GDP numbers in. They are ugly (1.3%)

[werepossum]

ROFLMAO!

....and we wonder why we are in this mess. Just read that quote again.....that is when you stop laughing from reading it the first time.

I suspect that by the time I stop laughing about it, I'll begin to cry about it. Oh, the death of our nation!

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Job creators = consumers........

A business can't be profitable and stay in business if they have no demand for their products.

Oh...my bad...and all this time I thought it was the government for some odd reason.

 

[MovingTarget]

I suspect that by the time I stop laughing about it, I'll begin to cry about it. Oh, the death of our nation!

The rest of us stopped laughing a long time ago. Without a turn away from trickle-down economic thought/policy, the economy will continue in the doldrums, wealth will continue to concentrate more at the top, and average joe will still be completely boned. But hey, fuck it.

 

[werepossum]

The rest of us stopped laughing a long time ago. Without a turn away from trickle-down economic thought/policy, the economy will continue in the doldrums, wealth will continue to concentrate more at the top, and average joe will still be completely boned. But hey, fuck it.

Both parties believe in trickle down economics; the Dems just want wealth to trickle down from Government, blessed be its name.

 

[her209]

Oh...my bad...and all this time I thought it was the government for some odd reason.

In a time of recession, the government should act as a consumer to stop the economy from going into a death spiral.

 

[dphantom]

And Republicans want to cut government spending by 5% of GDP in the middle of a recession.

Where do you get 5% of GDP?

 

[her209]

Where do you get 5% of GDP?

Current government outlays as a percentage of GDP is around 25%. Tea Party wants it at 20% immediately and eventually lowered to 18%.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

In a time of recession, the government should act as a consumer to stop the economy from going into a death spiral.

So you think we should spend more in spite of the consequences of lower credit ratings, higher interest costs, and passing even more exorbinate debt onto the backs of our young work force?

 

[her209]

So you think we should spend more in spite of the consequences of lower credit ratings, higher interest costs, and passing even more exorbinate debt onto the backs of our young work force?

If the economy goes into a death spiral, you'll get a lowered credit rating, higher interest costs as % of revnue/GDP, and no jobs for the young work force.

 

[Thump553]

ROFLMAO!

....and we wonder why we are in this mess. Just read that quote again.....that is when you stop laughing from reading it the first time.

Actually you are way, way off base (and I'm a bit surprised werepossum fell for it also). Production without consumption is absolutely worthless and never will amount to anything. What we need is business that can compete against Chinese and other third world factories while fostering the growth of the middle class, who are the engine of any consumer spending economy. The two goals are not mutually exclusive but require smart, nondoctrinaire and not simplistic solutions.

Relying on the GOP's trickle down economics alone will result in a few very rich capitalists with factories in China and Vietnam (along with the occassional five pension leftovers) and the great masses left with no opportunity or economic role.

 

[Doppel]

Horrible. I don't think either party has a clue how to fix our broken economy.

This is really about as honest and accurate as it gets. I don't think they do, either. Obama will have a possibly insurmountable time getting reelected if things continue to stagnate, but it's beyond any doubt that a Republican won't make it any better.

Have you not been paying attention to a huge number of businessmen saying until he gets out of the way we won't grow?

Wut. Corporate earnings are at record levels. They continue to outsource everything they can. It's like the only thing manufacturers in this country care about. I'm sure all board meetings are full of bullet points each representing how they can get rid of more US workers.

In a time of recession, the government should act as a consumer to stop the economy from going into a death spiral.

It tried that, but due to years if mismanagement the government was actually sicker than the consumer anyway.

We're all back against a wall here, I sure haven't seen anybody put forth a plan that a) has any chance of ever getting applied and b) would really help.

The economy isn't growing (actually shrinking quite fast if you remove deficit spending) and the government is quite literally tapped out and will get a downgrade if it keeps deficit spending indefinitely, as it seems it will.

 

[Doppel]

If the economy goes into a death spiral, you'll get a lowered credit rating, higher interest costs as % of revnue/GDP, and no jobs for the young work force.

And if you keep increasing the debt you get a lowered credit rating, higher interest costs as % of revnue/GDP, and no jobs for the young work force. Rating agencies have already said as much and put the US on warning.

Can't win either way.

 

[dullard]

Something that I'm sure people will miss here: Data was updated going back for years. This update mostly had impacts from the recession onwards.

For example: 4th quarter of 2008 previously was at -6.8% GDP change. Now it was revised to -8.9%. That is a pretty big revision. Of course, this was Obama's fault as a senator since at that point it was clear he would be elected.

It wasn't all revised down. Some was revised up. For example, 2nd quarter 2010 was previously at 1.7% growth and was revised up to 3.8% growth. This change was clearly Boehner's doing, as minority leader in the house with little to no power, he made the GDP grow dramatically!

 

[dphantom]

Current government outlays as a percentage of GDP is around 25%. Tea Party wants it at 20% immediately and eventually lowered to 18%.

Last I heard the latest proposal was for roughly 1 trillion over 10 years. That was supposed to have been voted on yesterday in the House but was not.

I am not familiar with the Tea Party nor have seen a proposal from a political group called the Tea Party.

 

[dullard]

I am not familiar with the Tea Party nor have seen a proposal from a political group called the Tea Party.

Time to educate yourself on this right-wing libertarian subgroup that is trying to take over the republican party from within.

I know you are just trying to play semantics, but it just makes you look ignorant. Try again.

 

[her209]

Last I heard the latest proposal was for roughly 1 trillion over 10 years. That was supposed to have been voted on yesterday in the House but was not.

I am not familiar with the Tea Party nor have seen a proposal from a political group called the Tea Party.

Cut Cap and Balance

 

[dphantom]

Cut Cap and Balance

I believe that was passed by the republican party. At any rate, I beleive this is what the Act actually says.





CUT

Cuts total spending by $111 billion in FY 2012. The savings is divided as follows:
■Reduce non-security discretionary spending below 2008 levels, which saves $76 billion.
■$35 billion cut to non-veterans, non-Medicare, non-Social Security mandatory spending.
■Defense budget at President’s level.

CAP

Total federal spending is scaled back based on the glide path for the fiscal years below:
■2012, 22.5% of GDP.
■2013, 21.7% of GDP.
■2014, 20.8% of GDP.
■2015, 20.2% of GDP.
■2016, 20.2% of GDP.
■2017, 20.0% of GDP.
■2018, 19.7% of GDP.
■2019, 19.9% of GDP.
■2020, 19.9% of GDP.
■2021, 19.9% of GDP.

BALANCE

Requires the passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment before raising the nation’s debt limit.

http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/11/07/15/the-cut-cap

If you know these to be wrong, please post your source.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

If the economy goes into a death spiral, you'll get a lowered credit rating, higher interest costs as % of revnue/GDP, and no jobs for the young work force.

Unless I missed something, the first stimulus package didn't come close to solving the unemployment problem. Also, additional spending at this point will absolutely guarantee a lowered credit rating, and higher interest costs.

Meanwhile...the very real threat of a double dip recession looms...our efforts have failed...and a harsh mistress awaits our young.

 

[a777pilot]

I suspect that by the time I stop laughing about it, I'll begin to cry about it. Oh, the death of our nation!

Me too.......

 

[ayabe]

Unless I missed something, the first stimulus package didn't come close to solving the unemployment problem. Also, additional spending at this point will absolutely guarantee a lowered credit rating, and higher interest costs.

Meanwhile...the very real threat of a double dip recession looms...our efforts have failed...and a harsh mistress awaits our young.

No it didn't, because nearly half of it was tax cuts. We're only now realizing that the great recession was much worse than anyone would admit and we are no longer in a position to do a damned thing about it.

 

[Doppel]

No it didn't, because nearly half of it was tax cuts. We're only now realizing that the great recession was much worse than the government would admit and we are no longer in a position to do a damned thing about it.

Fixed I remember when the stock market was imploding in early 2009 it was pretty clear how bad things were going and an awful lot of people shared that sentiment!

 

[a777pilot]

I believe that was passed by the republican party. At any rate, I beleive this is what the Act actually says.





CUT

Cuts total spending by $111 billion in FY 2012. The savings is divided as follows:
■Reduce non-security discretionary spending below 2008 levels, which saves $76 billion.
■$35 billion cut to non-veterans, non-Medicare, non-Social Security mandatory spending.
■Defense budget at President’s level.

CAP

Total federal spending is scaled back based on the glide path for the fiscal years below:
■2012, 22.5% of GDP.
■2013, 21.7% of GDP.
■2014, 20.8% of GDP.
■2015, 20.2% of GDP.
■2016, 20.2% of GDP.
■2017, 20.0% of GDP.
■2018, 19.7% of GDP.
■2019, 19.9% of GDP.
■2020, 19.9% of GDP.
■2021, 19.9% of GDP.

BALANCE

Requires the passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment before raising the nation’s debt limit.

http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/11/07/15/the-cut-cap

If you know these to be wrong, please post your source.

Let me see if I have this right....you want to cut FY 2012 spending by $111 billion? Is that right? Is that $111 billion of the purposed budget? Or...Is the $111 billion off the yet to be passed FY 2011 budget, being used as a base line?

It's all smoke and mirrors.

Why not cut FY 2012's budget by $1.2 trillion?

This current Fool, Bobo, the Post Turtle, has increased the nation's budget by trillions of dollars in the past two years, and now you are saying what we were spending now is a necessity?

This reasoning is fucked in the head. This is why we are in the mess we find ourselves today. BROKE!

Just take the FY 2008 federal budget and for FY 2012 say.....ditto.

 

[her209]

I believe that was passed by the republican party.

As dullard says, semantics.

At any rate, I beleive this is what the Act actually says.

CUT

Cuts total spending by $111 billion in FY 2012. The savings is divided as follows:
■Reduce non-security discretionary spending below 2008 levels, which saves $76 billion.
■$35 billion cut to non-veterans, non-Medicare, non-Social Security mandatory spending.
■Defense budget at President’s level.

CAP

Total federal spending is scaled back based on the glide path for the fiscal years below:
■2012, 22.5% of GDP.
■2013, 21.7% of GDP.
■2014, 20.8% of GDP.
■2015, 20.2% of GDP.
■2016, 20.2% of GDP.
■2017, 20.0% of GDP.
■2018, 19.7% of GDP.
■2019, 19.9% of GDP.
■2020, 19.9% of GDP.
■2021, 19.9% of GDP.

BALANCE

Requires the passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment before raising the nation’s debt limit.

http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/11/07/15/the-cut-cap

If you know these to be wrong, please post your source.

H.R. 2560

9 TITLE III—BALANCE
10 SEC. 301. REQUIREMENT THAT A BALANCED BUDGET
11 AMENDMENT BE SUBMITTED TO STATES.
12 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Treasury
13 shall not exercise the additional borrowing authority pro
14 vided under subsection (b) until the Archivist of the
15 United States transmits to the States H.J. Res. 1 in the
16 form reported on June 23, 2011, S.J. Res. 10 in the form
17 introduced on March 31, 2011, or H.J. Res. 56 in the
18 form introduced on April 7, 2011, a balanced budget
19 amendment to the Constitution, or a similar amendment
20 if it requires that total outlays not exceed total receipts,
21 that contains a spending limitation as a percentage of
22 GDP, and requires that tax increases be approved by a

1 two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress for their ratifi
2 cation.
3 (b) AMENDMENT TO TITLE 31.—Effective on the
4 date the Archivist of the United States transmits to the
5 States H.J. Res 1 in the form reported, S.J. Res. 10 in
6 the form introduced, or H.J. Res. 56 in the form intro
7 duced, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution,
8 or a similar amendment if it requires that total outlays
9 not exceed total receipts, contains a spending limitation
10 as a percentage of GDP, and requires tax increases be
11 approved by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress
12 for their ratification, section 3101(b) of title 31, United
13 States Code, is amended by striking the dollar limitation
14 contained in such subsection and inserting
15 $16,700,000,000,000.

H.J. Res. 1

3 ‘‘SECTION 2. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall
4 not exceed 18 percent of economic output of the United
5 States, unless two-thirds of each House of Congress shall
6 provide for a specific increase of outlays above this amount.

S.J. Res. 10

10 ‘‘SECTION 2. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall
11 not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of
12 the United States for the calendar year ending before the
13 beginning of such fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly
14 chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress
15 shall provide by law for a specific amount in excess of such
16 18 percent by a roll call vote.

H.J. Res. 56

7 ‘‘SECTION 2. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall
8 not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of
9 the United States for the calendar year ending before the
10 beginning of such fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly
11 chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress
12 shall provide by law for a specific amount in excess of such
13 18 percent by a roll call vote.

 

[dullard]

As dullard says, semantics.

He acts as if the parties are unified organizations with no subgroups. But that is about as far from the truth as possible. All parties have their internal strife. Tea party, neocons, blue dog democrats, etc.

 

[dphantom]

As dullard says, semantics.

H.R. 2560

H.J. Res. 1

S.J. Res. 10

H.J. Res. 56

If you were intelectually honest you would include all the sections including the one where the 18% cap on expenditures equal to GDP only takes place after the balanced budget amendment is ratified by the States. Until then, the provisions of the cut and cap sections are in effect.

In other words, everything you said about an "immediate" 5% reduction in expenditures is inaccurate. BTW, that is a nice way of saying you are being shall we say selective with the facts.