|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 17 2013 08:09 McBengt wrote:
Wait, Rand Paul is seriously considered as a presidential candidate? Over Christie? And Santorum has somehow managed to scrounge up some semblance of relevance? I guess the comparison of CPAC to a clown collage was rather accurate.
There is no point to pay attention to these stuff considering the general population do not care about the election until primaries are over. It is similar to how Herman Cain or Bachman were "frontrunner" before the party primary kicked off. It doesn't really mean anything.
|
On March 17 2013 04:07 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2013 01:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:If you look at a CBO report the stimulus created / saved jobs. But it also will reduce long-run growth (p.8 "ARRA's long run effects"). So there's a tradeoff - both a cost and a benefit - and little discussion over how they net out or where the bar for "worthwhile" should be set. You kinda need to bring your own standards to the table. If you have something that does a better job of netting out the costs and benefits please share, I'd love to take a look. It's actually depressing to read this kind of stuff. The CBO looks at the impact of the stimulus purely on employment and economic output. I would have thought that spending trillions of dollars should have a clear positive impact in these areas, which would then have to be weighed against the down side of being trillions of extra dollars in debt. But the CBO finds that even the long-term benefits in these areas are in doubt. I'd love to hear the pro-stimulus spin on this kind of information.
If the stimulus had not happened, then, as you say, employment and output in the short term would have been higher. And there is a large cost to having high unemployment, people's skills decay, people become harder to employ, investments for the future are slashed, long run potential output falls, etc. So stimulus spending also offsets these long run problems caused by employment that would have been greater had no stimulus occurred.
These "hysteresis" effects due to not dealing with unemployment, not doing stimulus have long run costs. DeLong and Summers does a cost-benefit analysis taking these long run hysteresis effects into account and finds that when in a depressed economy with rates at the zero lower bound, stimulus is beneficial.
|
10 year anniversary of the Iraq war is coming up next week.
For some context:
Cost of stimulus: $831 billion.
Cost of Iraq War: $1 to $3 trillion depending on the study.
|
On March 17 2013 04:07 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2013 01:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:If you look at a CBO report the stimulus created / saved jobs. But it also will reduce long-run growth (p.8 "ARRA's long run effects"). So there's a tradeoff - both a cost and a benefit - and little discussion over how they net out or where the bar for "worthwhile" should be set. You kinda need to bring your own standards to the table. If you have something that does a better job of netting out the costs and benefits please share, I'd love to take a look. It's actually depressing to read this kind of stuff. The CBO looks at the impact of the stimulus purely on employment and economic output. I would have thought that spending trillions of dollars should have a clear positive impact in these areas, which would then have to be weighed against the down side of being trillions of extra dollars in debt. But the CBO finds that even the long-term benefits in these areas are in doubt. I'd love to hear the pro-stimulus spin on this kind of information.
One more take on this argument.
You claim that it was obvious that stimulus would increase employment and output, at least in the short run. But this was not so obvious for conservative analysts when they were arguing against stimulus. Here's Heritage's piece.
Their argument was that stimulus would not increase employment and output in the short run because of crowding out effects and anticipated future tax increases. An argument that some, but not all, of these analysts no longer claim.
After all, conservatives were singing a different tune just a few months ago, during the fiscal cliff and sequester showdown. Had this argument been right, then they would not have been warning about knocking the recovery offtrack and reducing employment and output, because of reductions in the deficit.
|
I still don't get why they call it the iraq war. The war ended when we toppled the country and then we just restarted it and started rebuilding it under the guise of a capitalist-democratic system of society.
If you used the same logic of the "iraq war" as being a continuous war we've never actually ended WW2 as we're still in japan and Germany. Its going to take a few more decades until it gets better for them but people gotta be happy with another democratically liberated country in the world.
The marshall plan couldn't have been that cheap even changing it for today's dollars and I'm sure that all of europe is happy that we gave them all that money to stop the rise of socialism in western eru.... wait nvm.
|
On March 17 2013 13:36 Sermokala wrote:
I still don't get why they call it the iraq war. The war ended when we toppled the country and then we just restarted it and started rebuilding it under the guise of a capitalist-democratic system of society.
If you used the same logic of the "iraq war" as being a continuous war we've never actually ended WW2 as we're still in japan and Germany. Its going to take a few more decades until it gets better for them but people gotta be happy with another democratically liberated country in the world.
The marshall plan couldn't have been that cheap even changing it for today's dollars and I'm sure that all of europe is happy that we gave them all that money to stop the rise of socialism in western eru.... wait nvm.
What is the point of your argument?
First off, who is "they?" Are you stating that we should not name the "Iraq War" but rather some other name? If so, what is the significance of doing such?
And how does the Marshall Plan have any relation to the naming of a war?
|
On March 17 2013 13:42 tr569 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2013 13:36 Sermokala wrote:
I still don't get why they call it the iraq war. The war ended when we toppled the country and then we just restarted it and started rebuilding it under the guise of a capitalist-democratic system of society.
If you used the same logic of the "iraq war" as being a continuous war we've never actually ended WW2 as we're still in japan and Germany. Its going to take a few more decades until it gets better for them but people gotta be happy with another democratically liberated country in the world.
The marshall plan couldn't have been that cheap even changing it for today's dollars and I'm sure that all of europe is happy that we gave them all that money to stop the rise of socialism in western eru.... wait nvm. What is the point of your argument? First off, who is "they?" Are you stating that we should not name the "Iraq War" but rather some other name? If so, what is the significance of doing such? And how does the Marshall Plan have any relation to the naming of a war?
My point is that the "iraq war" ended a long long time ago if you use anywhere near the logic of any of the other wars that we've had. If you use the same logic as calling this 10 year stretch the "iraq war" then the marshall plan extended WW2 for years and cost a ton right when we were rebuilding our own economy and could have used that money to just help ourselves.
And ofc I mean "they" as people who call this whole 10 year strech the "iraq war" I didn't think that was a hard to understand part of the post.
|
The conditions of the implementation of the Marshall Plan and the occupation of Iraq are not very similar; I'm not sure that analogy makes much sense. A continuously hostile enemy continued to inflict losses on the US in a way very unlike much of the reconstruction of Europe.
|
They were a good 50 years off so I do hope that they were not very similar. The intent and idea of both were the same; to rebuild an economically failing state to make it strong enough to endure the hardships of sovereign statehood as a democracy.In Europe the USA had an extremely large and threatening military in the USA that we had to fight ideologically and in iraq we found an extremely small and threatening ideology in terrorism that we had to fight militarily.
The brunt of the human costs in iraq are felt by the people themselves. The kurds to the north are happy to just not be the whipping boy of the country for whenever the other factions feel like abusing them. Most of the problems felt in Iraq were in part to the civil war that broke out in between the 2 religious factions in the middle east.
|
On March 17 2013 08:09 McBengt wrote:
Wait, Rand Paul is seriously considered as a presidential candidate? Over Christie? And Santorum has somehow managed to scrounge up some semblance of relevance? I guess the comparison of CPAC to a clown collage was rather accurate.
I doubt most clown colleges are as silly as CPAC.
One audience member, Scott Terry, a self-professed white Southerner, asked why members of “my demographic are systematically disenfranchised,” and why it’s “anathema” to be proud of Southern heritage. When Smith told him that Douglass forgave his slavemaster, Terry replied: “For giving him shelter? And food?”
|
This week the House Progressive Caucus release the "Back to Work" budget.
And this really is a back to work budget. It includes:
-$2.1 trillion in stimulus, including on infrastructure, tax cuts, aid to state and local governments.
-Reduces the deficit over the medium term by creating higher tax brackets and other taxes.
-Proposes a carbon tax and financial transactions tax.
More information can be found here, here, and here.
"Centrists" love to talk about reducing the deficit, and when pushed on it, they generally admit that they're in support of stimulus now, then they go back to talking about nothing but reducing the deficit. Well here's a plan with stimulus now, and reduces the deficit over the medium term.
Of course, the chance that this plan passes is literally zero.
|
On March 17 2013 16:51 paralleluniverse wrote:This week the House Progressive Caucus release the "Back to Work" budget. And this really is a back to work budget. It includes: -$2.1 trillion in stimulus, including on infrastructure, tax cuts, aid to state and local governments. -Reduces the deficit over the medium term by creating higher tax brackets and other taxes. -Proposes a carbon tax and financial transactions tax. More information can be found here, here, and here. "Centrists" love to talk about reducing the deficit, and when pushed on it, they generally admit that they're in support of stimulus now, then they go back to talking about nothing but reducing the deficit. Well here's a plan with stimulus now, and reduces the deficit over the medium term. Of course, the chance that this plan passes is literally zero.
So progressives are terrible at market timing :p
|
On March 17 2013 13:52 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2013 13:42 tr569 wrote:On March 17 2013 13:36 Sermokala wrote:
I still don't get why they call it the iraq war. The war ended when we toppled the country and then we just restarted it and started rebuilding it under the guise of a capitalist-democratic system of society.
If you used the same logic of the "iraq war" as being a continuous war we've never actually ended WW2 as we're still in japan and Germany. Its going to take a few more decades until it gets better for them but people gotta be happy with another democratically liberated country in the world.
The marshall plan couldn't have been that cheap even changing it for today's dollars and I'm sure that all of europe is happy that we gave them all that money to stop the rise of socialism in western eru.... wait nvm. What is the point of your argument? First off, who is "they?" Are you stating that we should not name the "Iraq War" but rather some other name? If so, what is the significance of doing such? And how does the Marshall Plan have any relation to the naming of a war? My point is that the "iraq war" ended a long long time ago if you use anywhere near the logic of any of the other wars that we've had. If you use the same logic as calling this 10 year stretch the "iraq war" then the marshall plan extended WW2 for years and cost a ton right when we were rebuilding our own economy and could have used that money to just help ourselves. And ofc I mean "they" as people who call this whole 10 year strech the "iraq war" I didn't think that was a hard to understand part of the post.
The Marshall Plan was an indirect stimulus plan for the U.S., really.
|
On March 17 2013 08:09 McBengt wrote:
Wait, Rand Paul is seriously considered as a presidential candidate? Over Christie? And Santorum has somehow managed to scrounge up some semblance of relevance? I guess the comparison of CPAC to a clown collage was rather accurate.
Christie is the worst possible candidate they could ever run.
|
On March 17 2013 20:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2013 08:09 McBengt wrote:
Wait, Rand Paul is seriously considered as a presidential candidate? Over Christie? And Santorum has somehow managed to scrounge up some semblance of relevance? I guess the comparison of CPAC to a clown collage was rather accurate. Christie is the worst possible candidate they could ever run.
Because he wouldn't be accepted by the hardcore base? If it's a choice between Christie and a dem, lets say Hillary for argument's sake, what would they do? Abstain from voting? I don't really see any candidate with more potential appeal to independents.
Though I heard rumours that Perry is running again, a cause I wholeheartedly support in the name of hilarity.
|
On March 17 2013 16:04 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2013 08:09 McBengt wrote:
Wait, Rand Paul is seriously considered as a presidential candidate? Over Christie? And Santorum has somehow managed to scrounge up some semblance of relevance? I guess the comparison of CPAC to a clown collage was rather accurate. I doubt most clown colleges are as silly as CPAC.Show nested quote +
One audience member, Scott Terry, a self-professed white Southerner, asked why members of “my demographic are systematically disenfranchised,” and why it’s “anathema” to be proud of Southern heritage. When Smith told him that Douglass forgave his slavemaster, Terry replied: “For giving him shelter? And food?”
Thanks for sharing that. It was both hilarious and extremely sad (that people like that exist) at the same time.
|
On March 17 2013 21:50 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2013 20:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 17 2013 08:09 McBengt wrote:
Wait, Rand Paul is seriously considered as a presidential candidate? Over Christie? And Santorum has somehow managed to scrounge up some semblance of relevance? I guess the comparison of CPAC to a clown collage was rather accurate. Christie is the worst possible candidate they could ever run. Because he wouldn't be accepted by the hardcore base? If it's a choice between Christie and a dem, lets say Hillary for argument's sake, what would they do? Abstain from voting? I don't really see any candidate with more potential appeal to independents. Though I heard rumours that Perry is running again, a cause I wholeheartedly support in the name of hilarity.
yep, they would usually abstain from voting. conservative disgust with the party is at a pretty high pitch right now, much more of this moderate bull-crap and they'll cause a straight up schism.
Independents don't win elections, as we just saw in the Romney-Obama election.
I actually think Perry would have had a better shot than Romney, but it doesn't matter either way. What's done is done and I'm pretty sure it'll be someone younger this time: Rand Paul or Marco Rubio.
|
On March 17 2013 16:04 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2013 08:09 McBengt wrote:
Wait, Rand Paul is seriously considered as a presidential candidate? Over Christie? And Santorum has somehow managed to scrounge up some semblance of relevance? I guess the comparison of CPAC to a clown collage was rather accurate. I doubt most clown colleges are as silly as CPAC.Show nested quote +
One audience member, Scott Terry, a self-professed white Southerner, asked why members of “my demographic are systematically disenfranchised,” and why it’s “anathema” to be proud of Southern heritage. When Smith told him that Douglass forgave his slavemaster, Terry replied: “For giving him shelter? And food?”
I didn't really see anything overtly offensive or shocking in that video. Yeah, the guys comment was tasteless, but it was funny. I love how brainwashed and scared white people are of breaking the PC code (which is totally arbitrary in the first place).
Hurry, every white person try and prove how not racist you are! Ostracize the heretic!
And at this point, no one is being seriously considered as a presidential candidate...let's be honest.
|
On March 18 2013 00:27 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2013 16:04 Mindcrime wrote:On March 17 2013 08:09 McBengt wrote:
Wait, Rand Paul is seriously considered as a presidential candidate? Over Christie? And Santorum has somehow managed to scrounge up some semblance of relevance? I guess the comparison of CPAC to a clown collage was rather accurate. I doubt most clown colleges are as silly as CPAC.
One audience member, Scott Terry, a self-professed white Southerner, asked why members of “my demographic are systematically disenfranchised,” and why it’s “anathema” to be proud of Southern heritage. When Smith told him that Douglass forgave his slavemaster, Terry replied: “For giving him shelter? And food?”
I didn't really see anything overtly offensive or shocking in that video. Yeah, the guys comment was tasteless, but it was funny. I love how brainwashed and scared white people are of breaking the PC code (which is totally arbitrary in the first place). Hurry, every white person try and prove how not racist you are! Ostracize the heretic! And at this point, no one is being seriously considered as a presidential candidate...let's be honest.
Um, what? By all means, you can have feelings that MAYBE your southern heritage and historical culture is demonized due to slavery. However, somebody that honestly believes that slaveholders should be "thanked instead of forgiven" is racist. Somebody that feels comfortable making a comment like that is racist.
|
Rofl @ white men being disenfranchised in the south. What a loon. Kimaker, it's not about PC code, at least to me. It's about being so profoundly stupid and ignorant of the privilege you were born into.
I'm glad Christie and Santorum got basically the same amount of votes at a place Christie was banned from. I may be reading to much into it, but I'm hoping that means Santorum will basically never be the spotlight of the party. I'll probably never really like whoever they put forward, but I rest easier knowing there's no chance of such a fool getting the presidency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
