Why we want stimulus now and worry about deficits later

[NYcarbineer]

Unfortunately, and here is the catch as I see it, eventually someone will have to pay for it and I suspect our great grand children will be cussing us out to no end for saddling them with our debt.

What on God's green earth, gives us the right to do this?

Immie

The ballot box gives us that right. Every time we elect a politician who is willing to add to the debt with tax/spend policies.

Which btw is every politician we have elected in our lifetime.

The People are the hiring committee, so to speak, for job seeking politicians. If the People don't want fiscal hawks,

those guys simply won't get hired. You can't do a job until you get the job.

We are now cutting the vital payroll tax, because the tax cutting maniacs are running out of taxes to cut. But the average American can't resist the charm of a few extra dollars in his take-home pay.

In the meantime the Democrats get accused of wanting to gut the military, and the Republicans get accused of wanting to gut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, etc., and every protector of the spending has a strong constituency of voters behind him.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The current train wreck is nothing compared to our inevitable nuclear debt holocaust

Stop electing politicians who insist on cutting taxes without cutting spending proportionately would be a good start.

If you could point to a politician who will actually cut spending (whether or not s/he raises or lowers taxes) I would vote for him or her. I'd be more than satisfied to vote for a politician that will raise taxes if he or she will cut spending.

Our debt crisis stems from an unwillingness to be fiscally responsible.

However, I fear you can not find one politician that will be fiscally responsible let alone enough to make a difference in either the legislative or executive branches of our government.

Immie

Well, Mitt Romney is promising to balance the budget.

He is promising to do that without touching defense, and while further cutting taxes.

He might as well be promising to spin straw into gold.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The ballot box gives us that right. Every time we elect a politician who is willing to add to the debt with tax/spend policies.

Which btw is every politician we have elected in our lifetime.

The People are the hiring committee, so to speak, for job seeking politicians. If the People don't want fiscal hawks,

those guys simply won't get hired. You can't do a job until you get the job.

We are now cutting the vital payroll tax, because the tax cutting maniacs are running out of taxes to cut. But the average American can't resist the charm of a few extra dollars in his take-home pay.

In the meantime the Democrats get accused of wanting to gut the military, and the Republicans get accused of wanting to gut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, etc., and every protector of the spending has a strong constituency of voters behind him.

In other words the stampede of sheep eager to enter the slaughter house will drag the rest of us along with them.

 

[Immanuel]

Stop electing politicians who insist on cutting taxes without cutting spending proportionately would be a good start.

If you could point to a politician who will actually cut spending (whether or not s/he raises or lowers taxes) I would vote for him or her. I'd be more than satisfied to vote for a politician that will raise taxes if he or she will cut spending.

Our debt crisis stems from an unwillingness to be fiscally responsible.

However, I fear you can not find one politician that will be fiscally responsible let alone enough to make a difference in either the legislative or executive branches of our government.

Immie

Well, Mitt Romney is promising to balance the budget.

He is promising to do that without touching defense, and while further cutting taxes.

He might as well be promising to spin straw into gold.

Promises... promises!

Not only that, even if he were honest (big IF) one man will not balance the budget let alone turn this country around. It will take a minimum of 300 or so good men.

Good men don't run for Congress, therefore, we are screwed.

Immie

 

[Mr.Nick]

if you could point to a politician who will actually cut spending (whether or not s/he raises or lowers taxes) i would vote for him or her. I'd be more than satisfied to vote for a politician that will raise taxes if he or she will cut spending.

Our debt crisis stems from an unwillingness to be fiscally responsible.

However, i fear you can not find one politician that will be fiscally responsible let alone enough to make a difference in either the legislative or executive branches of our government.

Immie

well, mitt romney is promising to balance the budget.

He is promising to do that without touching defense, and while further cutting taxes.

He might as well be promising to spin straw into gold.

promises... Promises!

Not only that, even if he were honest (big if) one man will not balance the budget let alone turn this country around. It will take a minimum of 300 or so good men.

Good men don't run for congress, therefore, we are screwed.

Immie

535....

 

[Skull Pilot]

well, mitt romney is promising to balance the budget.

He is promising to do that without touching defense, and while further cutting taxes.

He might as well be promising to spin straw into gold.

promises... Promises!

Not only that, even if he were honest (big if) one man will not balance the budget let alone turn this country around. It will take a minimum of 300 or so good men.

Good men don't run for congress, therefore, we are screwed.

Immie

535....

We only need 60% of them to be ethical.

 

[Claudette]

Yup and our grand children will pay the price.

All politicians, either party, are out for themselves and thats about it.

 

[Cammmpbell]

.

Holy crap, comparing the recession of the early 80's to this monster is - what's a civil term here - ill-advised. Hmph, that's not a very appropriate term, but I think I'll leave it at that.

Come on, if we're going to pretend this is/was just another economic blip on the long-term map, then perhaps we should be discussing sports or knitting or cat food. Such a notion is absolutely absurd, and to claim that another approach would have had us up and running full speed by now is an exercise in either abject ignorance or pure politics. I suspect the latter. The world economy has suffered a blow it has never suffered before, not even close. It took decades of stupidity to get us here, it could easily take decades to get us out.

Jeez, are we supposed to be taking this kind of thought seriously?

.

You're right. In the 1980s we had desperately high inflation and equally high unemployment. We faced new and strong competition in what had been American monopoly industries like steel and autos. Recall the Misery Index?
Obama stumbled onto an economy that was basically sound (10 years of low inflation and unemployment) and managed to gin it up into a crisis. He has made this the worst recovery in history despite (or because of) record spending and meddling with the economy. Had he done absolutely nothing but played golf every day we would have seen unemployment about 6% today. Instead it is higher than when he took office 3 yewars ago.
So you are correct there is no comparison between the two. 1980s recession was far worse. Fortunately we had Ronald Reagan for president so he laid the groundwork for the longest post war expansion until then. SOmethng Clinton benefitted from.
Thanks for pointing out that they were different. I knew you weren't a total buffoon.

Ronald Reagan started the mess we are in today. Ronald Reagan singlehandedly wiped out the political cost of being fiscally irresponsible. That is the single most damaging act our nation has suffered in the last 40 years.

Exactly! He and Bush41 borrowed over $3 trillion 1980's dollars to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. We may never get straightened out from the mess they and George W. Bush made.

 

[Immanuel]

promises... Promises!

Not only that, even if he were honest (big if) one man will not balance the budget let alone turn this country around. It will take a minimum of 300 or so good men.

Good men don't run for congress, therefore, we are screwed.

Immie

535....

We only need 60% of them to be ethical.

Yes, just 60%, but that number may as well be 50 billion because the chances of attaining one, let alone 300, are off the charts.

Immie

 

[Mr.Nick]

promises... Promises!

Not only that, even if he were honest (big if) one man will not balance the budget let alone turn this country around. It will take a minimum of 300 or so good men.

Good men don't run for congress, therefore, we are screwed.

Immie

535....

We only need 60% of them to be ethical.

You mean constitutionally sound?

Yeah, well you're asking for too much there.

I'd say that 60% of voters are idiots whom elect idiots.

BBCW: Constitution Test: More than 50% of Federal Elected Officials Fail a Simple Constitution Test

 

[NYcarbineer]

Which btw is every politician we have elected in our lifetime.

The People are the hiring committee, so to speak, for job seeking politicians. If the People don't want fiscal hawks,

those guys simply won't get hired. You can't do a job until you get the job.

We are now cutting the vital payroll tax, because the tax cutting maniacs are running out of taxes to cut. But the average American can't resist the charm of a few extra dollars in his take-home pay.

In the meantime the Democrats get accused of wanting to gut the military, and the Republicans get accused of wanting to gut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, etc., and every protector of the spending has a strong constituency of voters behind him.

In other words the stampede of sheep eager to enter the slaughter house will drag the rest of us along with them.

I see you got 2 thank you's from 2 guys who want to INCREASE defense spending, not cut it,

so I'll add them as a reinforcement of my argument.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Holy crap, comparing the recession of the early 80's to this monster is - what's a civil term here - ill-advised. Hmph, that's not a very appropriate term, but I think I'll leave it at that.

Come on, if we're going to pretend this is/was just another economic blip on the long-term map, then perhaps we should be discussing sports or knitting or cat food. Such a notion is absolutely absurd, and to claim that another approach would have had us up and running full speed by now is an exercise in either abject ignorance or pure politics. I suspect the latter. The world economy has suffered a blow it has never suffered before, not even close. It took decades of stupidity to get us here, it could easily take decades to get us out.

Jeez, are we supposed to be taking this kind of thought seriously?



.

Obama stumbled onto an economy that was basically sound (10 years of low inflation and unemployment) and managed to gin it up into a crisis.

Ladies and gentelmen, an absolutely vivid illustration of the "denial" I refer to in my signature. You've got me Rabbi, this one is so out there and so naive and so shallow that I don't even know what to say. "Basically sound", so things should be peachy by now. Stunning. I'm glad I'm sitting down.

.

 

[Intense]

Enough with this "Dog Ate My Homework" Shit. You have compounded the Problem. You Own It.

 

[NYcarbineer]

.

Holy crap, comparing the recession of the early 80's to this monster is - what's a civil term here - ill-advised. Hmph, that's not a very appropriate term, but I think I'll leave it at that.

Come on, if we're going to pretend this is/was just another economic blip on the long-term map, then perhaps we should be discussing sports or knitting or cat food. Such a notion is absolutely absurd, and to claim that another approach would have had us up and running full speed by now is an exercise in either abject ignorance or pure politics. I suspect the latter. The world economy has suffered a blow it has never suffered before, not even close. It took decades of stupidity to get us here, it could easily take decades to get us out.

Jeez, are we supposed to be taking this kind of thought seriously?



.

Obama stumbled onto an economy that was basically sound (10 years of low inflation and unemployment) and managed to gin it up into a crisis.

Ladies and gentelmen, an absolutely vivid illustration of the "denial" I refer to in my signature. You've got me Rabbi, this one is so out there and so naive and so shallow that I don't even know what to say. "Basically sound", so things should be peachy by now. Stunning. I'm glad I'm sitting down.

.

Welcome to the Rabbi Experience. Every political forum has a Rabbi. That's obligatory.

 

[The Rabbi]

.

Holy crap, comparing the recession of the early 80's to this monster is - what's a civil term here - ill-advised. Hmph, that's not a very appropriate term, but I think I'll leave it at that.

Come on, if we're going to pretend this is/was just another economic blip on the long-term map, then perhaps we should be discussing sports or knitting or cat food. Such a notion is absolutely absurd, and to claim that another approach would have had us up and running full speed by now is an exercise in either abject ignorance or pure politics. I suspect the latter. The world economy has suffered a blow it has never suffered before, not even close. It took decades of stupidity to get us here, it could easily take decades to get us out.

Jeez, are we supposed to be taking this kind of thought seriously?



.

Obama stumbled onto an economy that was basically sound (10 years of low inflation and unemployment) and managed to gin it up into a crisis.

Ladies and gentelmen, an absolutely vivid illustration of the "denial" I refer to in my signature. You've got me Rabbi, this one is so out there and so naive and so shallow that I don't even know what to say. "Basically sound", so things should be peachy by now. Stunning. I'm glad I'm sitting down.

.

Yup. Which part of that do you need explained to you? We had low unemployment, low inflation, low energy prices, and rising GDP for years. A small glitch in sub prime mortgages and suddenly it's the biggest economic crisis evah.
There were no structural economic issues. It was far different from the 1980s, where we faced many larger problems.
I realize this contradicts the Obama narrative that he inherited "the worst economic crisis on the face of the Earth" and this explains his inability to get UE below where it was when he was elected. But that is bullshit. His own actions, and that of Congress, have depressed the housing market, which is a big driver of the economy, as well as other sectors like oil drilling, coal mining etc.
I know the truth can be a shock. Take a drink and re-read my post slowly.

 

[The Rabbi]

Obama stumbled onto an economy that was basically sound (10 years of low inflation and unemployment) and managed to gin it up into a crisis.

Ladies and gentelmen, an absolutely vivid illustration of the "denial" I refer to in my signature. You've got me Rabbi, this one is so out there and so naive and so shallow that I don't even know what to say. "Basically sound", so things should be peachy by now. Stunning. I'm glad I'm sitting down.

.

Welcome to the Rabbi Experience. Every political forum has a Rabbi. That's obligatory.

Rabbi=teacher.
Yes, You need one very badly.

 

[Immanuel]

Obama stumbled onto an economy that was basically sound (10 years of low inflation and unemployment) and managed to gin it up into a crisis.

Ladies and gentelmen, an absolutely vivid illustration of the "denial" I refer to in my signature. You've got me Rabbi, this one is so out there and so naive and so shallow that I don't even know what to say. "Basically sound", so things should be peachy by now. Stunning. I'm glad I'm sitting down.

.

Yup. Which part of that do you need explained to you? We had low unemployment, low inflation, low energy prices, and rising GDP for years. A small glitch in sub prime mortgages and suddenly it's the biggest economic crisis evah.
There were no structural economic issues. It was far different from the 1980s, where we faced many larger problems.
I realize this contradicts the Obama narrative that he inherited "the worst economic crisis on the face of the Earth" and this explains his inability to get UE below where it was when he was elected. But that is bullshit. His own actions, and that of Congress, have depressed the housing market, which is a big driver of the economy, as well as other sectors like oil drilling, coal mining etc.
I know the truth can be a shock. Take a drink and re-read my post slowly.

For much of what you say, I agree, but that "small glitch" was the straw that broke the camel's back. It was the supporting beam that when removed brought the house tumbling down. It was inevitable.

Can you please explain your contradictions here?

A small glitch in sub prime mortgages

and

His own actions, and that of Congress, have depressed the housing market, which is a big driver of the economy

The sub prime mortgage "glitch" is what brought down the housing market. Right? If so, then that "small glitch" was not really so small. At least that is how I read it. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Immie

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ladies and gentelmen, an absolutely vivid illustration of the "denial" I refer to in my signature. You've got me Rabbi, this one is so out there and so naive and so shallow that I don't even know what to say. "Basically sound", so things should be peachy by now. Stunning. I'm glad I'm sitting down.

.

Welcome to the Rabbi Experience. Every political forum has a Rabbi. That's obligatory.

Rabbi=teacher.
Yes, You need one very badly.

You're an asshole. I already have one, thanks.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I can show you this:

Initial Unemployment claims:

Only an idiot would post such nonsense...

Why don't you provide a graph that shows how the workforce is shrinking????

Unemployment is only measured by workforce (which is shrinking at an epidemic rate) and those actively receiving unemployment..

Those who have exhausted their benefits and remain jobless are NOT factored into the equation - and that number is GROWING EVERYDAY.

You remember those 99er's??? now they've all been eaten by the unemployment singularity...

They'll finally be satisfied when what used to be the middle class has been reduced to the equivalant of a Malaysian day laborer. In other words financial slavery.

Why use income? Why not use total compensation?

 

[The Rabbi]

Ladies and gentelmen, an absolutely vivid illustration of the "denial" I refer to in my signature. You've got me Rabbi, this one is so out there and so naive and so shallow that I don't even know what to say. "Basically sound", so things should be peachy by now. Stunning. I'm glad I'm sitting down.

.

Yup. Which part of that do you need explained to you? We had low unemployment, low inflation, low energy prices, and rising GDP for years. A small glitch in sub prime mortgages and suddenly it's the biggest economic crisis evah.
There were no structural economic issues. It was far different from the 1980s, where we faced many larger problems.
I realize this contradicts the Obama narrative that he inherited "the worst economic crisis on the face of the Earth" and this explains his inability to get UE below where it was when he was elected. But that is bullshit. His own actions, and that of Congress, have depressed the housing market, which is a big driver of the economy, as well as other sectors like oil drilling, coal mining etc.
I know the truth can be a shock. Take a drink and re-read my post slowly.

For much of what you say, I agree, but that "small glitch" was the straw that broke the camel's back. It was the supporting beam that when removed brought the house tumbling down. It was inevitable.

Can you please explain your contradictions here?

A small glitch in sub prime mortgages

and

His own actions, and that of Congress, have depressed the housing market, which is a big driver of the economy

The sub prime mortgage "glitch" is what brought down the housing market. Right? If so, then that "small glitch" was not really so small. At least that is how I read it. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Immie

The intial meltdown was in subprime, which were bad loans anyway. But as the housing crisis developed steam even good mortgages were in jeopardy. Into this rushed the administration (both fo them) with plans to "save" homeowners. But by forestalling the inevitable (people who can't pay for homes can't pay for homes) the market never reached equilibrium, artificially propped up by gov't action that made house-zombies, homes that weren't foreclosed on, or foreclosed on but not on the market. Just in limbo. With the gov't pressuring banks not to foreclose the market had a big overhang anticipatiing that oen day all these houses would go on the market. As well banks looked at their portfolios and real estate lending became a dirty word. Rates were very low, but no one could qualify. That effectively meant prices were too high and there were too few borrowers. So housing could not (and has not) recovered.
Housing accounts for al ot of jobs--construction, appliances, materials, etc. With a bad housing market, UE is still way up.