The Bucknuts Hot Spot

This is where Timmy loves to try to split hairs and attempt to divert from the real issue. Well Tim, sorry, but anyone that wroked for Obama, aka The Obama White House, that said unemployment will not rise about 8% if the stimulus was passed is the same thing as the words coming from Obama himself. Kind of the same way you blame the Bush Administration for the outing of Valerie Plame by Scooter Libby. Obama never came out and said that wasn't true, never fired anyone over the remark, and in fact continued to praise his economic advisors.

Thank you for casting your vote for Romney. Let's see if you are a man of your words.

So you won't admit you are lying. Look at my response above - fact checks have consistently concluded that neither Obama nor any member of his administration made such a promise - so you are the one trying to parse words, not me.

Can you read? "As PolitiFact has determined numerous times before, neither Obama personally nor his administration never made such a promise. Two economic advisers offered that projection, but stressed repeatedly that their estimates were subject to considerable "uncertainty."
http://www.politifact.com/new-jersey/statements/2012/feb/27/chris-christie/chris-christie-claims-obama-said-unemployment-woul/

Also see: http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2012/mar/02/eric-cantor/cantor-says-obama-promised-stimulus-would-keep-une/

Even if you believe your own lie, it does not make it true.

Time to fess up LIAR!

Not wasted money. A large majority of economists said the stimulus kept us out of a Depression. Sorry you don't accept facts.

Wrong about that "majority". Some economists, who happen to be either Obama fans/donors or the occasional guy who calls himself a Republican, think that way. The fact is, at this time, most economists think the stimulus did nothing.

Do we even know how many economists are out there? Do we know if we even have a "majority" who even have opinions? Let alone a "LARGE majority" who believe the stimulus kept us out of a depression????

I can tell you right now, Market Economists and economic purists believed that companies should be allowed to fail and that the stimulus was nothing more than a band aid. They also said the same thing about Bush's tax rebates that he had paid out to influence spending in the economy. It never solves the real problem. In fact, its standing in the way of the market naturally fixing the problem. You could argue, that the stimulus in fact perpetuated the problem and made sure that recovery would take even longer. You could even argue that we'll see more recessions as a result because we've never allowed the natural market corrections to take place. Market Economists believe this to their core because it is the foundation of Economics.

Investors, on the other hand, who have personal interests and agendas, see it completely different.

Furthermore, Command Economists would have done similar except they would be seeking to retain ownership in private business and expand the economic scope of oversight of the government.

Keynsians believe greatly in infrastructure spending and would have likely preferred different methods of execution. I think Keynesians would not be happy with the results let alone the execution and would not be celebrating the effectiveness of the stimulus.

Yes... companies should succeed and fail on their own merit.

The assumption you are making shows a dramatic misunderstanding of economics.

When you say "do nothing" you are talking about the government "doing nothing". To that I absolutely agree. They government should be maintaining an environment where businesses can freely succeed or fail. That is the extent of government responsibility in economics.

Where your assumption is flawed is that you assume the economy equally will do nothing. As if some void will linger in the economy with nothing to fill it unless the government steps in. But the market doesn't work that way. When there is a void, economic demand drives industry. Hence the phrase "necessity is the mother of invention". There will always be economic demand and there will be people to fill it.

Essentially, what the stimulus did, was keep afloat failing business models. At the same time, it didn't allow newer and better models to fill the void. The stimulus effectively stood in the way of growth and progress based on the premise of fear.

No my friend... Something would happen. It just wouldn't be the government doing it. Its called growth and evolution. there is a reason why companies fail and newer and better ones emerge.

Sure, unemployment in that first year would be terrifying. And unemployment claims would be high. But we would be immediately be beginning the rebuilding process. Are we even rebuilding now??? Think about that. Think about the progressive reduction in claims over the years after. Versus our continual growth in claims annually that we see now. Logically, biting the bullet then would have resulted in reduced overall expenditures towards unemployment claims YOY for the next few years.

I think the Economic doom and gloom is not nearly what it was presented to be. This was just as much of a scare tactic as promoting war is. "If we don't support my agenda nobody will have a job". It's not that bad.

You also have to understand that in a competitive market, one company failing can help keep afloat a competitor. While a stimulus preserves a failed model and equally keeps the competitors struggling. It goes against the fabric of market economics.

you have to see the forest through the trees. People were so consumed with immediate impact they couldn't envision long term.

What makes you think I support government aid to any company. Just because there is existing aid, doesn't mean I support it.

Keep in mind though, a lot of this aid might be to balance out our ridiculous tax structure. You know, those exemptions and deductions you hate so much. Tax incentives aren't always because the rich are getting help. Its often to supplement a contradiction in the tax system. What makes you think all of them would fail? You've been sold a bill of goods my friend.

Granted, we need to change our tax system. Since this is something I've seen you support, I don't think you'll argue here. Are you beginning to realize that we are doing all this absurd and anarchist stuff simply to maintain something we know to be wrong but too chicken-shit to fix? Sounds like I'm turning you into a Capitalist. You're beginning to see the light.

Whats wrong with selling to the government? The government is a consumer like everyone else. Companies who are dependent on one customer deserve to fail. Sell to the government all you want. But don't be surprised if one day the government screws you and you go out of business. Smart companies diversify or expand to weather these things.

I don't see the problem here... You talk about having a level playing field but then mention the government professions. Sounds like you have a problem with the government having all these services. Because you're right, the government introduction into a marketplace is exactly what screws things up. Guess how many monopolies exist in the united states outside of the government (meaning they aren't contracted by the government to have a monopoly or they aren't a government entity). Monopolies are the single biggest issue in free markets. Monopolies destroy free markets. Yet the government empowers and promotes monopolies all the time.

You want a level playing field, don't look at Capitalism. Capitalism naturally levels the playing field. Look at the government. Look at the government for all the things you mentioned. And look at the government for the single most corrupt and price egregious entities in our economy. Monopolies... Then tell me the best way to have a level playing field.

How do you view the interconnectivity of all the bad debt that was spread around? The argument at the time was that the failure wouldn't be limited to the companies in the worst shape. Everyone had a piece of it so everyone would be hurt by it.

I didn't try and put words in your mouth, I was just stating, some Companies receive an unfair amount of assistance.... Nor did I say if those benefits were removed they'd fail... only, it's tough to compete when the major player, is getting an advantage...

Our tax structure is an issue, and needs to be fixed. It needs to be fair to all.

My point about the Govt. is it is everywhere, and almost every Business benefits from their purchases, and I sell a lot of product to the Govt.

I am not for a Capitalist Government, because Business is ruthless, as corrupt as the Govt is, Big Businesses would be 100 times worse.... Our Govt would be much better if we went to term limits, then we'd get all of their attention as opposed to 50% of the time running for re-election.... Ps nice chatting with you, I understand where you are coming from....

If you aren't for Capitalism what are you for?

Are you for Government ownership of everything? Are you Socialist?

How do you feel about private property?

You say business would be 100 times worse than government. But in free markets, we see businesses universally less corrupt than Communist governments. In fact, its a blurred line with communism because communism is ultimate corruption. The government owns everything. The people own nothing.

Communism basically being equal to what is known as a Command Economy. The polar opposite of a Market Economy which basically represents what we know as Capitalism. Essentially within Capitalism, there are private property rights and the market is governed by consumerism where supply and demand set the prices naturally.

The beauty with Capitalism is that they can be as corrupt as they want, but consumers simply won't buy if there isn't value. the only threat to Capitalism are monopolies. Once again, the single purveyor of monopolies in the US is the government.

So, tell me again about all this corruption??? Because you can't run away from being oppressed by a corrupt government. They can hold you hostage by their borders and their guns. But you can absolutely refuse to buy the product of a corrupt business. Hence, the self-policing structure of Capitalist Market Economies versus the complete control and ultimate corruption of Communism.

No advisor promised under 8% or said anything about it. In fact in the memo itself the estimated projected figure is 8.5% which should tell you something right there.

So two different fact checks say that the projection was a projection not a promised or even solid estimate by anyone in the administration but because it goes against your opinion you just ignore it.

If that is not enough this is from the memo:

"It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error. There is the obvious uncertainty that comes from modeling a hypothetical package rather than the final legislation passed by Congress. But, there is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity."
http://www.thompson.com/images/thompson/nclb/openresources/obamaeconplanjan9.pdf

Does that sound like they were saying their figures were rock solid or should be used? Of course not.

I will say that up until now that you have obviously been mistaken and not lying. However if you do not understand that it is absolutely not true that Obama or any advisor said that unemployment would be under 8% if the stimulus passed, then you are just not able to read and/or deal with reality when the facts show that you are wrong.

Everyone wants a tax structure that is "fair". Problem is that in this country we have 310,000,000 different ideas of what a "fair" tax structure is. The bottom half think the upper half needs to pay more. The top half think the bottom half are getting a free ride.