S/O How Will Romney/Ryan Improve Economy, Debt, Jobs..etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the original OP in the other thread. Been away for a couple days, but wanted to respond to a couple of things. I can't find it now, but criticized Obama's stimulus package. here's where that money went. I'm wondering what the problem is here:

60% of the stimulus money went to tax cuts to individuals, small businesses, etc.
$153 billion or so went to help states with Medicaid expenditures and to protect teachers and first responders from layoffs.
$117 billion or so went to building and repairing roads, bridges, rail, and other crucial infrastructure.
$100 billion to help people hurt by the Bush recession,
$88 billion for Pell Grants, NIH, upgrading health care IT, special education, etc;
$75 billion for energy efficiency, science and technology, R&D, broadband


Someone also wonders what is wrong with Keystone and how could it possibly RAISE U.S. gas prices:

The purpose of the pipeline is to give TransCanada greater access to the international market. It would divert oil from midwest refineries. These refineries produce more gasoline than those in any other US region, and is sold to US consumers. That oil will instead be diverted to gulf coast refineries which produce as much diesel as possible, and the majority would be exported. So, taking oil from the midwest refineries and diverting it to the Gulf Coast diesel refineries will decrease the amount of oil available to American consumers.

Also, the midwest currently enjoys Canada crude at a deep, deep discount. The Keystone will increase the cost of a barrel of Canada crude by $20-$40.

So, to recap: increased cost of production at US refineries, decreased supply of gasoline in the US, and the loss of our discount from Canada = higher gas prices

TransCanada originally pitched the Keystone idea to Canadian regulators as a way to "increasing the price of crude in the US." transcanada did admit to congress that the pipeline would increase US gas prices and that it's main purpose is to export diesel from the gulf coast to the international market.

ok, i'm guessing you either have little grounding in economics or do not accept as its primary purpose to efficiently allocate resources. Still, I'll try:

I'm wondering what the problem is here:

60% of the stimulus money went to tax cuts to individuals, small businesses, etc.
$153 billion or so went to help states with Medicaid expenditures and to protect teachers and first responders from layoffs.
$117 billion or so went to building and repairing roads, bridges, rail, and other crucial infrastructure.
$100 billion to help people hurt by the Bush recession,
$88 billion for Pell Grants, NIH, upgrading health care IT, special education, etc;
$75 billion for energy efficiency, science and technology, R&D, broadband

the 60% in tax cuts wasn't spent, as we entered the crisis with too much debt and recipients used to begin deleveraging. That's why we didn't see the typical rebound coming out of this sharp a downturn. Traditional conservative (i'm not one) would say..you took my $ and gave it to someone else. Or, more accurately, you borrowed $ from my kids and they'll have to pay it back somehow.

$ to states: yes, state budgets were and are careening out of control so they needed disaster relief from decades of irresponsibility. Did you know the increase in public education employees over the past 20 years FAR exceeds the number of students enrolled? And no one would contend the results have improved. Regarding first responders---can you tell me over the past 35 years we have 40% fewer fires yet 40% more firemen? If they're doing something else shouldn't we so call them (and, maybe, get them out of the firemen's union?)

$ to infrastructure--we should have spent most of the $ there..we'd have saved the construction industry and gotten something good out of it.
"bush recession" -- please google "correlation v causality"
Pell Grants--this is a separate thread about dumb Federal spending on higher ed
"energy efficiency, et al" = industrial policy, which the soviets learned doesn't work and Obama is starting to get

Keystone--ok, so if you accept the premise that free markets are about winners and losers, we subsidize gas for the Midwest at who's expense? And who gets to decide that?

btw, as an aside, I'm not the one tying ideas to presidents--"obama" this and "bush" that. who's the one lacking some independent thinking?

I really don't know for whom i'm voting, but would be helpful at the least to have a discussion beyond powerpoint bullets.

(Disclaimer: Not gonna lie - I am not an Economics person. Feel free to dumb down your argument and get back to me. )
I know little about deleveraging. I did a bit of research, and realized that there are three theories regarding deleveraging and monetary policy. You seem to fall into the "balance Sheet Recession" camp, right? This means that you believe no amount of stimulus will help? Or you might be in the camp that believes stimulus money can help but the gov't won't deliver enough? Not arguing your position. Just pointing out to others that this is one of 3 ways to look at monetary stimulus. If I'm correct about your viewpoint, I can't say that I disagree with you on that. I tend to think that tax cuts and rebates are a nice gift, but seriously doubt they help the overall picture. I know that we were pretty excited to receive a $2,000 check from Bush's tax rebate. I was supposed to run to the mall and pump it right back into the economy, but I didn't. I put it in my kids' 529. Many people I know used it to pay off debt.

As for Obama's tax cuts, I can speak form my own experience - we pay 10% less in income tax than we did in 2008, and our HHI is $125K. So we do enjoy the Obama tax cuts.

Please explain your claim that the increase in public education employees over the past 20 years FAR exceeds the number of students enrolled. Please break it down for us and tell us where all these extra employees are and why they are not necessary. I know that in our school district's elementary school, we have 21-23 students per classroom. There is not a single employee at my kids' school that is not crucial. In fact, the faculty is spread pretty thin. so where are all these extras?

Too many firefighters? tell that to people in NM, CO, CA, etc. Yes, the smoke jumpers are feds, but the local firefighters protect the cities as the wildfires get close. And I'm really glad that thousands of firefighters were not laid off prior to 9/11. Perhaps some areas can get by with less firefighters. these cities should come up with a responsible plan to reduce the number gradually and to find other tasks for them in the meantime, or train them for another career. many options depending on the city. Cutting their jobs when we were on the brink of a depression would not be the responsible thing to do!

Glad to see that you think more should have been spent on infrastructure. I happen to agree. Unfortunately, republicans gave Obama a REALLY hard time for putting too much into these projects. Do you remember that? Their reason was that construction projects end, so the money should not go to these temporary jobs.

I'm familiar with correlation v causality. Are you implying that you do not believe Bush caused the recession? Among other things, the guy started 2 wars AND cut taxes, bailed out banks, doubled discretionary spending! Like I said, I'm no math expert here, but I can't begin to imagine how you can say that calling it the Bush Recession is not accurate.

Pell grant - I'm interested in hearing your argument against pell grants. I would not not have a college education if it weren't for pell grants, so good luck convincing me! Sure, it probably needs to be reformed. I'll give you that. Perhaps we need a better screening process for the recipients and accountability for those who accept grants but don't complete their education. But investing in higher education is necessary in order for our kids to compete globally. Good grief, this is so NOT the area to cut spending! Especially since the kids entering college have grown up in a recession and their parents might not have been able to save for their education.

Are you actually arguing against the midwest refineries in favor of the global oil market? MW gas should not be subsidized and we are better off to let Canada send their oil overseas? Surely I'm not understanding your statement, so feel free to clarify.

I hope I don't sound snarky. Really not trying to - just in a hurry right now. I appreciate the debate. thanks for keeping me on my toes!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the original OP in the other thread. Been away for a couple days, but wanted to respond to a couple of things. I can't find it now, but criticized Obama's stimulus package. here's where that money went. I'm wondering what the problem is here:

60% of the stimulus money went to tax cuts to individuals, small businesses, etc.
$153 billion or so went to help states with Medicaid expenditures and to protect teachers and first responders from layoffs.
$117 billion or so went to building and repairing roads, bridges, rail, and other crucial infrastructure.
$100 billion to help people hurt by the Bush recession,
$88 billion for Pell Grants, NIH, upgrading health care IT, special education, etc;
$75 billion for energy efficiency, science and technology, R&D, broadband


Someone also wonders what is wrong with Keystone and how could it possibly RAISE U.S. gas prices:

The purpose of the pipeline is to give TransCanada greater access to the international market. It would divert oil from midwest refineries. These refineries produce more gasoline than those in any other US region, and is sold to US consumers. That oil will instead be diverted to gulf coast refineries which produce as much diesel as possible, and the majority would be exported. So, taking oil from the midwest refineries and diverting it to the Gulf Coast diesel refineries will decrease the amount of oil available to American consumers.

Also, the midwest currently enjoys Canada crude at a deep, deep discount. The Keystone will increase the cost of a barrel of Canada crude by $20-$40.

So, to recap: increased cost of production at US refineries, decreased supply of gasoline in the US, and the loss of our discount from Canada = higher gas prices

TransCanada originally pitched the Keystone idea to Canadian regulators as a way to "increasing the price of crude in the US." transcanada did admit to congress that the pipeline would increase US gas prices and that it's main purpose is to export diesel from the gulf coast to the international market.

ok, i'm guessing you either have little grounding in economics or do not accept as its primary purpose to efficiently allocate resources. Still, I'll try:

I'm wondering what the problem is here:

60% of the stimulus money went to tax cuts to individuals, small businesses, etc.
$153 billion or so went to help states with Medicaid expenditures and to protect teachers and first responders from layoffs.
$117 billion or so went to building and repairing roads, bridges, rail, and other crucial infrastructure.
$100 billion to help people hurt by the Bush recession,
$88 billion for Pell Grants, NIH, upgrading health care IT, special education, etc;
$75 billion for energy efficiency, science and technology, R&D, broadband

the 60% in tax cuts wasn't spent, as we entered the crisis with too much debt and recipients used to begin deleveraging. That's why we didn't see the typical rebound coming out of this sharp a downturn. Traditional conservative (i'm not one) would say..you took my $ and gave it to someone else. Or, more accurately, you borrowed $ from my kids and they'll have to pay it back somehow.

$ to states: yes, state budgets were and are careening out of control so they needed disaster relief from decades of irresponsibility. Did you know the increase in public education employees over the past 20 years FAR exceeds the number of students enrolled? And no one would contend the results have improved. Regarding first responders---can you tell me over the past 35 years we have 40% fewer fires yet 40% more firemen? If they're doing something else shouldn't we so call them (and, maybe, get them out of the firemen's union?)

$ to infrastructure--we should have spent most of the $ there..we'd have saved the construction industry and gotten something good out of it.
"bush recession" -- please google "correlation v causality"
Pell Grants--this is a separate thread about dumb Federal spending on higher ed
"energy efficiency, et al" = industrial policy, which the soviets learned doesn't work and Obama is starting to get

Keystone--ok, so if you accept the premise that free markets are about winners and losers, we subsidize gas for the Midwest at who's expense? And who gets to decide that?

btw, as an aside, I'm not the one tying ideas to presidents--"obama" this and "bush" that. who's the one lacking some independent thinking?

I really don't know for whom i'm voting, but would be helpful at the least to have a discussion beyond powerpoint bullets.

(Disclaimer: Not gonna lie - I am not an Economics person. Feel free to dumb down your argument and get back to me. )
I know little about deleveraging. I did a bit of research, and realized that there are three theories regarding deleveraging and monetary policy. You seem to fall into the "balance Sheet Recession" camp, right? This means that you believe no amount of stimulus will help? Or you might be in the camp that believes stimulus money can help but the gov't won't deliver enough? Not arguing your position. Just pointing out to others that this is one of 3 ways to look at monetary stimulus. If I'm correct about your viewpoint, I can't say that I disagree with you on that. I tend to think that tax cuts and rebates are a nice gift, but seriously doubt they help the overall picture. I know that we were pretty excited to receive a $2,000 check from Bush's tax rebate. I was supposed to run to the mall and pump it right back into the economy, but I didn't. I put it in my kids' 529. Many people I know used it to pay off debt.

As for Obama's tax cuts, I can speak form my own experience - we pay 10% less in income tax than we did in 2008, and our HHI is $125K. So we do enjoy the Obama tax cuts.

Please explain your claim that the increase in public education employees over the past 20 years FAR exceeds the number of students enrolled. Please break it down for us and tell us where all these extra employees are and why they are not necessary. I know that in our school district's elementary school, we have 21-23 students per classroom. There is not a single employee at my kids' school that is not crucial. In fact, the faculty is spread pretty thin. so where are all these extras?

Too many firefighters? tell that to people in NM, CO, CA, etc. Yes, the smoke jumpers are feds, but the local firefighters protect the cities as the wildfires get close. And I'm really glad that thousands of firefighters were not laid off prior to 9/11. Perhaps some areas can get by with less firefighters. these cities should come up with a responsible plan to reduce the number gradually and to find other tasks for them in the meantime, or train them for another career. many options depending on the city. Cutting their jobs when we were on the brink of a depression would not be the responsible thing to do!

Glad to see that you think more should have been spent on infrastructure. I happen to agree. Unfortunately, republicans gave Obama a REALLY hard time for putting too much into these projects. Do you remember that? Their reason was that construction projects end, so the money should not go to these temporary jobs.

I'm familiar with correlation v causality. Are you implying that you do not believe Bush caused the recession? Among other things, the guy started 2 wars AND cut taxes, bailed out banks, doubled discretionary spending! Like I said, I'm no math expert here, but I can't begin to imagine how you can say that calling it the Bush Recession is not accurate.

Pell grant - I'm interested in hearing your argument against pell grants. I would not not have a college education if it weren't for pell grants, so good luck convincing me! Sure, it probably needs to be reformed. I'll give you that. Perhaps we need a better screening process for the recipients and accountability for those who accept grants but don't complete their education. But investing in higher education is necessary in order for our kids to compete globally. Good grief, this is so NOT the area to cut spending! Especially since the kids entering college have grown up in a recession and their parents might not have been able to save for their education.

Are you actually arguing against the midwest refineries in favor of the global oil market? MW gas should not be subsidized and we are better off to let Canada send their oil overseas? Surely I'm not understanding your statement, so feel free to clarify.

I hope I don't sound snarky. Really not trying to - just in a hurry right now. I appreciate the debate. thanks for keeping me on my toes!

By that logic, a traditional conservative shouid oppose tax cuts. I think that is the keynesian reason why spending is superior to tax cuts in a recession.

[Anonymous]

Where does Joe the Plumber stand on the Keystone Pipeline?

The Republicans are opposed to rebuilding the national infrastructure which creates jobs in the short term, shores up our existing communities and builds the foundations on which new communities will be built in the future.

Maintaining a first rate transportation system is one of the most important elements a nation must have to remain prosperous. However, the Republicans insist advancing our infrastructure is a waste of tax dollars.

On the other hand the Republicans insist the Obama Administration is negligent for not approving funding for the Keystone Pipeline to carry petrochemicals from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.

Have the Republicans been able to convince Joe the Plumber that building roads, bridges, light rails systems and water treatment plants are bad for his family??? Have the Republicans been able to convince Joe that the Federal Government should provide oil and gas companies a free pipeline to transport their petrochemicals from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.

According to the Republicans when the Federal Government spends money to advance the interests of the American people they cry "socialism". However, when they advocate the Federal Government should spend money to build a pipeline for the exclusive usage of the oil companies this is perfectly acceptable.

Certainly, Joe the Plumber must also see the hypocrisy in this portion the Republican Party Platform.

[Anonymous]

(Disclaimer: Not gonna lie - I am not an Economics person. Feel free to dumb down your argument and get back to me. )
I know little about deleveraging. I did a bit of research, and realized that there are three theories regarding deleveraging and monetary policy. You seem to fall into the "balance Sheet Recession" camp, right? This means that you believe no amount of stimulus will help? Or you might be in the camp that believes stimulus money can help but the gov't won't deliver enough? Not arguing your position. Just pointing out to others that this is one of 3 ways to look at monetary stimulus. If I'm correct about your viewpoint, I can't say that I disagree with you on that. I tend to think that tax cuts and rebates are a nice gift, but seriously doubt they help the overall picture. I know that we were pretty excited to receive a $2,000 check from Bush's tax rebate. I was supposed to run to the mall and pump it right back into the economy, but I didn't. I put it in my kids' 529. Many people I know used it to pay off debt.

As for Obama's tax cuts, I can speak form my own experience - we pay 10% less in income tax than we did in 2008, and our HHI is $125K. So we do enjoy the Obama tax cuts.

Please explain your claim that the increase in public education employees over the past 20 years FAR exceeds the number of students enrolled. Please break it down for us and tell us where all these extra employees are and why they are not necessary. I know that in our school district's elementary school, we have 21-23 students per classroom. There is not a single employee at my kids' school that is not crucial. In fact, the faculty is spread pretty thin. so where are all these extras?

Too many firefighters? tell that to people in NM, CO, CA, etc. Yes, the smoke jumpers are feds, but the local firefighters protect the cities as the wildfires get close. And I'm really glad that thousands of firefighters were not laid off prior to 9/11. Perhaps some areas can get by with less firefighters. these cities should come up with a responsible plan to reduce the number gradually and to find other tasks for them in the meantime, or train them for another career. many options depending on the city. Cutting their jobs when we were on the brink of a depression would not be the responsible thing to do!

Glad to see that you think more should have been spent on infrastructure. I happen to agree. Unfortunately, republicans gave Obama a REALLY hard time for putting too much into these projects. Do you remember that? Their reason was that construction projects end, so the money should not go to these temporary jobs.

I'm familiar with correlation v causality. Are you implying that you do not believe Bush caused the recession? Among other things, the guy started 2 wars AND cut taxes, bailed out banks, doubled discretionary spending! Like I said, I'm no math expert here, but I can't begin to imagine how you can say that calling it the Bush Recession is not accurate.

Pell grant - I'm interested in hearing your argument against pell grants. I would not not have a college education if it weren't for pell grants, so good luck convincing me! Sure, it probably needs to be reformed. I'll give you that. Perhaps we need a better screening process for the recipients and accountability for those who accept grants but don't complete their education. But investing in higher education is necessary in order for our kids to compete globally. Good grief, this is so NOT the area to cut spending! Especially since the kids entering college have grown up in a recession and their parents might not have been able to save for their education.

Are you actually arguing against the midwest refineries in favor of the global oil market? MW gas should not be subsidized and we are better off to let Canada send their oil overseas? Surely I'm not understanding your statement, so feel free to clarify.

I hope I don't sound snarky. Really not trying to - just in a hurry right now. I appreciate the debate. thanks for keeping me on my toes!

I'm only gonna address a couple of these for reasons I'll explain below.

Education: I saw that stat the other day and poked around to replicate. The BLS databases take more time to unravel than I care to spend, but a quick look at census data (census.gov) showed a 22% increase from '97-'07 in elem and secondary instructors, and a 27% increase in non-instructional ee's. that's far above pop growth, and far below changes in test scores. as for rest of your q's around this, beyond my pay grade. I expect the NEA can explain why this is a good thing.

Firefighter--your reply totally non-responsive. That's why i'm pausing--you can't start a policy conversation and then get anecdotal.

Pell--don't really care how you (or I) got thru college. again we're discussing policy which is made (one would hope) on broader data. There's plenty of data out there correlating increases in federal programs to higher tuitions. One could reasonably argue that slashing Federal aid to higher ed is a solution to high tuitions. Again this is a point made for at least a decade by the fiscal conservatives that only now are the lib's starting to echo (once total student debt made page 1 of the post.)

I'm pausing here..frankly I'm just weary of the absence of thoughtful questioning of conventions here and elsewhere in the political debate. And, yes, Bush didn't start the recession any more than did Barney Frank with his relentless boostering of home ownership at any cost (while collecting campaign funds from the finance industry.) It might fit with your preferred narrative, but alas life is a bit more complicated.

[Anonymous]

Folks you have to consider whether Romney will institute any policies different from Bush II's, which simply did not create jobs in the private sector (the losses under Bush have been mitigated under Obama).

I will say that Keystone could at least be routed to avoid major aquifers, or have some sort of triple secret protection in those areas. Fracking/nuclear/offshore drilling -- as long as some of the $$$ goes to mitigate the ill effects on locals (e.g. the burning water faucets) and to fund research on non-carbon based/renewable energy.

Fire and education are local things; so a New England town that is over-staffed with both won't really affect a Mississippi town which could desperately use both. Both anecdotes may be correct.

I would like to know however whether the 22% increase from 97-07 includes special education staffers, where there's been a number of mandates in the past few decades. Also does overall population growth reflect student body growth? If a large part of population growth is the under-18 crowd, then the 22% jump is not unreasonable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Romney/Ryan plan will create jobs, cut taxes and save Medicare by ensuring that the White House isn't occupied by a socialist Kenyan Muslim.

You are an idiot. Obama was born in Indonesia.