Capitalism

[Kirkland Laing]

Well for starters they could have nationalized the banks instead of bailing them out and I have even seen you post that this should have been done but we digress. It is really hard to take you seriously sometimes. You make sweeping generalizations about anyone who doesn't support Obama and who voted for McCain. You take the opinion that anyone that doesn't agree with you point for point is either misinformed or an idiot. I go to bed at night thanking god that you do not live in this country. It is that exact type of elitist self righteous attitude that we do not need in this country. It boggles my mind the amount of time and energy you spend posting on American politics and policy.

They could have nationalised the banks but both sides are dead against doing so, the GOP even moreso than the Democrats. When Obama does eventually get round to nationalising the banks the GOP will be screaming about socialism, communism etc. I'm not making sweeping generalisations about every Mccain voter, I'm pointing out quite accurately that the teabaggers are a bunch of clueless dummies that have no grasp whatsoever of the economic issues at stake. They are misinformed and they are idiots. I'm not elitist or self righteous, I just know what I'm talking about.

Economically speaking you probably know more than just about anyone I personally know...but Kirk you don't know or seem to have a good understanding of Americans. So your ramblings about our policies, politics and "knowing whats best for us" comes off really self righteous and pretentious.

The only money Obama spent other than the regular budget was the stimulus money. This is about 700 billion, or about 7% of the money the Bush administration had guaranteed the banks to cover their losses before Obama took office. And the 700 billion stimulus is to prevent economic meltdown caused by Bush's disastrous economic policies! It's something all economists agree is needed, there's almost no argument between reputable economists on the stimulus, just a little on how to actually spend the money.

In 1929 a huge financial/property bubble burst and America tipped into a bad recession and eventual deflation, not helped by the fact that the banks were insolvent and stopped lending. The Prez at the time Herbert Hoover, decided to let the market take its course and the economy recover eventually with no government interference. The economic situation at the time was actually better than the current situation in terms of bad debt, consumer debt etc.

By 1932 when FDR took office the economic machinery had completely broken down. The New York Stock Exchange and the Chicago Board of Trade had closed. Thirty-two states had shut their banks.

Illinois and much of the South had stopped paying teachers. Schools closed for months. An army of 25,000 famished war veterans squatting in view of Congress had been charged by troopers of the 3rd US cavalry with naked sabres – led by a Major George Patton.

Armed farmers threatening revolution had laid siege to a string or Prairie cities. A mob had stormed the Nebraska Capitol. Minnesota's governor was recruiting Communists only for the state militia. Lawyers attempting to enforce foreclosures were shot. More than 100,000 New Yorkers applied to go to the Soviet Union when Moscow advertised for 6,000 skilled workers.

The $700 billion stimulus is an attempt to prevent the US economy tipping into the kind of deflationary meltdown that happened between 1929-32. America is already facing deflation, prices are going negative right now, but hopefully the stimulus will prevent it getting too bad and us getting a 1930s repeat. So really the 700 large is a drop in the bucket compared to actual losses now and potential losses to come if the economy keeps tanking.

[VictorCharlie]

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom

FDR's New Deal hurt millions of poor people : USD College Republicans

FDR Was a Great Leader, But His Economic Plan Isn't One to Follow - washingtonpost.com

I don't have an opinion on this really, but apparently not all historians believe the New Deal was the best or only solution.

Will the stimulus actually stimulate? Economists say no | McClatchy

Gateway Pundit: 200 Top Economists Say "Stimulus" Bill Won't Work

For Many Economists, Stimulus Falls Flat - CBS News

I didn't disagree with the stimulus bill in principle just the parts that seemed political but apparently not ALL economists thought it was the best idea. Lastly with a country in economic crisis what I did expect is an effort to dramatically curb our budget. I can agree to disagree on the parts of the stimulus package and omnibus that I philisophically oppose but my simple Soldier mind cannot fathom why we haven't slashed federal spending across the board.

[Kirkland Laing]

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom

FDR's New Deal hurt millions of poor people : USD College Republicans

FDR Was a Great Leader, But His Economic Plan Isn't One to Follow - washingtonpost.com

I don't have an opinion on this really, but apparently not all historians believe the New Deal was the best or only solution.

Will the stimulus actually stimulate? Economists say no | McClatchy

Gateway Pundit: 200 Top Economists Say "Stimulus" Bill Won't Work

For Many Economists, Stimulus Falls Flat - CBS News

I didn't disagree with the stimulus bill in principle just the parts that seemed political but apparently not ALL economists thought it was the best idea. Lastly with a country in economic crisis what I did expect is an effort to dramatically curb our budget. I can agree to disagree on the parts of the stimulus package and omnibus that I philisophically oppose but my simple Soldier mind cannot fathom why we haven't slashed federal spending across the board.

FDR made several mistakes but overall the New Deal was a huge success. If you read the UCLA critique they're attacking FDR's incomes and pricing policies, something which was tried at the time but eventually ended by FDR as it wasn't working. You'cw got to remember at the time economics as a discipline was in its infancy, nothing like the depression had ever happened and every possible theory was tried, the ones that didn't work were discontinued. New Deal opponents claim that the government spending didn't end the depression and only WW2 finally did but WW2 was just a gigantic government spending programme, far bigger than the New Deal, so either way it was government spending which ended the depression that was caused by no government spending when the bubble burst in 1929, something that thankfully didn't happen this time.

Yes, lots of people disagree with the current stimulus. If you actually read those articles you'll see that most of the criticism of the stimulus comes from the left with liberal economists claiming it isn't big enough, gives too much in tax cuts etc. The right claim it gives too little in tax cuts. History and all the evidence shows us that tax cuts are a far inferior method of generating economic growth than government spending. So like I said in the previous post no reputable people really disagree that the government should spend money, they just disagree over how the money should be spent.

[Kirkland Laing]

And the government isn't cutting spending because government spending is the whole point of the exercise. Consumers have stopped spending (consumer spending is 70% of the economy/GDP), business have stopped investing because nobody is spending, people are being laid off because everything is slow. Those laid off people cease spending too, which creates more layoffs/falls in spending, which can lead to a vicious deflaionary spiral. like what happened in 1929. That's why the government is increasing spending! If they don't, the whole thing can easily tip into depression because [i]nobody else is spending.[i] The government is currently the lender of last resort and now has also to be the spender of last resort.

[VictorCharlie]

Honestly man I haven't perused the budget. Money spent on public works sounds good to me. Money that creates jobs even temporarily also sounds good to me. Tax credits for buying houses, cars etc that will energize markets I too agree with. But I think you can agree that there is a lot of cash being thrown away by both parties on BS. My personal opinions on what our Federal govt should be spending are not realistic but during a time of crisis to not even give the appearance of tightening the belt is alarming.

[Kirkland Laing]

Honestly man I haven't perused the budget. Money spent on public works sounds good to me. Money that creates jobs even temporarily also sounds good to me. Tax credits for buying houses, cars etc that will energize markets I too agree with. But I think you can agree that there is a lot of cash being thrown away by both parties on BS. My personal opinions on what our Federal govt should be spending are not realistic but during a time of crisis to not even give the appearance of tightening the belt is alarming.

They will throw money away. the economist who originally came up with the idea of fiscal stimulus advocated stuffing banknotes in lemonade bottles and burying them in mineshafts under tons of concrete, so that entrepreneurs would invest money and employ people to dig them out. They just need to spend a lot of money quickly, to get it into the economy asap and so there'll be a huge amount of dumb projects that the media will ridicule. But the bottom line is spending tons of money, however they do it, is the whole point. Cutting spending defeats the object.

[VictorCharlie]

I wonder if I start using my Federal Govt's budgetary policies as my own if I can get a bail out when I am broke and everything I own is sold off?