Kirkland perhaps you would care to explain...

[killersheep]

"Unfortunately in this world there is no tooth fairy. And the government doesn’t create anything; it just redistributes. Whenever the government bails someone out of trouble, they always put someone into trouble, plus of course a toll for the troll. Every $100 billion in bailout requires at least $130 billion in taxes, where the $30 billion extra is the cost of getting government involved." - Arthur Laffer


All food stamps do is addict people to that entitlement program....in the real world, the one where I live and everyone else besides you live this magic money doesn't appear out of thin air it's taken from people who WORK for a living that doesn't help the economy

On August 28, 2006, Art Laffer appeared on Kudlow & Company[4] to debate Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital. Laffer made a bet with Schiff that there wouldn't be a recession, and that the housing bubble wouldn't bust in the next year or two. Both agreed to put their credibility on the line and the winner would receive a penny.
Laffer appeared almost two years after that interview, on "Real Time with Bill Maher", on October 24, 2008. Maher asked him, "Have you paid off that bet?" Laffer replied that he had not.

Arthur Laffer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry about the cut and paste........................

[Kirkland Laing]

"Unfortunately in this world there is no tooth fairy. And the government doesn’t create anything; it just redistributes. Whenever the government bails someone out of trouble, they always put someone into trouble, plus of course a toll for the troll. Every $100 billion in bailout requires at least $130 billion in taxes, where the $30 billion extra is the cost of getting government involved." - Arthur Laffer


All food stamps do is addict people to that entitlement program....in the real world, the one where I live and everyone else besides you live this magic money doesn't appear out of thin air it's taken from people who WORK for a living that doesn't help the economy

On August 28, 2006, Art Laffer appeared on Kudlow & Company[4] to debate Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital. Laffer made a bet with Schiff that there wouldn't be a recession, and that the housing bubble wouldn't bust in the next year or two. Both agreed to put their credibility on the line and the winner would receive a penny.
Laffer appeared almost two years after that interview, on "Real Time with Bill Maher", on October 24, 2008. Maher asked him, "Have you paid off that bet?" Laffer replied that he had not.

Arthur Laffer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry about the cut and paste........................

Here's what Greg Mankiw, George W Bush's chief economic advisor, had to say about Laffer and the supply side people :

N. Gregory Mankiw (199, Principles of Economics (New York: Dryden: 0030982383).
Thinking Like an Economist: Why Economists Disagree: Charlatans and Cranks:
pp. 29-30: An example of fad economics occurred in 1980, when a small group fo economists advised presidential candidate Ronald Reagan that an across-the-board cut in income tax rates would raise tax revenue. They argued that if people could keep a higher fraction of their income, people would work harder to earn more income. Even though tax rates would be lower, income would raise by so much, they claimed, that tax revenue would rise. Almost all professional economists, including most of those who supported Reagan's proposal to cut taxes, viewed this outcome as too optimistic. Lower tax rates might encourage people to work harder, and this extra effort would offset the direct effects of lower tax rates to some extent. But there was no credible evidence that work effort would rise by enough to caues tax revenues to rise in the face of lower tax rates. George Bush, also a presidential candidate in 1980, agreed with most of the professional economists: He called this idea "voodoo economics." Nonetheless, the argument was appealing to Reagan, and it shaped the 1980 presidential campaign and the economic policies of the 1980s.... Congress passes the cut in tax rates... but the tax cut did not cause tax revenue to rise... tax revenue fell... government began a long period of deficit spending... largest peacetime increase in the government debt in U.S. history. Fads can make experts seem less united than the actually are... when the economics profession appears in disarry, you should ask whether the disagreement is real or manufactured... [by] some snake-oil salesman who is trying to sell a miracle cure...







Lyle.



People who have endorsed the Republican House caucus's objections to the stimulus package:

Donald Luskin, Chief Investment Officer, Trend Macrolytics LLC, Stupidest Man Alive EmeritusTM: "Government spending does not create incentives for labor, innovation and investment. Instead of spending $1 trillion in Washington, let Washington forgive $1 trillion in tax revenues to create incentives for millions of individuals and firms to get the economy going again, one dollar at a time."

People who have not the Republican House caucus's objections to the stimulus package:

Eddie Lazear, Chair, President's Council of Economic Advisers (George W. Bush)
Matthew Slaughter, Member, President's Council of Economic Advisers (George W. Bush)
Katherine Baicker, Member, President's Council of Economic Advisers (George W. Bush)
Ben Bernanke, Chair, President's Council of Economic Advisers (George W. Bush)
Harvey Rosen, Chair, President's Council of Economic Advisers (George W. Bush)
Kristen Forbes, Member, President's Council of Economic Advisers (George W. Bush)
N. Gregory Mankiw, Chair, President's Council of Economic Advisers (George W. Bush)
Randall Kroszner, Member, President's Council of Economic Advisers (George W. Bush)
Mark McClellan, Member, President's Council of Economic Advisers (George W. Bush)
R. Glenn Hubbard, Chair, President's Council of Economic Advisers (George W. Bush)
Paul Wonnacott, Member, President's Council of Economic Advisers (George H. W. Bush)
Richard Schmalensee, Member, President's Council of Economic Advisers (George H. W. Bush)
John Taylor, Member, President's Council of Economic Advisers (George H. W. Bush)
Michael Boskin, Chair, President's Council of Economic Advisers (George H. W. Bush)
Michael Mussa, Member, President's Council of Economic Advisers (Ronald Reagan)
Thomas Moore, Member, President's Council of Economic n SpriyAdvisers (Ronald Reagan)
Beryl Sprinkel, Chair, President's Council of Economic Advisers (Ronald Reagan)
William Poole, Member, President's Council of Economic Advisers (Ronald Reagan)
Martin Feldstein, Chair, President's Council of Economic Advisers (Ronald Reagan)
Jerry Jordan, Member, President's Council of Economic Advisers (Ronald Reagan)
William Niskanen, Member, President's Council of Economic Advisers (Ronald Reagan)
Murray Weidenbaum, Chair, President's Council of Economic Advisers (Ronald Reagan)
Burton Malkiel, Member, President's Council of Economic Advisers (Gerald Ford)
Paul MacAvoy, Member, President's Council of Economic Advisers (Gerald Ford)
Alan Greenspan, Chair, President's Council of Economic Advisers (Gerald Ford)
Gary Seevers, Member, President's Council of Economic Advisers (Gerald Ford)
Marina von Neumann Whitman, Member, President's Council of Economic Advisers (Richard Nixon)
Paul McCracken, Member, President's Council of Economic Advisers (Richard Nixon)

In fact, no current or former member of the President's Council of Economic Advisers-- Democrat or Republican, living or dead, sane or insane-- has signed up for the Republican House caucus's list of economists opposed to the stimulus package.

[AdamGB]

What do you think will help the economy Lyle?

[El Kabong]

What do you think will help the economy Lyle?

Having the government step back and allow businessmen to do business....I don't think we should let them (and by them I mean both business AND government) go around all willy nilly like Clinton and W did. I think there should be not new laws and regulations but more oversight and more transparency in business and government.

Sure our infastructure could use a bit of a tune up but looking at the rest of the bill, I really don't think that crap does anything but say "Thank You" to all the liberals that support Obama. $6 BILLION for University rebuilding....have you looked at how much it costs to go to college lately? Do you think they really need that? If there is price gouging anywhere it's in higher education.

We're eventually going to have to pay some of this back I would just hope that the government guys would be a little bit more cautious with that kind of money instead of yelling and screaming about getting this bill passed.

[killersheep]

What do you think will help the economy Lyle?

Having the government step back and allow businessmen to do business....I don't think we should let them (and by them I mean both business AND government) go around all willy nilly like Clinton and W did. I think there should be not new laws and regulations but more oversight and more transparency in business and government.

Sure our infastructure could use a bit of a tune up but looking at the rest of the bill, I really don't think that crap does anything but say "Thank You" to all the liberals that support Obama. $6 BILLION for University rebuilding....have you looked at how much it costs to go to college lately? Do you think they really need that? If there is price gouging anywhere it's in higher education.

We're eventually going to have to pay some of this back I would just hope that the government guys would be a little bit more cautious with that kind of money instead of yelling and screaming about getting this bill passed.

So you are making the assumption that big business operates in a more ethical way than the government is that correct? or are you saying it it the role of government to regulate business?

Shit I have to go to class, I was looking forward to this one too.

[Kirkland Laing]

What do you think will help the economy Lyle?

Having the government step back and allow businessmen to do business....I don't think we should let them (and by them I mean both business AND government) go around all willy nilly like Clinton and W did. I think there should be not new laws and regulations but more oversight and more transparency in business and government.

Sure our infastructure could use a bit of a tune up but looking at the rest of the bill, I really don't think that crap does anything but say "Thank You" to all the liberals that support Obama. $6 BILLION for University rebuilding....have you looked at how much it costs to go to college lately? Do you think they really need that? If there is price gouging anywhere it's in higher education.

We're eventually going to have to pay some of this back I would just hope that the government guys would be a little bit more cautious with that kind of money instead of yelling and screaming about getting this bill passed.

How is the government preventing businessmen doing business? Businesmen are currently slashing payrolls and have ceased investing, so business isn't going to dig the economy out of its tailspin. The only entity with money to spend is government, if they don't do it nobody else will and you'll get Depressed. But how is government preventing businessmen doing business?


Everybody agrees that the financial industry needs to be regulated. If the derivatives markets had been regulated the banks wouldn't have lost trillions in bad derivatives bets, the cause of the current financial crisis. If securities ratings agencies, mortgage lenders etc. had been regulated it would have prevented the crisis too. Would you seriously like the banks to be allowed to continue to be unregulated? If they're not regulated they'll only melt the financial system down again in the future you know. What's the difference between oversight and regulation?

Can you think of any better infrastructure spending for the future benefit of America than education? I can't.

Bush already put you on the hook for about ten trillion bailing the banks out. Obama will put you on the hook for trillions more. If the stimulus fails the Depression will cost untold trillions in lost growth and more spending to dig the economy out of it. Again, the private sector is slashing payrolls and has ended investment. The only entity that can stimulate the economy is the government.


• Marshall Plan: Cost: $12.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $115.3 billion
• Louisiana Purchase: Cost: $15 million, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $217 billion
• Race to the Moon: Cost: $36.4 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $237 billion
• S&L Crisis: Cost: $153 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $256 billion
• Korean War: Cost: $54 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $454 billion
• The New Deal: Cost: $32 billion (Est), Inflation Adjusted Cost: $500 billion (Est)
• Invasion of Iraq: Cost: $551b, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $597 billion
• Vietnam War: Cost: $111 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $698 billion
• NASA: Cost: $416.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $851.2 billion
TOTAL: $3.92 trillion

PLUS


World War II: Original Cost: $288 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $3.6 trillion

Total cost : $7.52 trillion.








Nov. 24 2008 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. government is prepared to provide more than $7.76 trillion on behalf of American taxpayers after guaranteeing $306 billion of Citigroup Inc. debt yesterday. The pledges, amounting to half the value of everything produced in the nation last year, are intended to rescue the financial system after the credit markets seized up 15 months ago.





The unprecedented pledge of funds includes $3.18 trillion already tapped by financial institutions in the biggest response to an economic emergency since the New Deal of the 1930s, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The commitment dwarfs the plan approved by lawmakers, the Treasury Department’s $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. Federal Reserve lending last week was 1,900 times the weekly average for the three years before the crisis.





When Congress approved the TARP on Oct. 3, Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson acknowledged the need for transparency and oversight. Now, as regulators commit far more money while refusing to disclose loan recipients or reveal the collateral they are taking in return, some Congress members are calling for the Fed to be reined in.





Bloomberg.com: Exclusive

[El Kabong]

I don't know if this is just me but I find it a bit scary that if the government owns the banks then whoever gets elected owns the banks and then we have a whole new level of fear..."If the Republicans run the banks the X is going to happen"...."If the Democrats run the banks then Y willl happen" etc etc etc.

The idea behind our economy is that eventually we have to pay for goods and services and the faster we just let things be the faster we get back to people getting back to normal which means spending like normal and maybe we have to wait a while before the lending comes back to normal but I would rather the economic environment adapt than the government just go in and start running things.

[Kirkland Laing]

I don't know if this is just me but I find it a bit scary that if the government owns the banks then whoever gets elected owns the banks and then we have a whole new level of fear..."If the Republicans run the banks the X is going to happen"...."If the Democrats run the banks then Y willl happen" etc etc etc.

The idea behind our economy is that eventually we have to pay for goods and services and the faster we just let things be the faster we get back to people getting back to normal which means spending like normal and maybe we have to wait a while before the lending comes back to normal but I would rather the economic environment adapt than the government just go in and start running things.

If you "let things be" the entire financial system will collapse. If government hadn't stepped in to bail out the banks with the KLGFSRP we'd already be back to the barter system. It may well work perfectly well in North Carolina but in the rest of the world we prefer using hard currency to settle our transactions. I don't want to have to carry round half a pig or a bushel of whatever it is you people make bushels out of to buy something I want.

Bank lending and business investment have come to a standstill. Consumer spending is dropping off a cliff and as more businesses are unable to get credit from the non-lending banks they'll lay more people off, which obviously cuts consumer spending. Business then slashes payroll even more and generally cuts costs so they can cut their prices to attract spending, but as they keep cutting prices consumers wait to spend as they know prices will fall further. We call this "deflation" and it's what happened from 1930 onwards to cause the Great Depression. That's why the government is spending money right now -- nobody else is, and if somebody doesn't keep spending the economy will fall into a deflationary death spiral.

So taking all this into account do you still want the government to just back off and let the market sort itself out? Or would you support at least making an attempt to avoid Depression?

[AdamGB]

I don't know if this is just me but I find it a bit scary that if the government owns the banks then whoever gets elected owns the banks and then we have a whole new level of fear..."If the Republicans run the banks the X is going to happen"...."If the Democrats run the banks then Y willl happen" etc etc etc.

The idea behind our economy is that eventually we have to pay for goods and services and the faster we just let things be the faster we get back to people getting back to normal which means spending like normal and maybe we have to wait a while before the lending comes back to normal but I would rather the economic environment adapt than the government just go in and start running things.

If you "let things be" the entire financial system will collapse. If government hadn't stepped in to bail out the banks with the KLGFSRP we'd already be back to the barter system. It may well work perfectly well in North Carolina but in the rest of the world we prefer using hard currency to settle our transactions. I don't want to have to carry round half a pig or a bushel of whatever it is you people make bushels out of to buy something I want.

lol... buuuuuuuuuuuuuurned

[El Kabong]

If you "let things be" the entire financial system will collapse. If government hadn't stepped in to bail out the banks with the KLGFSRP we'd already be back to the barter system. It may well work perfectly well in North Carolina but in the rest of the world we prefer using hard currency to settle our transactions. I don't want to have to carry round half a pig or a bushel of whatever it is you people make bushels out of to buy something I want.

Bank lending and business investment have come to a standstill. Consumer spending is dropping off a cliff and as more businesses are unable to get credit from the non-lending banks they'll lay more people off, which obviously cuts consumer spending. Business then slashes payroll even more and generally cuts costs so they can cut their prices to attract spending, but as they keep cutting prices consumers wait to spend as they know prices will fall further. We call this "deflation" and it's what happened from 1930 onwards to cause the Great Depression. That's why the government is spending money right now -- nobody else is, and if somebody doesn't keep spending the economy will fall into a deflationary death spiral.

So taking all this into account do you still want the government to just back off and let the market sort itself out? Or would you support at least making an attempt to avoid Depression?

The actions taken in this bill won't do a GOD DAMN THING! The nonpartisan CBO even said so, they said this bill will HURT us in the long run.

How do you get people to SPEND? You cut taxes....simple stuff. The first stimulus bill didn't work why the hell should this one? The market didn't have such a rosey view of the bill.

But you're always right and you're always annoying......well one of the two is 100% true