Re: Kirkland perhaps you would care to explain...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lyle
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AdamGB
What do you think will help the economy Lyle?
Having the government step back and allow businessmen to do business....I don't think we should let them (and by them I mean both business AND government) go around all willy nilly like Clinton and W did. I think there should be not new laws and regulations but more oversight and more transparency in business and government.
Sure our infastructure could use a bit of a tune up but looking at the rest of the bill, I really don't think that crap does anything but say "Thank You" to all the liberals that support Obama. $6 BILLION for University rebuilding....have you looked at how much it costs to go to college lately? Do you think they really need that? If there is price gouging anywhere it's in higher education.
We're eventually going to have to pay some of this back I would just hope that the government guys would be a little bit more cautious with that kind of money instead of yelling and screaming about getting this bill passed.
How is the government preventing businessmen doing business? Businesmen are currently slashing payrolls and have ceased investing, so business isn't going to dig the economy out of its tailspin. The only entity with money to spend is government, if they don't do it nobody else will and you'll get Depressed. But how is government preventing businessmen doing business?
Everybody agrees that the financial industry needs to be regulated. If the derivatives markets had been regulated the banks wouldn't have lost trillions in bad derivatives bets, the cause of the current financial crisis. If securities ratings agencies, mortgage lenders etc. had been regulated it would have prevented the crisis too. Would you seriously like the banks to be allowed to continue to be unregulated? If they're not regulated they'll only melt the financial system down again in the future you know. What's the difference between oversight and regulation?
Can you think of any better infrastructure spending for the future benefit of America than education? I can't.
Bush already put you on the hook for about ten trillion bailing the banks out. Obama will put you on the hook for trillions more. If the stimulus fails the Depression will cost untold trillions in lost growth and more spending to dig the economy out of it. Again, the private sector is slashing payrolls and has ended investment. The only entity that can stimulate the economy is the government.
• Marshall Plan: Cost: $12.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $115.3 billion
• Louisiana Purchase: Cost: $15 million, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $217 billion
• Race to the Moon: Cost: $36.4 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $237 billion
• S&L Crisis: Cost: $153 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $256 billion
• Korean War: Cost: $54 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $454 billion
• The New Deal: Cost: $32 billion (Est), Inflation Adjusted Cost: $500 billion (Est)
• Invasion of Iraq: Cost: $551b, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $597 billion
• Vietnam War: Cost: $111 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $698 billion
• NASA: Cost: $416.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $851.2 billion
TOTAL: $3.92 trillion
PLUS
World War II: Original Cost: $288 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $3.6 trillion
Total cost : $7.52 trillion.
Nov. 24 2008 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. government is prepared to provide more than $7.76 trillion on behalf of American taxpayers after guaranteeing $306 billion of Citigroup Inc. debt yesterday. The pledges, amounting to half the value of everything produced in the nation last year, are intended to rescue the financial system after the credit markets seized up 15 months ago.
The unprecedented pledge of funds includes $3.18 trillion already tapped by financial institutions in the biggest response to an economic emergency since the New Deal of the 1930s, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The commitment dwarfs the plan approved by lawmakers, the Treasury Department’s $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. Federal Reserve lending last week was 1,900 times the weekly average for the three years before the crisis.
When Congress approved the TARP on Oct. 3, Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson acknowledged the need for transparency and oversight. Now, as regulators commit far more money while refusing to disclose loan recipients or reveal the collateral they are taking in return, some Congress members are calling for the Fed to be reined in.
Bloomberg.com: Exclusive
Re: Kirkland perhaps you would care to explain...
I don't know if this is just me but I find it a bit scary that if the government owns the banks then whoever gets elected owns the banks and then we have a whole new level of fear..."If the Republicans run the banks the X is going to happen"...."If the Democrats run the banks then Y willl happen" etc etc etc.
The idea behind our economy is that eventually we have to pay for goods and services and the faster we just let things be the faster we get back to people getting back to normal which means spending like normal and maybe we have to wait a while before the lending comes back to normal but I would rather the economic environment adapt than the government just go in and start running things.
Re: Kirkland perhaps you would care to explain...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lyle
I don't know if this is just me but I find it a bit scary that if the government owns the banks then whoever gets elected owns the banks and then we have a whole new level of fear..."If the Republicans run the banks the X is going to happen"...."If the Democrats run the banks then Y willl happen" etc etc etc.
The idea behind our economy is that eventually we have to pay for goods and services and the faster we just let things be the faster we get back to people getting back to normal which means spending like normal and maybe we have to wait a while before the lending comes back to normal but I would rather the economic environment adapt than the government just go in and start running things.
If you "let things be" the entire financial system will collapse. If government hadn't stepped in to bail out the banks with the KLGFSRP we'd already be back to the barter system. It may well work perfectly well in North Carolina but in the rest of the world we prefer using hard currency to settle our transactions. I don't want to have to carry round half a pig or a bushel of whatever it is you people make bushels out of to buy something I want.
Bank lending and business investment have come to a standstill. Consumer spending is dropping off a cliff and as more businesses are unable to get credit from the non-lending banks they'll lay more people off, which obviously cuts consumer spending. Business then slashes payroll even more and generally cuts costs so they can cut their prices to attract spending, but as they keep cutting prices consumers wait to spend as they know prices will fall further. We call this "deflation" and it's what happened from 1930 onwards to cause the Great Depression. That's why the government is spending money right now -- nobody else is, and if somebody doesn't keep spending the economy will fall into a deflationary death spiral.
So taking all this into account do you still want the government to just back off and let the market sort itself out? Or would you support at least making an attempt to avoid Depression?
Re: Kirkland perhaps you would care to explain...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lyle
I don't know if this is just me but I find it a bit scary that if the government owns the banks then whoever gets elected owns the banks and then we have a whole new level of fear..."If the Republicans run the banks the X is going to happen"...."If the Democrats run the banks then Y willl happen" etc etc etc.
The idea behind our economy is that eventually we have to pay for goods and services and the faster we just let things be the faster we get back to people getting back to normal which means spending like normal and maybe we have to wait a while before the lending comes back to normal but I would rather the economic environment adapt than the government just go in and start running things.
If you "let things be" the entire financial system will collapse. If government hadn't stepped in to bail out the banks with the KLGFSRP we'd already be back to the barter system. It may well work perfectly well in North Carolina but in the rest of the world we prefer using hard currency to settle our transactions. I don't want to have to carry round half a pig or a bushel of whatever it is you people make bushels out of to buy something I want.
lol... buuuuuuuuuuuuuurned :p
Re: Kirkland perhaps you would care to explain...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
If you "let things be" the entire financial system will collapse. If government hadn't stepped in to bail out the banks with the KLGFSRP we'd already be back to the barter system. It may well work perfectly well in North Carolina but in the rest of the world we prefer using hard currency to settle our transactions. I don't want to have to carry round half a pig or a bushel of whatever it is you people make bushels out of to buy something I want.
Bank lending and business investment have come to a standstill. Consumer spending is dropping off a cliff and as more businesses are unable to get credit from the non-lending banks they'll lay more people off, which obviously cuts consumer spending. Business then slashes payroll even more and generally cuts costs so they can cut their prices to attract spending, but as they keep cutting prices consumers wait to spend as they know prices will fall further. We call this "deflation" and it's what happened from 1930 onwards to cause the Great Depression. That's why the government is spending money right now -- nobody else is, and if somebody doesn't keep spending the economy will fall into a deflationary death spiral.
So taking all this into account do you still want the government to just back off and let the market sort itself out? Or would you support at least making an attempt to avoid Depression?
The actions taken in this bill won't do a GOD DAMN THING! The nonpartisan CBO even said so, they said this bill will HURT us in the long run.
How do you get people to SPEND? You cut taxes....simple stuff. The first stimulus bill didn't work why the hell should this one? The market didn't have such a rosey view of the bill.
But you're always right and you're always annoying......well one of the two is 100% true
Re: Kirkland perhaps you would care to explain...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lyle
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
If you "let things be" the entire financial system will collapse. If government hadn't stepped in to bail out the banks with the KLGFSRP we'd already be back to the barter system. It may well work perfectly well in North Carolina but in the rest of the world we prefer using hard currency to settle our transactions. I don't want to have to carry round half a pig or a bushel of whatever it is you people make bushels out of to buy something I want.
Bank lending and business investment have come to a standstill. Consumer spending is dropping off a cliff and as more businesses are unable to get credit from the non-lending banks they'll lay more people off, which obviously cuts consumer spending. Business then slashes payroll even more and generally cuts costs so they can cut their prices to attract spending, but as they keep cutting prices consumers wait to spend as they know prices will fall further. We call this "deflation" and it's what happened from 1930 onwards to cause the Great Depression. That's why the government is spending money right now -- nobody else is, and if somebody doesn't keep spending the economy will fall into a deflationary death spiral.
So taking all this into account do you still want the government to just back off and let the market sort itself out? Or would you support at least making an attempt to avoid Depression?
The actions taken in this bill won't do a GOD DAMN THING! The nonpartisan CBO even said so, they said this bill will HURT us in the long run.
How do you get people to SPEND? You cut taxes....simple stuff. The first stimulus bill didn't work why the hell should this one? The market didn't have such a rosey view of the bill.
But you're always right and you're always annoying......well one of the two is 100% true
Were you around during Reagan's or Dubya's administration? There is a precident for this already. What good does cutting taxes do to someone that is unemployed?
Re: Kirkland perhaps you would care to explain...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lyle
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
If you "let things be" the entire financial system will collapse. If government hadn't stepped in to bail out the banks with the KLGFSRP we'd already be back to the barter system. It may well work perfectly well in North Carolina but in the rest of the world we prefer using hard currency to settle our transactions. I don't want to have to carry round half a pig or a bushel of whatever it is you people make bushels out of to buy something I want.
Bank lending and business investment have come to a standstill. Consumer spending is dropping off a cliff and as more businesses are unable to get credit from the non-lending banks they'll lay more people off, which obviously cuts consumer spending. Business then slashes payroll even more and generally cuts costs so they can cut their prices to attract spending, but as they keep cutting prices consumers wait to spend as they know prices will fall further. We call this "deflation" and it's what happened from 1930 onwards to cause the Great Depression. That's why the government is spending money right now -- nobody else is, and if somebody doesn't keep spending the economy will fall into a deflationary death spiral.
So taking all this into account do you still want the government to just back off and let the market sort itself out? Or would you support at least making an attempt to avoid Depression?
The actions taken in this bill won't do a GOD DAMN THING! The nonpartisan CBO even said so, they said this bill will HURT us in the long run.
How do you get people to SPEND? You cut taxes....simple stuff. The first stimulus bill didn't work why the hell should this one? The market didn't have such a rosey view of the bill.
But you're always right and you're always annoying......well one of the two is 100% true
The nonpartisan CBO said that if the stimulus works it'll cut future GDP growth by a fraction of one percent in a couple of years for a period of a couple of years. But if the stimulus fails or if the government does nothing then GDP will drop by up to 25%. What happened here was that the GOP and the media took the one remotely negative thing the CBO had to say about the stimulus and created a bs narrative about it, how the stimulus would hurt the economy. Anybody who's done Econ 101 knows how ridiculous this is but apparently most of the congressmen and senators in Washington never took Econ 101. Or they're just grandstanding for political purposes.
When you cut taxes, even in normal times, a big chunk of that money is saved and not spent. And the GOP only want to cut taxes significantly for people earning $10 000 a week/day (see above.) Economists, crucially Lyle, people who know what they're talking about, estimate that about 30% of every tax cut is spent. And that's in normal times. In times like this even less. However government spending in infrastructure/unemployment benefits/food stamps etc. is spent and then spent again, creating economic growth. Here's the bang-for-a-stimulus-buck table again, try reading it :
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/10/zandi.gif
What part of this don't you understand?
I think you just can't bring yourself to accept that anything the other side do could be the right thing. You didn't blink an eyelid while George Bush handed ten trillion in welfare cheques to the socialist bankers but when Obama spends 10% of this to try and save the economy Bush screwed from going into meltdown you suddenly find fault with what he's doing.
Never mind, Obama fucked up the bank bailout today. His new plan is doomed to failure and will eventually have to be scrapped and the banks nationalised. I'll post about this when I know the full story which will take a day or three. But Obama screwed up big time today. It'' now cost trillions more to right the system than it otherwise would have, abd that's the best-case scenario.
Re: Kirkland perhaps you would care to explain...
Here's what the CBO actually had to say re. the stimulus :
I touched on three key points this morning:
- The economy is currently weathering a recession that started more than a year ago, and absent a change in fiscal policy, CBO projects that the shortfall in the nation’s output relative to potential levels will be the largest– in duration and depth– since the Depression of the 1930s.
- Most economists agree that both significant fiscal stimulus and additional financial and monetary policy approaches are needed.
- H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, would, in CBO’s judgment, provide a substantial boost to economic activity over the next several years relative to what would occur without the legislation. (For the CBO cost estimate of H.R. 1, click here)
As the possibility of another round of fiscal stimulus is debated, it is not a surprise that employment effects of stimulus have emerged as a key measuring stick. According to CBO’s estimates, with enactment of H.R. 1, the number of jobs would be between 0.8 million and 2.1 million higher at the end of this year, 1.2 million to 3.6 million higher at the end of next year, and 0.7 million to 2.1 million higher at the end of 2011 than under current law.
Director’s Blog Blog Archive Testimony on the Economy and Stimulus
Re: Kirkland perhaps you would care to explain...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
killersheep
Were you around during Reagan's or Dubya's administration? There is a precident for this already. What good does cutting taxes do to someone that is unemployed?
If you cut corporate taxes then the jobs come to you.
Re: Kirkland perhaps you would care to explain...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
At the time that video came out we all thought it was funny and just a passing crazy but noooooo there are more out there pleading with Obama "give me a car"........ "give me a house"......"I'm unemployed, I am homeless" etc etc etc.
Well you guys got your bill, let's see what happens...Kirkland surely you know it won't be a fun and easy first term for Barry.
Geithner got laughed off the damn stage earlier today after his explination of the bill.
Re: Kirkland perhaps you would care to explain...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lyle
Quote:
Originally Posted by
killersheep
Were you around during Reagan's or Dubya's administration? There is a precident for this already. What good does cutting taxes do to someone that is unemployed?
If you cut corporate taxes then the jobs come to you.
No in point of fact,they dont
Reagan cut corporate taxes,and had to rescind the cuts because of the recession it caused
Bush the elder cut corporate taxes,and had to rescind them because of the recession it caused
Bush the Jr did it twice,and was one recession short of a hat trick
How many times do you have to run straight in to a brick wall before you realize its painful and you wont be seeing the other side?
Re: Kirkland perhaps you would care to explain...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lyle
Quote:
Originally Posted by
killersheep
Were you around during Reagan's or Dubya's administration? There is a precident for this already. What good does cutting taxes do to someone that is unemployed?
If you cut corporate taxes then the jobs come to you.
That doesn't make any sense. If C-class folks save more money then they will hire more people, I fail to see the logic in that. Trickle-down economics, Reaganomics whatever term your give it or rebrand it is proven to not be viable for the health of the economy as a whole. What happens is money goes to the top and stays at the top, this then chokes the system. This isn't even an argument about fair and unfair, Reaganomics in the long term are a sure way to cause an economic collapse.
Re: Kirkland perhaps you would care to explain...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lyle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
At the time that video came out we all thought it was funny and just a passing crazy but noooooo there are more out there pleading with Obama "give me a car"........ "give me a house"......"I'm unemployed, I am homeless" etc etc etc.
Well you guys got your bill, let's see what happens...Kirkland surely you know it won't be a fun and easy first term for Barry.
Geithner got laughed off the damn stage earlier today after his explination of the bill.
Yep, that makes two Treasury toppers in a row who are running jokes. Things don't look very good going forward, do they?
Re: Kirkland perhaps you would care to explain...
killer, listen when the buble burst didn't that TRICKLE DOWN? You feel it don't you? Or maybe someone you know feels it??? If you make it affordable for businesses to hire people then you make it easier for them to open up shop here in the States. We are used to having businesses be run FROM America and we don't like our jobs being exported, but we have some of the highest corporate taxes in the world so it only makes sense that our jobs leave us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Yep, that makes two Treasury toppers in a row who are running jokes. Things don't look very good going forward, do they?
Thanks to this bill ......nope it doesn't make things look great.
And thanks to the people who think Obama is a fucking PANACEA yeah things look like crap....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-88Il-4nby0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjiKPWzN878
.....thank you Kirkland....YOUR people have just sucked the life out of our econonomy.
Capitalism has become a four letter word recently and that is just absolutely fucking ridiculous!!!!!
Re: Kirkland perhaps you would care to explain...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lyle
killer, listen when the buble burst didn't that TRICKLE DOWN? You feel it don't you? Or maybe someone you know feels it??? If you make it affordable for businesses to hire people then you make it easier for them to open up shop here in the States. We are used to having businesses be run FROM America and we don't like our jobs being exported, but we have some of the highest corporate taxes in the world so it only makes sense that our jobs leave us.
We also have some of the best CPA's in the world that divert and offset that corporate tax. I work in manufacturing American owned and operated, the owner of my company pays about the same in corporate taxes as I do in payroll taxes. You make is sound as if taxes are a knob you turn to create more jobs this is in fact not the case, it is just something you made up, based on a theory with no historical evidence.
You have the same basis for your argument working as communism does.
You have failed to take into account the fundamental greed of people.
There is a time to reduce corporate taxes, that time is when we have a surplus, but you do it gradually.
