Is The Worst Over? Most Economists Say Yes

[GTKeeper]

People don't understand the terms of 'bear market rally'

 

[theeedude]

The recklessness of the right is just mind boggling. Push ideology at all cost, consequences be damned.

 

[trooper11]

Originally posted by: senseamp
The recklessness of the right is just mind boggling. Push ideology at all cost, consequences be damned.

i dont think giving other options for dealing with this issue as being reckless. In fact its our own government that seems to have been playing a very risky game without really knowing what solution would work. the right wing that was in power was making the same questionable decisions before Obama came in and continued those policies.

there are consequences to any of the options given and there are consequences to the path our President has chosen. It just seems like they are throwing darts at a board, now that they are throwing around the idea of another stimulous package. I have the impression that not only do they not know what is going on, they dont have any other ideas besides spending more money.

a little bit of conservatism goes along way when your overspending during the 'tight' times.

I dont get why more people dont feel a little burned by our administartion considering how much they drove home that it was essential we spend all the money we have in order to avoid the situation we are in now. I know I do. They could have sold it anyway they wanted, but they chose fear and that wont earn them alot of respect now.

 

[theeedude]

Government spending money is exactly what the economy needs when the private sector cuts down on spending, unless you want a total economic collapse. You should have fear of the alternative, it is worth fearing.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Government spending money is exactly what the economy needs when the private sector cuts down on spending, unless you want a total economic collapse. You should have fear of the alternative, it is worth fearing.

Whats the alternative? Government NOT spending money?

 

[LTC8K6]

So...what will be the reasoning for the second stimulus package?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Government spending money is exactly what the economy needs when the private sector cuts down on spending, unless you want a total economic collapse. You should have fear of the alternative, it is worth fearing.

We are in the middle of an economic collapse. Are you blind? And the govt is dropping money like it is rain.

 

[alphatarget1]

Obama = Carter. We'll all suffer from the failure of Obamanomics in the near future.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: senseamp
Government spending money is exactly what the economy needs when the private sector cuts down on spending, unless you want a total economic collapse. You should have fear of the alternative, it is worth fearing.

Whats the alternative? Government NOT spending money?

Yes, if private sector is cutting down on spending, and government is not spending money either, economic collapse is inevitable.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Obama = Carter. We'll all suffer from the failure of Obamanomics in the near future.

I'd worry about suffering from the failure of Reaganomics in the present.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Obama = Carter. We'll all suffer from the failure of Obamanomics in the near future.

I'd worry about suffering from the failure of Reaganomics in the present.

Last years of Reagan's presidency was over 20 years ago. Sure, trickle down economics as Reagan envisioned probably doesn't work very well, but Obamanomics isn't any better. Spreading the wealth and overregulation will further choke growth, prevent recovery and ruin America.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: senseamp
Government spending money is exactly what the economy needs when the private sector cuts down on spending, unless you want a total economic collapse. You should have fear of the alternative, it is worth fearing.

Whats the alternative? Government NOT spending money?

Yes, if private sector is cutting down on spending, and government is not spending money either, economic collapse is inevitable.

Contraction != collapse

You want collapse go look at parts of WWII Europe and postwar Germany.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: senseamp
Government spending money is exactly what the economy needs when the private sector cuts down on spending, unless you want a total economic collapse. You should have fear of the alternative, it is worth fearing.

Whats the alternative? Government NOT spending money?

Yes, if private sector is cutting down on spending, and government is not spending money either, economic collapse is inevitable.

Contraction != collapse

You want collapse go look at parts of WWII Europe and postwar Germany.

Well, the Great Depression was a Contraction too, if you want to mince words.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Obama = Carter. We'll all suffer from the failure of Obamanomics in the near future.

I'd worry about suffering from the failure of Reaganomics in the present.

Last years of Reagan's presidency was over 20 years ago. Sure, trickle down economics as Reagan envisioned probably doesn't work very well, but Obamanomics isn't any better. Spreading the wealth and overregulation will further choke growth, prevent recovery and ruin America.

Bush policies were Reaganomics too. Don't underestimate the damage Reagan's ideology has done to this country. Anti-regulation mentality enabled this mess.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: senseamp
Government spending money is exactly what the economy needs when the private sector cuts down on spending, unless you want a total economic collapse. You should have fear of the alternative, it is worth fearing.

Whats the alternative? Government NOT spending money?

Yes, if private sector is cutting down on spending, and government is not spending money either, economic collapse is inevitable.

This coming from the guy who railed Reagan and Bush for spending

Alrighty.

 

[trooper11]

Originally posted by: senseamp


Bush policies were Reaganomics too. Don't underestimate the damage Reagan's ideology has done to this country. Anti-regulation mentality enabled this mess.

I dont think TARP was reagonimcs, so dont just lump all of Bush's polcies under that umbrella. Besides, all this trickle down economics sounds so flimsy to me. Of course everything can have long term effects, but its all so muddied by the fact that we get different administrations every 4-8 years that did who knows what to the policies or ideolgies set forth by the rpevious administration.

Besides, it wasnt anti-regulation that enabled the mess ( at least not entirely). It was a lack of motivation to enfore the regulations we did have in place. It was and still is an issue that wont be resolved just by adding more regulation. but anyway, thats for another thread....

 

[blackangst1]

I dont see the difference between what Reagan envisioned as trickle down (from the top of the private sector down) and what Obama is creating (from the top of the government down). The worse part about Obama's plan is the dependancy on the fed will increase, and as others have already stated, once the government grows, it wont shrink back. It hasnt since 1932, and it sure as hell isnt going to happen under Obama.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I dont see the difference between what Reagan envisioned as trickle down (from the top of the private sector down) and what Obama is creating (from the top of the government down). The worse part about Obama's plan is the dependancy on the fed will increase, and as others have already stated, once the government grows, it wont shrink back. It hasnt since 1932, and it sure as hell isnt going to happen under Obama.

The difference is that the government is a zero sum game. The government does not have any money to trickle down, except money they took away from the private sector in the first place. It's like trying to fill up a bath tub by taking water from the other end.

Real trickle down economics, i.e. reducing taxes primarily, is like opening the throttle on the faucet.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: senseamp
Government spending money is exactly what the economy needs when the private sector cuts down on spending, unless you want a total economic collapse. You should have fear of the alternative, it is worth fearing.

Whats the alternative? Government NOT spending money?

Yes, if private sector is cutting down on spending, and government is not spending money either, economic collapse is inevitable.

This coming from the guy who railed Reagan and Bush for spending

Alrighty.

Reagan and Bush ran huge deficits during good times, and now Republicans want to balance the budget during tough times. Exactly the opposite of sane economic policy. If these people ever get back to power, this country is in for a world of pain.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: trooper11

Originally posted by: senseamp


Bush policies were Reaganomics too. Don't underestimate the damage Reagan's ideology has done to this country. Anti-regulation mentality enabled this mess.

I dont think TARP was reagonimcs, so dont just lump all of Bush's polcies under that umbrella. Besides, all this trickle down economics sounds so flimsy to me. Of course everything can have long term effects, but its all so muddied by the fact that we get different administrations every 4-8 years that did who knows what to the policies or ideolgies set forth by the rpevious administration.

Besides, it wasnt anti-regulation that enabled the mess ( at least not entirely). It was a lack of motivation to enfore the regulations we did have in place. It was and still is an issue that wont be resolved just by adding more regulation. but anyway, thats for another thread....

Well, whether is lack of regulation is due to insufficient legislation, of failure of executive branch to enforce existing regulations, that is still a failure of anti-regulation ideology, the only difference is whether that failure is in legislative or executive branch. Republicans failed to learn from history and are doomed to repeat it, if given a chance again, of course.

 

[trooper11]

Originally posted by: senseamp


Reagan and Bush ran huge deficits during good times, and now Republicans want to balance the budget during tough times. Exactly the opposite of sane economic policy. If these people ever get back to power, this country is in for a world of pain.

what a crazy world we live in where its considered insane to strive for a balanced budget....

i dont care who is in office, I want a conservative approach to be considered. all this blaming the past doesnt change the now. So its ok now to run huge deficits becuase Reagan and Bush did it? Please, thats just nonsense....


alot of this seems like common sense. when times are tough, you focus spending on what must be done and curb spending on what you 'want' done. Of course Obama is doing his best to convince us that everything he is pushing for is a 'must be done' variety of spending, but I just dont agree with that. Im not saying spending at all is wrong, Im saying the way the money has been spent up to this point just seems haphazard at best. People in Washington seem to be falling over themselves trying to spend money instead of taking a breath to let things play out. Slow down, let these billions spent actually do something. Right now, any recovery isnt becuase of the stimulous bill, etc.

I know this, if the economy wasnt bad, the spending Obama wants to do would go down easier with some people. Its easier to sell spending when times are good, just as you would spend more money on your 'wants' if you were caught up with your 'needs'.

 

[Ackmed]

So funny to see people with the American flag as their avatar, who seemingly want America to fail. And also that people dont understand that some things carry over, and take years to come to fruition. Just because deficits go up or down during a certain Presidents rein, doesnt mean that they are directly responsible either way. And that war costs a lot.

 

[trooper11]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Well, whether is lack of regulation is due to insufficient legislation, of failure of executive branch to enforce existing regulations, that is still a failure of anti-regulation ideology, the only difference is whether that failure is in legislative or executive branch. Republicans failed to learn from history and are doomed to repeat it, if given a chance again, of course.

failure to enfore regulations is not a failure of 'anti-regulation', its a failure of the legislature to do its job, i.e. incompentance or corruption.

what I hope any republican leader learns is that regulation enforcement is every bit as important as the regulations themselves. besides, as a republican, Im not anti-regulation, I just want smarter regulations used by smarter legislators. Both have to be present for the system to work. All the regulations in the world wont save you if the ones enforcing are corrupt, so a balance is neccesary.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: trooper11

Originally posted by: senseamp

Well, whether is lack of regulation is due to insufficient legislation, of failure of executive branch to enforce existing regulations, that is still a failure of anti-regulation ideology, the only difference is whether that failure is in legislative or executive branch. Republicans failed to learn from history and are doomed to repeat it, if given a chance again, of course.

failure to enfore regulations is not a failure of 'anti-regulation', its a failure of the legislature to do its job, i.e. incompentance or corruption.

what I hope any republican leader learns is that regulation enforcement is every bit as important as the regulations themselves. besides, as a republican, Im not anti-regulation, I just want smarter regulations used by smarter legislators. Both have to be present for the system to work. All the regulations in the world wont save you if the ones enforcing are corrupt, so a balance is neccesary.

It's a failure of an anti-regulation executive branch to enforce existing regulations due to its anti-regulation ideology.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Bush policies were Reaganomics too. Don't underestimate the damage Reagan's ideology has done to this country. Anti-regulation mentality enabled this mess.

You don't think Democrats, as the opposition from 2000-2006, bear no responsibility whatsoever for the current mess we're in? How much opposition was there against anti-regulation? Politically it was advantageous for Democrats to support these sorts of policies because it enables more people to buy homes they otherwise couldn't afford.

Both Republicans and Democrats sold us out. It's time to vote them all out and dismantle their parties.