The Stimulus didn't work?!

[Ziggurat]

we should extend unemployment benefits for 2 reasons.

#1. its the right, moral, and caring thing to do.

#2. its good for the economy.

The only argument that you have provided for #2 is that it pumps money into the economy. Which really isn't much of an argument considering this:

the only argument against this, is that it will raise the deficit.

Which is... bad for the economy.

but that wasn't a problem when it came to invading two countries, and occupying them for years, now was it?

Strawman. Of course it's bad for the economy. That doesn't mean it can't be worthwhile since there are other considerations (just like your reason #1 might be sufficient to justify extending unemployment insurance), but economic benefit sure as hell wasn't one of them.

Really, Thunder, can you not do better than attacking arguments that no one made? No, I guess you can't.

 

[WildCat]

the same place the money to invade Iraq and Afghanistan came from.


oohhh!!!!!!!!!

what...its ok to increase the deficit to invade & occupy countries that never attacked us and had no recently made WMDs, but its NOT ok to increase the deficit to help Americans pay rent and feed their children?

fascinating.

You're a truther again?

 

[WildCat]

Ah, so you didn't watch that segment.

I don't watch linked videos in an OP unless there is a description of what argument is supposedly being made.

Maybe you can summarize?

 

[johnny karate]

You're a truther again?

Afghanistan and Iraq attacked us?

 

[WildCat]

And the guarantee that this somewhere would be America is...?

It's cheaper to build them here than build them overseas and send them here.

Sending a 3,000 lb hunk of steel 8,000 miles isn't cheap.

 

[WildCat]

Afghanistan and Iraq attacked us?

Afghanistan certainly did.

 

[Unabogie]

It's cheaper to build them here than build them overseas and send them here.

Sending a 3,000 lb hunk of steel 8,000 miles isn't cheap.

Cheaper than Mexico?

 

[The Painter]

Cheaper than Mexico?

All those cars have drugs in them


And no the stimulus didn't work. It just kept governments working. Not the economy. The GM bailout was/is a different 50 billion dollars.

 

[WildCat]

Cheaper than Mexico?

Who's building cars in Mexico?

 

[Kestrel]

Just released by the Congressional Budget Office: Estimated Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Employment and Economic Output From July 2010 Through September 2010

 

[Unabogie]

Who's building cars in Mexico?

Ford.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7428952.stm

 

[Unabogie]

Just released by the Congressional Budget Office: Estimated Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Employment and Economic Output From July 2010 Through September 2010

But Painter just told you it didn't work. Who you going to believe, some pointy headed bureaucrat with numbers and statistics and facts and evidence or a guy who has an avatar of some guy pointing a gun at you?

 

[The Painter]

Who's building cars in Mexico?

VW

 

[The Painter]

Ford.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7428952.stm

The article is over 2 years old. Where is the Ford plant in Mexico?

 

[Ziggurat]

Just released by the Congressional Budget Office: Estimated Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Employment and Economic Output From July 2010 Through September 2010

Oddly enough, I see no mention in this description of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to indicate that the GM and Chrystler bailouts were part of that act. So... not exactly a defense of the OP.

 

[Unabogie]

The article is over 2 years old. Where is the Ford plant in Mexico?

Sheesh. What, you think they closed all their Mexican plants already?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ford_factories

 

[novice skeptic]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/#40345852

Why are Republicans trying to pretend that the Obama administration did not save the auto industry?

Because he didn't. As Robert Reich so brilliantly explained it, GM is worth more today because of the cost cutting measures they took. They eliminated 80 billion in debt and cut thousands of jobs and got major union concessions.

All of those remedies would have been available under Ch. 11 reorganization (which wouldn't have cost the tax payers a dime).

 

[novice skeptic]

The point of contention here is the definition of "rightfully earned". Is inheriting a large amount of money a method of "rightfully earning" it? What about a stock investment that results in you getting extremely rich through pure luck? What about a private health board executive that gets paid a large bonus for successfully finding enough loopholes to allow them to refuse treatment to patients?

Is not buying stock an investment in services, products, jobs, families, America, children and everything good? Why do you hate innovation and growth for everyone? Do you own a 401k? Stock investment allows companies to get needed capital to improve, innovate, grow, create jobs, give dividends to widows and retirees. You dismiss it far too lightly.

 

[casebro]

Also the typical American made car has only about 60% domestic parts. While the typical foreign car is built here, with as much imported parts.

So losing GM and Chrysler to chapt 11 would not have hurt the "American Auto Industry" much at all.

The big winner of the bail out is the UAW, who is still in business and wouldn't be otherwise.

 

[MikeMangum]

Ah, so you didn't watch that segment.

After getting to this part of the thread, I went ahead and watched the video. Holy crap does Olbermann have a hard time understanding that nominal corporate profits increase pretty much every quarter that there is positive GDP growth, and that almost every quarter in which there is positive GDP a new record is set for nominal corporate profits. That's kindof what happens when the economy grows...it gets bigger than it was.

From the transcript:

For the right wing pundits and politicians who believe this nation‘s economy is staying afloat in spite of what they consider to be an anti-business president, today‘s report from the Commerce Department should come as something of a shock. Corporate profits of the last quarter were the highest ever as in since they started tracking the number more than 60 years ago. It is a figure so high it dwarfs even made-up numbers like eleventy billion.

That sure is breathless.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2010/pdf/gdp3q10_2nd.pdf

Profits from current production (corporate profits with inventory valuation and capital
consumption adjustments) increased $44.4 billion in the third quarter, compared with an increase of
$47.5 billion in the second quarter. Current-production cash flow (net cash flow with inventory
valuation adjustment) -- the internal funds available to corporations for investment -- decreased $57.8
billion in the third quarter, in contrast to an increase of $61.1 billion in the second

$1.66 Trillion total nominal corporate profits.


$44,400,000,000 increase in profits to $1,660,000,000,000. So, in other words, corporate profits increased 2.67%.

'But it's the highest EVER! It dwarfs made up numbers like eleventy billion!'.

A 2.7% growth in corporate profits is really not a big deal. Here's a chart from the NYT (link to article, go down the page) showing corporate profits back to 1947. There's also another chart further down that shows corporate profits as a percentage of GDP, to give some perspective.

ETA: I guess if we experience 0.01% nominal GDP growth every quarter for the next 10 years everything will be just fine because every quarter someone can breathlessly announce that 'the GDP is the highest EVER! It is even larger than made up numbers like eleventy billion!'

Either Oblermann is (economically speaking) an idiot, or he is demagoguing.

Second Edit: I don't mean to imply a false dichotomy; it's entirely possible that Olbermann is both an idiot and demagoguing.