The Goat Pen

Oh yea, and that Community Reinvestment Act thingy certainly stimulated demand for housing didn't it? We're paying the piper now for that artificial demand.

hedge wrote:I was also accepted at Dook and Davidson, but I turned them down, b/c I didn't want to end up a fucking geek like you. Wiz, he's just a corn-fed loser from the biggest loser region of the country, raising his loser ass fambly to eat dust (and like it), so I give him a pass...

I don't care who you give a pass. I only care that you don't add any value here. So I repeat my previous question, what are you doing here?

Anyone from North Carolina should really just shut their fucking dumbass yapper when it comes to brains there Gomer...

Toemeesleather wrote:Cash for Clunkerzzz!!!

raised the price of used cars by about 10% or more, because it removed beat-up shit boxes from the supply of used cars...

and who did that increase in used car price largely hurt? people with less money who HAD to drive used cars...

Market forces do actually work...but libs just think they know better...

THE_WIZARD_ wrote:Market forces do actually work...but libs just think they know better...

yes

and some liberals only know how to wish for the death of others, call women cunts, and be a trolling menace.

What if they called you a cunt too?

Jungle Rat wrote:What if they called you a cunt too?

well, you are what you eat

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/ ... &seid=auto

Mazel Tov

You and Wiz both deserve long painful deaths. I'd pay to watch that, but you both seem willing to do it for free in here...

Hedge hasn't been the same since he ceased to be "The Mighty ______."

Wiz managed to make two consecutive posts not saying "STFU." Progress.

A transient blip in demand doesn't create jobs.

Actually, I wasn't suggesting a transient payment or a one time tax rebate, I was suggesting that we give poor people money on a regular basis, like unemployment, or create jobs building stuff as they did during WWII. I have little doubt that extending unemployment benefits prevented this country from falling into a real depression two years ago, and I think a similar giveaway would result in lower unemployment now.

But I have an even better plan that that:

What do you think would happen if the government starting ordering thousands of train cars, thousands of miles of track, plus goofy green solar panels and wind turbans? And at the same time they started building new bridges, dams and highways, plus houses for low income people and medical schools and science research centers and any other project that made any sense at all? What do you think that would cause?

Sure we'd go deeper in debt in the short run, but during WWII the government ran massive, almost unbelievable deficits year after year. Wouldn't all that activity create thousands, even hundreds of thousands of jobs, and wouldn't it create a chain reaction would create millions of total jobs similar to the War boom that ended the great depression?

And we wouldn't have to borrow all the money because we could finance part of my plan by taking back the Bush Tax cuts for the richest Americans. They don't need it, and it's plain they aren't going to spend it creating jobs.

Of course you'll find fault with my plan, I expect that. But please explain , in detail, how you suppose that we're going to get out of this mess? I'd like to see what your prescription is for ending the great recession because cutting government spending will only put more people out of work and cutting taxes is only going to put us deeper into debt. .

Professor Tiger wrote:Hedge hasn't been the same since he ceased to be "The Mighty ______."

Wiz managed to make two consecutive posts not saying "STFU." Progress.

Heh!

hedge wrote:I think it's a great idea to give people money to spend, as long as it's me getting it. I'm sure everyone feels the same about that, unless they're a goodamn fool or a liar. Which includes most of the posters in here...

Believe it or not, there are real live human beings living in America who would rather work for what they have than to take a handout from someone else. Believe it or not.

Hacksaw wrote:

hedge wrote:I think it's a great idea to give people money to spend, as long as it's me getting it. I'm sure everyone feels the same about that, unless they're a goodamn fool or a liar. Which includes most of the posters in here...

Believe it or not, there are real live human beings living in America who would rather work for what they have than to take a handout from someone else. Believe it or not.

No kidding. I know people who are rich if not close to wealthy, and I don't want their money. Its THEIRS. They EARNED it. They didn't steal it. They didn't inherit it. They created business and worked their asses off for a decade or two to finally reap the rewards of their work.

Taxing them at higher rates isn't going to help me or anybody else. It just makes people FEEL better that this filthy rich SOB is paying more in taxes.

This is what I've been saying ALL ALONG...

Judges sharply challenge healthcare law

Skeptical questions from three federal judges in Atlanta suggest they may be ready to declare unconstitutional all or part of the healthcare law promoted by the Obama administration and passed last year by Congress.


"I can't find any case like this," Dubina said. "If we uphold this, are there any limits" on the power of the federal government?

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-hea ... 7877.story

Yeah like the tax rebates really helped demand. $600 bucks one year and $1800 a few years later. How much did that stimulate demand and for how long? A blip that immediately went away. It was not sustained. Nobody is expanding production and hiring new workers to meet a very short temporary increase in demand. I think I used one of those to buy the generator for tailgating. ONCE. I didn't buy $1800 multiple times.

But if someone had a new job that they didn't have before or paid even 0.28 cents more an hour than an old job and you have more than equaled the one time payment to a single person. AND you didn't have to take it from someone else to get it. So yes it DOES matter where it comes from. A transient blip in demand doesn't create jobs.

-------------

Tax Rebates Will Not Stimulate The Economy

Published on January 10, 2008 by Brian Riedl

With slower economic growth raising fears of a recession, Washington is abuzz with talk of economic stimulus plans. President Bush may offer a stimulus package, and congressional leaders are discussing a proposal centered around tax rebates.
Tax rebates, however, don't stimulate the economy. Cutting tax rates does.

To explain, let's take a step back. By definition, an economy grows when it produces more goods and services than it did the year before. In 2007, Americans produced $13 trillion worth of goods and services, up 3 percent over 2006.

Economic growth requires four main factors: 1) a motivated, educated and trained workforce; 2) sufficient levels of capital equipment and technology; 3) a solid infrastructure and 4) a legal system and rule of law sufficient to enforce contracts.
High tax rates reduce economic growth because they make it less profitable to work, save and invest. This translates into less work, saving, investment and capital -- and that results in fewer goods and services. Reducing marginal income tax rates has been shown to motivate workers to work more. Lower corporate and investment taxes encourage the savings and investment vital to producing more plants and equipment, as well as better technology.

By contrast, tax rebates fail because they don't encourage productivity or wealth creation. No one has to work, save, invest or create any new wealth to receive a rebate.

Critics contend that rebates "inject" new money into the economy, increasing demand and therefore production. But every dollar that government rebates "inject" into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy (and even money borrowed from foreigners brings a reduction in net exports). No new spending power is created. It is merely redistributed from one group of people to another.
The same critics respond that redistributing money from "savers" to "spenders" will lead to additional spending. That assumes that savers store their savings in their mattresses, thereby removing it from the economy. In reality, nearly all Americans either invest their savings (where it finances business investment) or deposit it in banks (which quickly lend it to others to spend). Therefore, the money is spent whether it is initially consumed or saved. Given that reality, isn't it more responsible for the saver to keep that money and save for a new home or their children's education, rather than have Washington redistribute it to someone else to spend at Best Buy?

Simply put, low tax rates encourage new wealth creation. Tax rebates merely redistribute existing wealth.
Take the 2001 tax rebates. Washington borrowed billions from the capital markets, and then mailed it to families in the form of $600 checks. Predictably, consumer spending temporarily rose, and capital/investment spending temporarily fell by a corresponding amount. This simple transfer of existing wealth did not encourage productive behavior. The economy remained stagnant through 2001 and much of 2002.

It was not until the 2003 tax cuts -- which instead cut tax rates for workers and investors -- that the economy finally and immediately recovered. In the previous 18 months, businesses investment had plummeted, the stock market had dropped 18 percent, and the economy had lost 616,000 jobs. In the 18 months following the 2003 tax rate reductions, business investment surged, the stock market leaped 32 percent, and the economy created 5.3 million new jobs. Overall economic growth doubled.
Thus, both economic theory and practice show the superiority of tax rate reductions over tax rebates.

On the spending side, the same economics apply. Programs aimed at injecting money into the economy will fail because that money first must be removed from the economy. And proposals to have Washington subsidize state governments would not change the amount of total government taxing and borrowing. Such policies are based on redistribution, not productivity.

True, education, training and highway spending could theoretically increase productivity and therefore promote long-term economic growth. However, that assumes Washington won't divert highway money into worthless pork projects and bridges to nowhere, and that more education and training money are directly correlated with better performance. (Previous large budget increases had almost no effect.) There is little reason to trust Washington politicians to make the right public investments.
Instead, the 2003 tax cuts showed that proper tax policy can encourage the working, saving and investment that fuel productivity and economic growth. Combined with proposals to reduce bureaucratic red tape and support free trade, tax rate reductions are the best way for Washington to remove barriers to economic growth.[/quote]

[img2]http://chzmemebase.files.wordpress.com/ ... creux1.jpg[/img2]

*Its* is not supposed to have an aposhrophe there.

PT:

STFU

Please explain, in detail, how you suppose that we're going to get out of this mess? I'd like to see what your prescription is for ending the great recession because cutting government spending will only put more people out of work and cutting taxes is only going to put us deeper into debt.

Since the question has been ignored, I'll broaden the question to any one of you conservative/Libertarian/Tea party types.