason for not having a large stimulus besides "the debt!" which has no place in a conversation about how to recover economically from a big crash.
and yes, I do. wisconson lost a lot of jobs because scott walker sent back the stimulus money.
Wisconsin is still faring better than the national average and has a lower unemployment rate than when Walker took office. Also, last I read they were on the path to a balanced budget.
Until very recently. This past June was one of the worst months since the 08 crash.
Javen on
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
grover norquest: ruining our country with an idea he came up with in the 7th grade
austerity curbs economic growth by contracting the money supply. people need money to spend money. austerity in times of economic downturn end up like ireland: 30% unemployment
the reason Keynesian economics don't work for republicans is because they don't actually do the pay down the deficit step when times are good, then they just bitch at clinton because he should be cutting taxes instead of running a surplus.
The traditional "liberal" response to a crash is Keynesian, putting cash into the economy through borrowing, which Obama has done
The traditional "conservative" response is monetarist, having the Fed keep interest rates low to stimulate a strong dollar, which Obama has done
These are pretty much the only two things a president can do. Obama has done and will continue to do both, Romney has promised to use only the monetarist approach (which is bullshit, he's going to spend just as much, but anyway). Doing two things to help instead of just one makes more sense to me.
0
Options
WeaverWho are you?What do you want?Registered Userregular
I kind of want Mitt to get elected just so that all these psycho "there's a black man in the white house!" conspiracy theory websites lose most of their traffic
Guys, we can climb out of our national debt pretty quickly if we just let the Bush tax cuts run out. All our elected officials have to do is nothing.
They're going to fuck this up so bad.
If that were true we'd never have had a national debt to begin with. Go ahead and argue higher taxes all you want but if you look at the numbers and believe that a 4% or whatever increase of income tax revenue and 3-5% on capital gains from the last 10 years would erase a $14 trillion dollar debt you are really ignorant or really bad at math.
I was way into liking politifact for a while, and they aren't really bad but sometimes i feel like they try way too hard to seem neutral. Like rating a blatantly false thing as only "mostly false" because of semantics when it's pretty clear facts are being totally misrepresented.
my point is that the perception that the conservative tax proposals on the table are an evisceration of the middle class and working poor across the board is a farce
Please explain this, given that the middle class is by definition a four person household making $50k/year
Hahaha no fuckin' way dude. If you thought your family was "fucking broke" making 50k a year you are fucking deluded
While its not "living in a box" broke, its still broke. Kids are a terrible financial decision, what with food for four mouths, doctors bills, everchanging clothes sizes, paying for school stuff, new and preexisting debts (college, mortgage, what have you), the inevitable daycare center/babysitter (because more likely than not its a multiple income household) until they turn old enough to go latchkey.
While not destitute, 50k a year total for a family of four is pretty much 80% paycheck-to-paycheck living, and that's broke. When you're one missed week of work from telling your family "ramen for dinner for the next month", you're broke.
I do believe to decrease our debt we need to cut some things,
mainly the military.
Wait wait wait...
Are you saying that the trillion dollars we've spent on the development of the F-35 that doesn't work and can be sold to other countries when (if) it does work is a bad investment?
0
Options
Quoththe RavenMiami, FL FOR REALRegistered Userregular
Maybe we shouldn't get into a brokeness pissing contest you guys
Yes, let us all tell one another how we didn't have it hard enough
That is the reasonable thing to do
I didn't have it hard at all. I mean, we didn't have much money or anything but we always had plenty of food and as children my brother and I always had toys and stuff. The worst time was after my grandfather electrocuted himself and spent quite a long time in the hospital (they had to amputate one of his fingers).
Guys, we can climb out of our national debt pretty quickly if we just let the Bush tax cuts run out. All our elected officials have to do is nothing.
They're going to fuck this up so bad.
If that were true we'd never have had a national debt to begin with. Go ahead and argue higher taxes all you want but if you look at the numbers and believe that a 4% or whatever increase of income tax revenue and 3-5% on capital gains from the last 10 years would erase a $14 trillion dollar debt you are really ignorant or really bad at math.
math isn't on your side on this one
want to lower the debt? get rid of the bush tax cuts. maddow summed up the bush tax cuts well "we went to war while cutting taxes- who does that?"
Posts
True. I feel there could have been stronger pushes to change such a system due to the economic crisis, however. A lot of right wing politicians around the world have been using the recession to justify cuts, saying that now is a time to reduce spending and debt, rather than spending now in order to avoid making the situation worse in the future. Not really that down on the US situation though, if it was literally impossible for the states to enact Keynesian programs then I feel that there is a problem with the system but that the states cannot be held as responsible for such.
and yes, I do. wisconson lost a lot of jobs because scott walker sent back the stimulus money.
Hahaha no fuckin' way dude. If you thought your family was "fucking broke" making 50k a year you are fucking deluded
I haven't read up on Keynes since my first semester of college but do any of his theories take into account that most of these states were already running deficits well before the market crash? Because it doesn't sound like you're thinking about that at all.
Wisconsin is still faring better than the national average and has a lower unemployment rate than when Walker took office. Also, last I read they were on the path to a balanced budget.
Hahahahaha
Wisconsin was faring better than the national average before walker took office and even mississippi has a lower unemployment rate than when walker took office
The country actually added an enormous amount of jobs from 2010-2012, despite the Republicans fighting tooth and nail.
Wisconsin's most recent jobs report for example is positive, but something like 1/4 of it has to be subtracted from teacher firings, excuse me "retirements". Furthermore Walker didn't do fucking anything to help the budget, he pushed it off until 2013 and I'm sick and tired of gooses standing up and proclaiming "how he made the tough choices" when he fucking didn't. He cut spending to give money to his campaign contributors in a display of political corruption that maybe Blagojavich couldn't even dream about
Then he pushed the paper around so the debt doesn't come do until next year, where he'll do the same fucking thing again like every WI governor for the last 20 years
Keynesian economics simply believes that it is better to run at a deficit in order to reduce unemployment and stimulate the economy during bad times. Essentially you spend your way out of a recession, the idea being that a short term increase in the deficit will be recouped by long term tax revenue as more people are working and making/spending money in the economy. The austerity measures many governments are undertaking do the opposite of that, they cut public spending in order to reduce the deficit in the short term but with long term problems, especially in terms of healthcare and segments of the workforce losing years of potential employment experience and training.
Krugman did an interview on newsnight over here, totally tore apart a couple of Tory MPs and their ideas of austerity measures by showing that it simply causes long term problems, rather than actually fixing the situation. Again, the situation may be different in the US, but as far as I have heard austerity measures are taking place over there with large numbers of cuts especially on the state level.
Until very recently. This past June was one of the worst months since the 08 crash.
It's not that enormous in context and GDP growth is still very slow.
austerity curbs economic growth by contracting the money supply. people need money to spend money. austerity in times of economic downturn end up like ireland: 30% unemployment
the reason Keynesian economics don't work for republicans is because they don't actually do the pay down the deficit step when times are good, then they just bitch at clinton because he should be cutting taxes instead of running a surplus.
The traditional "conservative" response is monetarist, having the Fed keep interest rates low to stimulate a strong dollar, which Obama has done
These are pretty much the only two things a president can do. Obama has done and will continue to do both, Romney has promised to use only the monetarist approach (which is bullshit, he's going to spend just as much, but anyway). Doing two things to help instead of just one makes more sense to me.
they'd just shift to psycho "there was a black man in the white house" conspiracies
suggesting obama has riddled the oval office with deadly traps and such
'a/b'
really? that's a thing?
Where does this shit even come from?
Racists? Probably racists.
no it's not.
Paid for by the people for PwnanObrien 2012.
If that were true we'd never have had a national debt to begin with. Go ahead and argue higher taxes all you want but if you look at the numbers and believe that a 4% or whatever increase of income tax revenue and 3-5% on capital gains from the last 10 years would erase a $14 trillion dollar debt you are really ignorant or really bad at math.
mainly the military.
His stupid convoy (of two cars) got the police out to block off the road and my bus was 15 minutes late! Yippee!
But that'll make us look weak!
While its not "living in a box" broke, its still broke. Kids are a terrible financial decision, what with food for four mouths, doctors bills, everchanging clothes sizes, paying for school stuff, new and preexisting debts (college, mortgage, what have you), the inevitable daycare center/babysitter (because more likely than not its a multiple income household) until they turn old enough to go latchkey.
While not destitute, 50k a year total for a family of four is pretty much 80% paycheck-to-paycheck living, and that's broke. When you're one missed week of work from telling your family "ramen for dinner for the next month", you're broke.
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
Wait wait wait...
Are you saying that the trillion dollars we've spent on the development of the F-35 that doesn't work and can be sold to other countries when (if) it does work is a bad investment?
That is the reasonable thing to do
it is w/r/t twitter
That really reads to me like dailykos just can't get the joke.
I didn't have it hard at all. I mean, we didn't have much money or anything but we always had plenty of food and as children my brother and I always had toys and stuff. The worst time was after my grandfather electrocuted himself and spent quite a long time in the hospital (they had to amputate one of his fingers).
Enlighten me on what the joke is, apparently I don't get it either.
Seems to me like he's just fearmongering off a right wing nutjob story which was already debunked.
math isn't on your side on this one
want to lower the debt? get rid of the bush tax cuts. maddow summed up the bush tax cuts well "we went to war while cutting taxes- who does that?"