Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on February 18, 2009, 04:31:03 AM
-
Obama’s Stimulus Will Cause 'Lower Wages' for American Workers, Says Congressional Budget Office
CNSNews.com ^ | February 18, 2009 | Fred Lucas
Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 7:15:14 AM by Man50D
The huge economic stimulus package that President Obama signed into law Tuesday will result in “lower wages” for American workers, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
The CBO analysis, dated Feb. 11 and sent to Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), says the $787-billion plan will increase employment in the short-term, but will run up deficit spending which will “crowd out” private investment in the economy in the long-term.
The analysis concludes that the stimulus will put downward pressure on Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and wages after 2014. (The Gross Domestic Product is the total value of all goods and services produced in the United States in one year.)
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, said the CBO analysis underestimates the long-term economic consequences.
“Number one, the spending spends out very slowly, so it doesn’t give you much of a pop,” Ryan told CNSNews.com. “Number two, it costs much more than advertised. Number three, at the end of the day, it would have been better to do nothing for the economy given that it [the stimulus package] will reduce GDP growth and wages.”
“I find those to be very startling estimates, very startling points and facts that simply have not been reported,” said Ryan.
In its analysis, the CBO predicts that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will increase GDP through 2014. However, in the following years, “the legislation is estimated to reduce GDP by between 0 and 0.2 percent.”
That decrease will not come from lack of employment, which the CBO predicts will increase by between 800,000 and 2.3 million jobs in the fourth quarter of 2009 and up to 3.6 million by the fourth quarter of 2010.
“The effect on employment is never estimated to be negative, despite lower GDP in later years, because CBO expects that the U.S. labor market will be at nearly full employment in the long run,” the CBO report states.
But the analysis adds, “The reduction in GDP is therefore estimated to be reflected in lower wages rather than lower employment, as workers will be less productive because capital stock is smaller.”
A previous CBO report said that with interest on the debt, the recovery package will cost $1.1 trillion. The Feb. 11 analysis says, “To the extent that people hold their wealth as government bonds rather than in a form that can be used to finance private investment, the increased debt would tend to reduce the stock of productive private capital.”
It continues, “In economic parlance, the debt would ‘crowd out’ private investment.” The analysis further says that “crowding out is unlikely to occur in the short run under current conditions because most firms are lowering investment in response to reduced demand, which stimulus can offset in part.”
Ryan said this will keep the economy from growing.
“When you borrow, you are going out and taking money out of the private economy, which goes to bonds,” Ryan said. “So then it’s literally taken out of the private sector and brought to the public sector.”
Another way this will decrease private investment is that it will indirectly lead to higher taxes, Ryan said.
“It’s very clear that the kind of deficits this will produce will make it next to impossible for Congress to keep tax rates low,” Ryan said. “It’s very clear that this Congress is going to use the size of the stimulus and its resulting deficit to justify higher taxes in 2011, which will reduce private sector expansion and take money out of the private sector.”
When signing the bill Tuesday in Denver, President Obama hailed the legislation as the first step out of the economic recession that has faced the country for more than a year.
“What makes this recovery plan so important is not just that it will create or save three- and-a-half million jobs over the next two years, including nearly 60,000 in Colorado,” Obama said. “It’s that we are putting Americans to work doing the work that America needs done in critical areas that have been neglected for too long – work that will bring real and lasting change for generations to come.”
The White House points out that the package puts $150 billion into infrastructure improvements across the country for public transportation, upgrading the electric grid and expanding broadband. The law also allocates $19 billion to digitize health records for each American by 2014 and devotes $100 billion to renewable energy projects.
Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress have complained about various spending projects, such as $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, $300 million for golf carts and $8 billion for a rail line from Los Angeles to Las Vegas.
The White House estimate that the stimulus bill will create 3 to 4 million jobs comes from a transition team report completed before Obama took office and before a bill was drafted in Congress. Further, the report said there is “considerable uncertainty” about the job estimates. (See Previous Story)
The White House released a state-by-state breakdown of how many jobs would be created or saved. The breakdown showed that California would get 396,000 jobs; Florida, 206,000 jobs; Georgia, 106,000; Illinois, 148,000; Michigan, 109,000; New Jersey, 100,000; New York, 215,000; Ohio, 133,000; Pennsylvania; 143,000; and Texas, 269,000 jobs. (See White House estimates)
________________________ ___________________
Hope & Spare Change!!!!
-
Uh...once again people Peter Schiff, Ron Paul, and Celente all said this is what would happen if this bill was passed.
How can anybody deny what these guys say now?
-
Uh...once again people Peter Schiff, Ron Paul, and Celente all said this is what would happen if this bill was passed.
How can anybody deny what these guys say now?
Check out the mortgage plan laid out today!
This gets worse by the freaking hour.
-
BUMP for defenders of the stim bill
-
BUMP
-
Uh...once again people Peter Schiff, Ron Paul, and Celente all said this is what would happen if this bill was passed.
How can anybody deny what these guys say now?
Yeah, but Ben Stein knows more.
-
is that the same Congressional Budget Office (CBO). that you said is full of shit, sorry can't have it both ways ;D
-
your original post is over 2 years old
let's see the proof that the stimulus plan lowered wages
-
Less people are working today than before this disaster was passed. More are on welfare and foodstamps, inflation is high, and ue is grotesqly higher.
Do the math straw. Teaching africans how to wash their nuts is not a viable plan.
-
is that the same Congressional Budget Office (CBO). that you said is full of shit, sorry can't have it both ways ;D
-
Lower Wages worked for Texas. They have the lowest wage per working in the nation, do'nt they? Their governor has been bragging about their situation, sounds like it could work for everyone.
-
Lower Wages worked for Texas. They have the lowest wage per working in the nation, do'nt they? Their governor has been bragging about their situation, sounds like it could work for everyone.
:D :D
-
Less people are working today than before this disaster was passed. More are on welfare and foodstamps, inflation is high, and ue is grotesqly higher.
Do the math straw. Teaching africans how to wash their nuts is not a viable plan.
is your first sentence true (look it up) and yeah, show us some actual math
the article if full of nonsensical quotes from teabaggers like Paul Ryan.
this statement makes no sense “When you borrow, you are going out and taking money out of the private economy, which goes to bonds,”
how does that take money out of the econdomy?
or this one: “In economic parlance, the debt would ‘crowd out’ private investment.”
THe assumption seems to be that the "rich" will buy us bonds as an alternative to investing (creating jobs?) so if we did no stimulus then the rich would do what exactly ..... be foreced to create jobs....... how does that work?
and the big horrible predicted result by the cbo.....?
In its analysis, the CBO predicts that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will increase GDP through 2014. However, in the following years, “the legislation is estimated to reduce GDP by between 0 and 0.2 percent.”
-
is your first sentence true (look it up) and yeah, show us some actual math
the article if full of nonsensical quotes from teabaggers like Paul Ryan.
this statement makes no sense “When you borrow, you are going out and taking money out of the private economy, which goes to bonds,”
how does that take money out of the econdomy?
or this one: “In economic parlance, the debt would ‘crowd out’ private investment.”
THe assumption seems to be that the "rich" will buy us bonds as an alternative to investing (creating jobs?) so if we did no stimulus then the rich would do what exactly ..... be foreced to create jobs....... how does that work?
and the big horrible predicted result by the cbo.....?
In its analysis, the CBO predicts that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will increase GDP through 2014. However, in the following years, “the legislation is estimated to reduce GDP by between 0 and 0.2 percent.”
LMFAO. You still dont get it do you?
-
LMFAO. You still dont get it do you?
explain it
tell me how any of those statements make sense
seriously - skip the economic stuf and stick to ranting about secret communists and how your fellow american can't be trusted to vote the way you like.
-
explain it
tell me how any of those statements make sense
seriously - skip the economic stuf and stick to ranting about secret communists and how your fellow american can't be trusted to vote the way you like.
Straw - where does money come from? Seriously - where do you think money comes from?
-
Straw - where does money come from? Seriously - where do you think money comes from?
where does WHAT money come from?
Are you asking who buys our debt?
-
where does WHAT money come from?
Are you asking who buys our debt?
you know exactly what I asked.
I left wing la la land, where do they think money comes from?
-
you know exactly what I asked.
I left wing la la land, where do they think money comes from?
I have no idea what you're asking
the article you posted and then bumped is full of teabag nonsense with the scary conclusion that the stimulus will increase employment and may eventually result in a decrease in GDP (after driving it up) of somewhere between 0 and .2%
-
-
I don't even bother looking at you dumb videos
you posted an article and then bumped it and are now unable to speak on it when questioned?
the article has quotes by Paul Ryan suggesting that the stimulus will "take" money out of the economy and "choke out" private investment.
These statemetns make now sense
If anyone chooses to buy bonds it's not like anyone is putting a gun to their head and it's not likely that they are doing so instead of making an investment of "risk capital" by creating a business, expanding a business, buying equipment etc... More like those $'s were already idle and doing nothing to help the economy ( the same thing that happens when you give the uber rich yet another tax cut)
Ryan also ignores the blatant obvious fact that the money that it borrowed is then spent in the economy (job stimulus plans, infrastructure, etc..) which then winds up in the hands of people who will spend it which creates demand for goods and services.
Shit, your very article talks about abou the stimulus plan was going to create jobs and, after driving up GDP and employment, it might eventually (pure speculation) cause GDP to drop by 0 to .2%.
-
Yawn - you dont watch the videos because they shatter and obliterate your la la land understanding of economics and money.
-
Dude you are too easy.... When CBO says something pro obama.. youre all like "who are they.. they suck any way" when its anti Obama.. you agree with it..
-
Dude you are too easy.... When CBO says something pro obama.. youre all like "who are they.. they suck any way" when its anti Obama.. you agree with it..
^^^^
exactly
-
Yawn - you dont watch the videos because they shatter and obliterate your la la land understanding of economics and money.
I don't watch them because virtually every time I've watched one of you videos it's been worthless
if you want to post an article then you should be prepared to discuss it in your own words
If you're incapable of doing so then maybe you should just stick with your delusional rants about secret muslim marxists intent on collapsing the country. That's really your breaad and butter topic
-
Dude you are too easy.... When CBO says something pro obama.. youre all like "who are they.. they suck any way" when its anti Obama.. you agree with it..
Wrong fool - the CBO scores what is put before them. the bama Junta put before them a pack of lies on ObamaCare that Ryan sliced and diced and left the Looter in Chief speechless.
-
I don't watch them because virtually every time I've watched one of you videos it's been worthless
if you want to post an article then you should be prepared to discuss it in your own words
If you're incapable of doing so then maybe you should just stick with your delusional rants about secret muslim marxists intent on collapsing the country. That's really your breaad and butter topic
LMFAO!!!!!
Ha ha ha ! ! ! !
WTF!
I post videos of people who called this TO THE MOFO TEE and you say they are wortheless while every single program you supported has failed miserably. WTF dude?
-
In the debate over the nation's rising debt, rhetoric trumps reality. In January 2001, the U.S. budget was balanced for the first time in decades and the Congressional Budget Office was forecasting surpluses totaling $5.6 trillion by 2011. A decade later, the national debt is larger, as a percentage of the economy, than at any time in U.S. history except for the period shortly after World War II.
So what happened?
In classic Washington style, neither party wants to take responsibility. “Washington has a spending problem, not a revenue problem,” House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said in April.
“Republicans made the contradictory promises that cutting taxes would lead to higher revenues and would force lower spending,” House Minority Leader Steny Hoyer shot back in a speech later the same month. “They did neither.”
The reality falls somewhere in between. In fact, 75 percent of the members currently serving in Congress voted for at least one — and in most cases more than one — of three policies that contributed to fully one-third of the $12.7 trillion swing from projected surpluses to real debt: President George W. Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and President Obama's 2009 stimulus bill.
There was never any surplus. who said this 333386
-
Wrong fool - the CBO scores what is put before them. the bama Junta put before them a pack of lies on ObamaCare that Ryan sliced and diced and left the Looter in Chief speechless.
still no answer to any of Ryans meaningless statements
how about this
why should we be worried about a projected decline in GDP in 2014 of 0 to .2% ?
-
LMFAO!!!!!
Ha ha ha ! ! ! !
WTF!
I post videos of people who called this TO THE MOFO TEE and you say they are wortheless while every single program you supported has failed miserably. WTF dude?
your videos are the only ones I don't watch
I've watched videos you posted, like the one where you said Krugman said there would be death panels and he said nothing of the sort.
That was when I realized that you simply hear whatever you want so you proved to me that it's pointless to watch anything you post
I've told you this before but I keep giving you the beneif of the doubt
If you have somethg to say then say it yourself. Use your own words
-
still no answer to any of Ryans meaningless statements
how about this
why should we be worried about a projected decline in GDP in 2014 of 0 to .2% ?
Because we will have the added debt of the Stim Bill on top of the existing load with zero benefit whatsoever.
Do you even think the national debt is a problem?
-
-
Because we will have the added debt of the Stim Bill on top of the existing load with zero benefit whatsoever.
Do you even think the national debt is a problem?
false statement
refer to all the Repubs who said it created or saved jobs
if you're concerned about the source of our continuning debt and deficit you can refer to this
All this debt comes with continued interets payments
Virtually all of Obama's contribution is related to continuing bush's programs (Bush Tax cuts and Bush wars) or trying to do something to help the crippled economy that was handed off to him by Bush
Those are the facts
I know it's a buzz kill for Obama haters but that's what you're stuck with
-
Have i EVER defended bush spending?
-
Have i EVER defended bush spending?
beats me
but you do ignore that it happened and that we're continuing to pay for it RIGHT NOW
you ignore that the majority of the Obama deficit is the result of Bush policies which we have to continue paying for and the cratering GDP was the result of the Bush era as well
you IGNORE all of that and somehow pretend that our problems were somehow created by Obama
-
beats me
but you do ignore that it happened and that we're continuing to pay for it RIGHT NOW
you ignore that the majority of the Obama deficit is the result of Bush policies which we have to continue paying for and the cratering GDP was the result of the Bush era as well
you IGNORE all of that and somehow pretend that our problems were somehow created by Obama
No I dont - I take into account the Dems took over the congress in 2007 and held both chambers for 4 years and never did a damn thing about it but make matters drastically worse, especially since bama took office.
-
333 - you've posted these many times before
why do you ingore the fact that GDP started cratering under Bush and that is what was handed to Obama
do you think GDP just fell off a cliff the day Obama took office
btw - the Republican plan to do nothing would have made GDP EVEN WORSE which would make those charts look even worse
why do you ignore that reality?
-
333- why do you continually ignore that the growing deficit is almost entirely due to Bush policies
Even half of Obama's tiny fractional contribution is mostly due to the stimulus which was a response to try to shore up the economy as a result of the Bush policies
why do you ignore the fact that all the debt accumulated under Bush and the continuing interest payments on that debt are make up the vast majority of the deficit under Obama?
-
333- why do you continually ignore that the growing deficit is almost entirely due to Bush policies
Even half of Obama's tiny fractional contribution is mostly due to the stimulus which was a response to try to shore up the economy as a result of the Bush policies
why do you ignore the fact that all the debt accumulated under Bush and the continuing interest payments on that debt are make up the vast majority of the deficit under Obama?
I dont blame the POTUIS alone - again - the Dems ran congress for 4 years. Tell me what they did or even attempted to do to mitigate the problems?
-
I dont blame the POTUIS alone - again - the Dems ran congress for 4 years. Tell me what they did or even attempted to do to mitigate the problems?
and could the Dems have repealed the Bush tax cuts
Could they have just walked in and stopped funding all the wars immediately
the answer of course is no
so we keep accumulating the cost of the Bush policies
when Obama came into office was he just so bored that there was nothing to do that he decided to do stimulus plan
No, he needed to do something to try to mitigate the effects of the disaster that was handed to him by Bush
We just learned earlier this month the reduction in GDP was much greater when Obama took office than originally estimated.
Again, you just choose to ignore all this because it doeesn't fit in with your hatred of Obama
-
and could the Dems have repealed the Bush tax cuts
Could they have just walked in and stopped funding all the wars immediately
the answer of course is no
so we keep accumulating the cost of the Bush policies
when Obama came into office was he just so bored that there was nothing to do that he decided to do stimulus plan
No, he needed to do something to try to mitigate the effects of the disaster that was handed to him by Bush
We just learned earlier this month the reduction in GDP was much greater when Obama took office than originally estimated.
Again, you just choose to ignore all this because it doeesn't fit in with your hatred of Obama
Did they even try to stop the wars?
Did they even try to cut the crazy spending?
And the first 2 years of bama admn with dem run congress - they never did shit but pile on and did not even pass a budget!
-
Did they even try to stop the wars?
Did they even try to cut the crazy spending?
And the first 2 years of bama admn with dem run congress - they never did shit but pile on and did not even pass a budget!
again - was there any will in the country to stop all the wars immediately
Other than Bernie Sanders and a few other like him, who would have been behind this in the house and Senate.
Would they have gotten one Replican to get on board?
The Bush tax cuts were going to sunset at the end of 2010
was there enough support in both parties to repeal them early and/or raise taxes
You know full well the answer to all those questions is NO so stop pretending otherwise
-
again - was there any will in the country to stop all the wars immediately
Other than Bernie Sanders and a few other like him, who would have been behind this in the house and Senate.
Would they have gotten one Replican to get on board?
The Bush tax cuts were going to sunset at the end of 2010
was there enough support in both parties to repeal them early and/or raise taxes
You know full well the answer to all those questions is NO so stop pretending otherwise
Its called leadership Straw.
Same thing with the debt ceiling. the dems could have passed a clean debt celing increase in 2010 and decided to push it off thinking they could make political hay out of it.
The Senate and house Dems have been a disaster as much if not more than bama himself.
-
Its called leadership Straw.
Same thing with the debt ceiling. the dems could have passed a clean debt celing increase in 2010 and decided to push it off thinking they could make political hay out of it.
The Senate and house Dems have been a disaster as much if not more than bama himself.
again - if you believe the Dems could have just stopped the wars and rolled back the Bush tax cuts then you a simply living in your own make believe reality
something I've told you many times before
they didn't have the votes needed in either chamber to get that done and perhaps you've forgotten that Bush was still POTUS
again dude - you live in your own make believe reality and you wonder why you're the only one who can really "see" what is going on
-
In the debate over the nation's rising debt, rhetoric trumps reality. In January 2001, the U.S. budget was balanced for the first time in decades and the Congressional Budget Office was forecasting surpluses totaling $5.6 trillion by 2011. A decade later, the national debt is larger, as a percentage of the economy, than at any time in U.S. history except for the period shortly after World War II.
So what happened?
In classic Washington style, neither party wants to take responsibility. “Washington has a spending problem, not a revenue problem,” House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said in April.
“Republicans made the contradictory promises that cutting taxes would lead to higher revenues and would force lower spending,” House Minority Leader Steny Hoyer shot back in a speech later the same month. “They did neither.”
The reality falls somewhere in between. In fact, 75 percent of the members currently serving in Congress voted for at least one — and in most cases more than one — of three policies that contributed to fully one-third of the $12.7 trillion swing from projected surpluses to real debt: President George W. Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and President Obama's 2009 stimulus bill.
There was never any surplus. who said this 333386
Note the key word. And believe me, the 1990's were one of the only times this nation came close to balancing its books. But a "Forecasted" surplus isn't at all the same as an actual surplus on the books.