By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Obama's stimulus will cost more than the entire Iraq war.

fastyxx on 24 August 2010
TheRealMafoo said:
Onibaka said:

The problem is that bankers rule the world. They can be a parasite of the economy as much as they can, but when they fuck everything, it's responsability of government to help them. They have the obligation to raise the debt of people, and, at intervals, when they overmake it, we have to pay.

 

I don't live there, so i don't have as much information as you. But is my point of view in USA situation.


Bankers should be as easy to predict as what will happen to water if you poor it down a hill. Banks will move towards profit like water finds the lowest point.

If government had not made giving out loans to those that had no business obtaining them profitable, banks would never have done it.

The government paid banks to give loans to people who legally had a right to have them. Why is that the banks fault?

Banks and other corporations never do anything bad for consumers or the greater good in search of profit unless the government "mandates" it?

Wow.  

What planet do you live on?



Can't we all just get along and play our games in peace?

Around the Network
fastyxx on 24 August 2010
Chrizum said:

That's what you get when the damn Stimulus Packs are $15. $15 for a mere 3 new maps! That's ridiculous.

At least that's the way I see it.


Funny.  :)



Can't we all just get along and play our games in peace?

Wonktonodi on 24 August 2010
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
TheRealMafoo said:
Rath said:

Ok without checking whether the statistics actually hold up or not (so assuming he is correct) he misses two important points I believe.

1) The stimulus helped the economy recover, therefore the costs of the stimulus are at least to some point offset by the stronger economy.

2) The stimulus spending wasn't a straight up loss. The GM deal is a good example of this, $50B outlay and now the govt owns about $100B of GM.


A point he makes:

When Obama was pushing the stimulus, he said,

Then you get the argument, "well this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill." Whaddya think a stimulus is? (Laughter.) That's the whole point. No, seriously. (Laughter.) That's the point. (Applause.)

So spending $572B in two years stimulates an economy, but spending $554B over six years ruins one?

Aren't these also the same folks who tell us how well JFK and LBJ ran the economy back in the roaring '60s? During the eight years of 1961-69, 46% of all federal spending was on national defense. During President Bush's eight years, defense spending did not even average 20% of federal outlays. Under JFK/LBJ, defense spending was 8%-9% of GDP. Under Bush, it was about 4%.

Uh. Spending $572B in two years on stimulating the economy stimulates the economy.

Also comparing now to the cold war on defense spending is obviously going to stuff comparisons up.

I dunno.  I mean... look at the Great Depression.  FDR's stimulus spending didn't really do shit except prolong the problems and set up for a second dip.

Which a lot of people are predicting now.

The second dip ended during WW2.  Quite possibly a coincidence... and the problem was finally fixing itself naturally, but current economic history tends to favor war as the better economic booster then stimulus spending.

The double dip happed when the stimulus spending stoped and stome taxes increased.  The second dip ending durring ww2 was when the government took even more control over the economy.  Since WW2 the government hasn't really had that control over the economy again.

Not to forget that the low in uneployment before the double dip was like 14% so still higher than we've had with our high



fastyxx on 24 August 2010
HappySqurriel said:
Rath said:

Ok without checking whether the statistics actually hold up or not (so assuming he is correct) he misses two important points I believe.

1) The stimulus helped the economy recover, therefore the costs of the stimulus are at least to some point offset by the stronger economy.

2) The stimulus spending wasn't a straight up loss. The GM deal is a good example of this, $50B outlay and now the govt owns about $100B of GM.


First, the obvious question, if the stimulus helped the economy recover why is unemployment so high and why are so many people convinced that we will face a double dip (or more appropriately that we never left the initial recession)?

Secondly, I would just like to point out that since the stimulus was funded through deficit spending when the spending slows down or stops it will act as an overall drag to the economy because you will have to pay interest on it; and, being that it is unlikely that the US government will every pay down any of the principle, the total negative effect from the stimulus will inevitably be several times larger than the total positive effect from the stimulus.

Not sure about this, as no one is.  Economies are much too complex and intertwined globally.   If there were definitive answers, we wouldn't have any debate.  The dominant theory right now seems to be that the stimulus needed to be bigger and the states and locals need to spend the other $200 billion or so that they haven't used yet.  The contraction of state and local governments counteracted the input from the federal government.  But who knows?  We will never know what would have happened if we just let the auto companies and investment banks and AIG and the like just go down.  



Can't we all just get along and play our games in peace?

Seece on 24 August 2010

You have an unhealthy obsession on hating on America/Obama ...



 

Around the Network
thranx on 24 August 2010

Where is the Obama hate? the america hate? I see some unhappiness with having our resources taken away to help people who wouldn't or couldn't help themselves. Why should we bail out companies that can't hack it on their own. Where is the capitalism in that? I want so many things, why can't they just be given to me?



nordlead on 24 August 2010
fastyxx said:
TheRealMafoo said:

Bankers should be as easy to predict as what will happen to water if you poor it down a hill. Banks will move towards profit like water finds the lowest point.

If government had not made giving out loans to those that had no business obtaining them profitable, banks would never have done it.

The government paid banks to give loans to people who legally had a right to have them. Why is that the banks fault?

Banks and other corporations never do anything bad for consumers or the greater good in search of profit unless the government "mandates" it?

Wow.  

What planet do you live on?

I'm not a big fan of posting in these threads as people never really change their opinion and they are overheated debates, but I'm going to quick post on this. Anyways...

Way to twist words there. No where did he say that banks only do "bad" for consumers if the government "mandates" it. However, in the US situation the government essentially payed the banks to give out loans to people who couldn't pay them back. Didn't have 20% down to buy a $500k house? No problem, the government will pay the bank to let you have that loan. Did you have poor credit when you applied for the loan? No problem, the government will back you. Did you buy that home with no income? no problem, the government will have a program for you so you don't have to make your payments on time or in full. It goes on and on. When the banks see they can abuse the people with little/no risk of losses they will.

Would the banks have tried taking advantage of some people without the governments help? Sure! Would they have risked millions upon millions of dollars with almost no chance of making it back? NO!

The government helped cause the majority of the mortgage crisis. There is no way you can't blame the government for this problem because they are so inept. Having worked directly with the government I know exactly how inept they are...




If you drop a PS3 right on top of a Wii, it would definitely defeat it. Not so sure about the Xbox360. - mancandy
In the past we played games. In the future we watch games. - Forest-Spirit
11/03/09 Desposit: Mod Bribery (RolStoppable)  vg$ 500.00
06/03/09 Purchase: Moderator Privilege  vg$ -50,000.00

Nordlead Jr. Photo/Video Gallery!!! (Video Added 4/19/10)

patjuan32 on 24 August 2010

I am not going to read the article because it seems that the argument is Illogical.

The cost of transporting soldiers to and from Iraq and shipping equipment like guns, tanks, and others.

Then their is also medical supplies for the 'tent hospitals' and the cost of treating soldiers and transporting the severly wounded to Hospitals in other conuntries that can care for the soldiers. Then there is the outpatient care for the Soldiers.

The cost of food, lodging, and basic necessities like bathing, using the bathroom, and drinking water. All that has to be maintained.

There are so many cost to mainting a fighting force in another country, it's like running a city, that I doubt this guy or the CBO will ever take the time to calculate everything.

Therefore this guys argument is false on all accounts. Especially since we will not no the true cost of the war until years later. When the Pentagon decides to tell us.

 

 

 



If Nintendo is successful at the moment, it’s because they are good, and I cannot blame them for that. What we should do is try to be just as good.----Laurent Benadiba

 

fighter on 24 August 2010

Mafoo, according to you, what would be the consequences if :

1/ the US hadn't spent billionas entering into war with Irak and occupying it

2/ there had been no spending to stimulate the economy



fighter on 24 August 2010
patjuan32 said:

I am not going to read the article because it seems that the argument is Illogical.

The cost of transporting soldiers to and from Iraq and shipping equipment like guns, tanks, and others.

Then their is also medical supplies for the 'tent hospitals' and the cost of treating soldiers and transporting the severly wounded to Hospitals in other conuntries that can care for the soldiers. Then there is the outpatient care for the Soldiers.

The cost of food, lodging, and basic necessities like bathing, using the bathroom, and drinking water. All that has to be maintained.

There are so many cost to mainting a fighting force in another country, it's like running a city, that I doubt this guy or the CBO will ever take the time to calculate everything.

Therefore this guys argument is false on all accounts. Especially since we will not no the true cost of the war until years later. When the Pentagon decides to tell us.

 

 

 

Incremental military budgets require public funding (validated by the congress), the cost of the war is known. As you suggest, there might be some blurring due to reallocation of ressources and general confusion between the maitainance costs of the army and the incremental cost of the war, but military budget at war-1 and military budget at war x are perfectly known.