Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Problem being is that we're up to our armpits in inflation and the Fed rate is 0%...Yet the only answer we get from the neo-Keynesian witch doctors is to inflate the shit out of the currency even more.Yep, inflation drives up interest rates down the road with this much debt and Greece will look tame compared to the US.
People who watch Fox and Rush should change the channel and hear the recovery is accelerating. Inflation is VERY moderate...
People who watch Fox and Rush should change the channel and hear the recovery is accelerating. Inflation is VERY moderate...
Those dimwits just can't take facts for what they are. The inflation can only take off when we have low unemployment and workers start demanding a rise.
Completely irrelevant to the claim of Bubba's tax increase being responsible for the mythical balanced budget and fake "surplus".You may or may not have heard that there was a helluva lot of spending that went on, over and above the baseline projections of 1992, that happened between that date and 2002.
Try reading for comprehension next time.
So the trend predictions are useless since no one can predict events that might have a major impact on revenues/spending?
No shit. So why did you bring them up?
The nut of the matter is that the baselines were fairly closely followed in the '90s, to the point that the budget ended up being projected to come into balance by 2002 in 1998, had those baselines been adhered to.
Next stupid diversionary argument?
People who watch Fox and Rush should change the channel and hear the recovery is accelerating. Inflation is VERY moderate...
Those dimwits just can't take facts for what they are. The inflation can only take off when we have low unemployment and workers start demanding a rise.
Ever hear of stagflation? Inflation can be driven by more than wages. What limited capacity for economics you have.
Those dimwits just can't take facts for what they are. The inflation can only take off when we have low unemployment and workers start demanding a rise.
Ever hear of stagflation? Inflation can be driven by more than wages. What limited capacity for economics you have.
The wages WERE rising fast during stagflation. And no, the only thing that can drive a sustained inflation is the growing wages resulting from low unemployment.
I know one thing. Reagan and Bush41 borrowed $3 trillion 1980's dollars to fund their tax cuts for the wealthy. Give me that much money and I could fix anything.
Oh...did you notice that at the end of each Republican run they left a higher unemployment rate than what they assumed
.
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?
.
Don't burst their bubble. It's what Fox News teaches their sheep. This thing came so close to total financial disaster that there's no telling if we would have ever recovered from it.
Uh-huh...Then they went back up to near record levels shortly afterward...Problem is that spending continued going wild, as was also predicted back in '92.Completely irrelevant to the claim of Bubba's tax increase being responsible for the mythical balanced budget and fake "surplus".So the trend predictions are useless since no one can predict events that might have a major impact on revenues/spending?
No shit. So why did you bring them up?
The nut of the matter is that the baselines were fairly closely followed in the '90s, to the point that the budget ended up being projected to come into balance by 2002 in 1998, had those baselines been adhered to.
Next stupid diversionary argument?
Revenues FELL in 2001 and 2002.
.
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.
You seem to have completely forgotten the autumn of 2008. Here's a little something to jog your memory:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsDmPEeurfA]President Bush Addresses Nation on Economic Crisis - YouTube[/ame]
Bull crap. The first two stim bills cost us almost one trillion dollars and neither worked. Just one more chance? Not a chance.
The chart above shows a deeply depressed economy. The US still produce about 1 trillion less in annual GDP than they are capable of. Not only it results in a lot of human suffering, but it also starves the government of tax revenues, creating huge budget deficits.
Therefore we need more stimulus to help the economy closing the gap (which basically means creating more jobs) -- because it will also reduce the deficits.
Ever hear of stagflation? Inflation can be driven by more than wages. What limited capacity for economics you have.
The wages WERE rising fast during stagflation. And no, the only thing that can drive a sustained inflation is the growing wages resulting from low unemployment.
In economics, stagflation is a situation in which the inflation rate is high and the economic growth rate slows down and unemployment remains steadily high.
Stagflation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why would wages rise if unemployment is high ilia? You are talking trash now.
Note: Looks like desperation time, better call me an idiot quick.
The stimulus worked, dimwits. So well the economy grew for 30 months straight, even with Pubs fear mongering and paralyzing the whole time, and is now accelerating. A small infrastructure stimulus and no cost pushes on bankers like Obama has asked for should be enough now, or just no MORE "crises" caused by Pub BS will do...
That's the White House version whch was spoon fed to the MSM.The last stimulus was $1 trillion and it failed.
It did not fail, it stopped the economy from sliding deeper into recession.
Bull crap. The first two stim bills cost us almost one trillion dollars and neither worked. Just one more chance? Not a chance.
The chart above shows a deeply depressed economy. The US still produce about 1 trillion less in annual GDP than they are capable of. Not only it results in a lot of human suffering, but it also starves the government of tax revenues, creating huge budget deficits.
Therefore we need more stimulus to help the economy closing the gap (which basically means creating more jobs) -- because it will also reduce the deficits.
Your side has wasted enough of our hard earned dollars chasing red herrings.
Slash government spending. Put the money in the pockets of the private sector and let the damned economy fix itself like always has in the past.
Government screws up things 100% of the time.
Now is the WRONG time to be worrying about deficits. When you're having a heart attack, costs are secondary.
HA! Hey mr Wishful thinking, there is no such thing as "temporary government spending".
The chart above shows a deeply depressed economy. The US still produce about 1 trillion less in annual GDP than they are capable of. Not only it results in a lot of human suffering, but it also starves the government of tax revenues, creating huge budget deficits.
Therefore we need more stimulus to help the economy closing the gap (which basically means creating more jobs) -- because it will also reduce the deficits.
How does the government spend more, which automatically increases the debt, decrease the debt.
By making the economy growing so fast that the permanent increase in the government revenues would quickly outpace the temporary rise in spending.
