Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

What has Trump done right so far?

The Management is not responsible for the contents of this forum. Enter at your own risk.
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by CRC   » Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:20 pm

CRC
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 125
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 8:45 am

Annachie wrote:2009 HR 1105, been reading the summary.

It really needs a summary of the summary.



Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk


I think it needs to be written in English rather than Politish-Attornish.
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by gcomeau   » Mon Mar 20, 2017 5:28 pm

gcomeau
Commodore

Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:24 pm

CRC wrote:
Tenshinai wrote:And at the time, it was more a matter of "something must be done NOW" rather than doing something better later.

So, Obama didn´t really have much choice in signing onto the stuff GWB left behind during transition. Had he instead rejected those stimulus, chances are VERY high that we had seen a massive crash AGAIN(sure it would have been at least partially fake and based on financial market voodoo, but that wouldn´t make the effects any less).


The Bush stimulus package was a $152B in 2008. That was pretty much law and taken in consideration in the March 2009 Budget act. (Even though the budget act had a lot of internal 'stimulus' to begin with.) The Obama stimulus was passed in February 2009 at $862B.

There are several papers on why the Obama stimulus did not "stimulate". The most interesting was a Hoover.org paper

(http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/f ... 1-2011.pdf)

that basically posited the poor performance of the stimulus was due to its use by the stimulee's to pay off debt, not buy things.


Yes, a right wing think tank with their own agenda of being against government interference in the economy put out a paper saying government interference in the economy didn't work. shocking.


In the meantime as already pointed out in this thread, the non partisan CBO analysis:


https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files ... 5-arra.pdf

"Estimating the law’s overall effects on employment
requires a more comprehensive analysis than can be
achieved by using the recipients’ reports. Therefore, looking
at recorded spending to date along with estimates of
the other effects of ARRA on spending and revenues,
CBO has estimated the law’s impact on employment
and economic output using evidence about the effects
of previous similar policies and drawing on various
mathematical models that represent the workings of the economy.
On that basis, CBO estimates that ARRA’s policies
had the following effects in the first quarter of calendar
year 2011:

They raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic
product (GDP) by between 1.1 percent and
3.1 percent,

Lowered the unemployment rate by between
0.6 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points,

Increased the number of people employed by between
1.2 million and 3.3 million, and

Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs
by 1.6 million to 4.6 million compared with what
would have occurred otherwise,
as shown in Table 1.
(Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time
to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally
larger than increases in the number of employed
workers.)

The effects of ARRA on output peaked in the first half of
2010 and have since diminished, CBO estimates. The
effects of ARRA on employment and unemployment are
estimated to lag slightly behind the effects on output;
CBO estimates that the employment effects began to
wane at the end of 2010 and continued to do so in the
first quarter of 2011.
"
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by Tenshinai   » Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:05 am

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2830
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:34 pm
Location: Sweden

CRC wrote:The Bush stimulus package was a $152B in 2008. That was pretty much law and taken in consideration in the March 2009 Budget act. (Even though the budget act had a lot of internal 'stimulus' to begin with.) The Obama stimulus was passed in February 2009 at $862B.

There are several papers on why the Obama stimulus did not "stimulate". The most interesting was a Hoover.org paper

(http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/f ... 1-2011.pdf)

that basically posited the poor performance of the stimulus was due to its use by the stimulee's to pay off debt, not buy things.

It essentially said the Federal government borrowed money to give to people to pay down their debts, or reduce their borrowing needs...

A zero sum game it seemed...


Did you bother to read what i wrote at all?

Because your "answer" is pretty much a big "huh?" and little else as it does not in any way answer what i wrote.
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by CRC   » Sat Mar 25, 2017 11:31 am

CRC
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 125
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 8:45 am

Tenshinai wrote:
CRC wrote:The Bush stimulus package was a $152B in 2008. That was pretty much law and taken in consideration in the March 2009 Budget act. (Even though the budget act had a lot of internal 'stimulus' to begin with.) The Obama stimulus was passed in February 2009 at $862B.

There are several papers on why the Obama stimulus did not "stimulate". The most interesting was a Hoover.org paper

(http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/f ... 1-2011.pdf)

that basically posited the poor performance of the stimulus was due to its use by the stimulee's to pay off debt, not buy things.

It essentially said the Federal government borrowed money to give to people to pay down their debts, or reduce their borrowing needs...

A zero sum game it seemed...


Did you bother to read what i wrote at all?

Because your "answer" is pretty much a big "huh?" and little else as it does not in any way answer what i wrote.


Actually I did read what you wrote. its ok to post your opinions and its ok for me to add some other pertinent opinions and facts that might be advantageous to those who read your post, then read my post, then form their own opinions.

So basically I just added a bit of new information to your post that has a different point of view that you do.

Does every counter-post have to start off with "Jane you ignorant slut..." (with apologies to Dan and SNL crew...)?
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by CRC   » Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:02 pm

CRC
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 125
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 8:45 am

gcomeau wrote:[quote="CRC]
The Bush stimulus package was a $152B in 2008. That was pretty much law and taken in consideration in the March 2009 Budget act. (Even though the budget act had a lot of internal 'stimulus' to begin with.) The Obama stimulus was passed in February 2009 at $862B.

There are several papers on why the Obama stimulus did not "stimulate". The most interesting was a Hoover.org paper

(http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/f ... 1-2011.pdf)

that basically posited the poor performance of the stimulus was due to its use by the stimulee's to pay off debt, not buy things.[/quote]

Yes, a right wing think tank with their own agenda of being against government interference in the economy put out a paper saying government interference in the economy didn't work. shocking.


In the meantime as already pointed out in this thread, the non partisan CBO analysis:


https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files ... 5-arra.pdf

"Estimating the law’s overall effects on employment
requires a more comprehensive analysis than can be
achieved by using the recipients’ reports. Therefore, looking
at recorded spending to date along with estimates of
the other effects of ARRA on spending and revenues,
CBO has estimated the law’s impact on employment
and economic output using evidence about the effects
of previous similar policies and drawing on various
mathematical models that represent the workings of the economy.
On that basis, CBO estimates that ARRA’s policies
had the following effects in the first quarter of calendar
year 2011:

They raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic
product (GDP) by between 1.1 percent and
3.1 percent,

Lowered the unemployment rate by between
0.6 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points,

Increased the number of people employed by between
1.2 million and 3.3 million, and

Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs
by 1.6 million to 4.6 million compared with what
would have occurred otherwise,
as shown in Table 1.
(Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time
to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally
larger than increases in the number of employed
workers.)

The effects of ARRA on output peaked in the first half of
2010 and have since diminished, CBO estimates. The
effects of ARRA on employment and unemployment are
estimated to lag slightly behind the effects on output;
CBO estimates that the employment effects began to
wane at the end of 2010 and continued to do so in the
first quarter of 2011.
"[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]


Of course I quoted a right wing think tank. What's wrong with that? Oh, I forgot, right wing think tanks should not exist. Alternate views are not allowed. Sorry, I forgot my place in your world view. (Even though your 2011 CBO report actually agrees, in part, with the 'right wing" think tank hypothesis.)

Its interesting why you quoted the 2011 version of the CBO report. Why didn't you quote the 2015 version? (https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49958)

What is significant about the 2015 version is how all of the 2011 impact estimates were revised downward. What is also significant is that the 2015 version provides the COST of the measures employed to the taxpayer - present or future.

So taking the numbers and doing the math provides some interesting data.

For example - the ARRA COSTS per FTE job in each year ranged from almost $600k per year FTE at the worst case to around $36k per year FTE in the best base for 2012:
Cost per FTE Job

2009 - $596,666.67 to $137,692.31
2010 - $445,555.56 to $85,319.15
2011 - $241,666.67 to $40,277.78
2012 - $235,000.00 to $36,153.85
2013 - $370,000.00 to $74,000.00
2014 - Infinity to $95,000.00

That's a lot per job...regardless of your perspective.

Now the numbers for the GDP increase actually look better in favor of the ARRA -

Amount GDP was increased by:
2009 - 58.16 to 261.72
2010 - 104.58 to 612.54
2011 - 60.76 to 349.37
2012 - 15.38 to 123.04
2013 - 15.79 to 63.16
2014 - 0 to 32.38
Total over the time frame - 254.67 to 1442.21

So essentially one can argue that the $828B spent on the ARRA between 2009 and 2014 increased the GDP by $254.67B at a low estimate or $1442.21 at a high estimate.

At the high, the $828B spent would be a bargain, but at the low it would be a disastrous investment.

Those in favor of government spending will quote the high number, those against it will quote the low number.

Now I do find one thing in the 2011 report to be rather interesting. Its Table 2. This lists the estimated output multipliers for each of the Title Provisions. In this table, the CBO is basically agreeing with the hypothesis of the Hoover.org paper in that Division B outputs (tax cuts, direct payments to people, transfers to states, etc.) actually have a less than 1 to 1 impact. (One exception is 2 year tax cut which has a high of 1.5)

Division B contained almost half of the total costs of the ARRA. Division A contained the purchase of goods provisions - although the 'direct purchase' can be disputed somewhat for some of the provisions.

I can't trace down where CBO got these multipliers from, but I do find them intriguing.

But once again this entire discussion is on the ARRA and completely discounts, ignores and attempts to take Obama off the hook for the rise in the debt due to the actual Budget acts that Obama signed starting in March 2009.

As a parallel, Trump has yet to sign any budget actions to date.
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by Annachie   » Sat Mar 25, 2017 6:08 pm

Annachie
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1482
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:36 pm

Why are you continuously bringing up the CBO projections?

Why are you trying to compare anything to them?

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are so going to die. :p ~~~~ runsforcelery
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
still not dead. :)
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by Tenshinai   » Sat Mar 25, 2017 6:22 pm

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2830
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:34 pm
Location: Sweden

CRC wrote:
Actually I did read what you wrote. its ok to post your opinions and its ok for me to add some other pertinent opinions and facts that might be advantageous to those who read your post, then read my post, then form their own opinions.

So basically I just added a bit of new information to your post that has a different point of view that you do.

Does every counter-post have to start off with "Jane you ignorant slut..." (with apologies to Dan and SNL crew...)?


You might want to try to be a little bit less obscure then, because it read pretty much like you were trying to argue against my post and just completely failing.

I was mostly scratching my head wondering what you were trying to do.
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by CRC   » Sun Mar 26, 2017 5:42 pm

CRC
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 125
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 8:45 am

Tenshinai wrote:
CRC wrote:
Actually I did read what you wrote. its ok to post your opinions and its ok for me to add some other pertinent opinions and facts that might be advantageous to those who read your post, then read my post, then form their own opinions.

So basically I just added a bit of new information to your post that has a different point of view that you do.

Does every counter-post have to start off with "Jane you ignorant slut..." (with apologies to Dan and SNL crew...)?


You might want to try to be a little bit less obscure then, because it read pretty much like you were trying to argue against my post and just completely failing.

I was mostly scratching my head wondering what you were trying to do.


Actually, what I was trying to do, and what has enamored me to these particular forums, was have discussions on political issues similar to those on Weber's books. Very few of those are confrontational and the differing POVs, contributions and speculations sometime quite entertaining.

Unfortunately the same approach to discussing Safehold's next arc, or the fate of the Mandarins, or WTFO vampires in space don't seem to apply to politics.

A bit of a shame actually...
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by CRC   » Sun Mar 26, 2017 5:56 pm

CRC
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 125
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 8:45 am

Annachie wrote:Why are you continuously bringing up the CBO projections?

Why are you trying to compare anything to them?

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk


For projections, the CBO is probably the best known 'non-partisan' analytic organization. Everyone else is going to be labeled as right wing, left wing, up wing, down wing, etc. Of course the CBO has a horrendous record of projecting expenses or costs. But then, so does pretty much everyone else. (A good example is the projected 10 year costs of Medicare Part D in 2003 vs. reality.)

But in the case of my last post, I was not looking at projections per se. (More like lies, damn lies and statistics actually.) But actuals, or at least one interpretation of actuals.

The COB report in 2015 looks at the past impact the ARRA had via actual cost numbers and ranges of estimated impacts. Within the uncertainties you can at least do some basic math to figure out the pluses and minuses.
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by gcomeau   » Mon Mar 27, 2017 12:15 pm

gcomeau
Commodore

Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:24 pm

CRC wrote:Of course I quoted a right wing think tank. What's wrong with that? Oh, I forgot, right wing think tanks should not exist. Alternate views are not allowed.


Of course they can exist, and of course they are allowed.


But they have an agenda. They aren't an objective arbiter of what was occurring, they exist for the PURPOSE of promoting one specific view of events. So of course their analysis is going to say their view is right. The entire reason they exist is to say their view is right.

Which is why things like the CBO exist. To give us neutral analysis. And that neutral analysis says it looks like the stimulus worked just fine.


If you want an honest opinion on whether cats are good or bad, you don't ask the American Association for the Advancement of Dogs.


Sorry, I forgot my place in your world view. (Even though your 2011 CBO report actually agrees, in part, with the 'right wing" think tank hypothesis.)

Its interesting why you quoted the 2011 version of the CBO report. Why didn't you quote the 2015 version? (https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49958)

What is significant about the 2015 version is how all of the 2011 impact estimates were revised downward.


Minor revisions only. The reality that the stimulus clearly worked is unchanged. Which is the only point of disagreement with your right wing think tank analysis that matters for this topic.

What is also significant is that the 2015 version provides the COST of the measures employed to the taxpayer - present or future.


We already knew the cost. It was *in the bill*.

So taking the numbers and doing the math provides some interesting data.

For example - the ARRA COSTS per FTE job in each year ranged from almost $600k per year FTE at the worst case to around $36k per year FTE in the best base for 2012:
Cost per FTE Job

2009 - $596,666.67 to $137,692.31
2010 - $445,555.56 to $85,319.15
2011 - $241,666.67 to $40,277.78
2012 - $235,000.00 to $36,153.85
2013 - $370,000.00 to $74,000.00
2014 - Infinity to $95,000.00

That's a lot per job...regardless of your perspective.


No, not really. Not when the purpose is to get that money circulating in the economy. Also known as ECONOMIC STIMULUS.

The POINT is to spend money. Do you really still not understand that?


Now the numbers for the GDP increase actually look better in favor of the ARRA -

Amount GDP was increased by:
2009 - 58.16 to 261.72
2010 - 104.58 to 612.54
2011 - 60.76 to 349.37
2012 - 15.38 to 123.04
2013 - 15.79 to 63.16
2014 - 0 to 32.38
Total over the time frame - 254.67 to 1442.21

So essentially one can argue that the $828B spent on the ARRA between 2009 and 2014 increased the GDP by $254.67B at a low estimate or $1442.21 at a high estimate.

At the high, the $828B spent would be a bargain, but at the low it would be a disastrous investment.

Those in favor of government spending will quote the high number, those against it will quote the low number.


And those who are honest will recognize that both best and worse case outcomes are put there only to cover low probability hedges against ALL the data being wrong in the same direction, by the most it could statistically be expected to be wrong by. Which is extremely unlikely so long after the events the analysis is being performed on, and say the real effect was most likely somewhere in the middle.

And somewhere in the middle looks just fine to me.

Now I do find one thing in the 2011 report to be rather interesting. Its Table 2. This lists the estimated output multipliers for each of the Title Provisions. In this table, the CBO is basically agreeing with the hypothesis of the Hoover.org paper in that Division B outputs (tax cuts, direct payments to people, transfers to states, etc.) actually have a less than 1 to 1 impact. (One exception is 2 year tax cut which has a high of 1.5)


Which is the one thing *I* agreed with them on too. And which Democrats agree with them on. And which the GOP does NOT.


If you don't know who keeps insisting on tax cuts as stimulus in American politics you have been buried in an underground bunker somewhere for the last 30 years with no outside media access.

Division B contained almost half of the total costs of the ARRA.


As a sop to the Republicans to try to get them to vote for the damn thing.

But once again this entire discussion is on the ARRA and completely discounts, ignores and attempts to take Obama off the hook for the rise in the debt due to the actual Budget acts that Obama signed starting in March 2009.

As a parallel, Trump has yet to sign any budget actions to date.


HE'S NOT FIGHTING AN ECONOMIC EMERGENCY. He was handed a relatively healthy economy from Obama. There is no reason to sign emergency spending legislation outside the normal budget cycle.
Top

Return to Politics