Is The Worst Over? Most Economists Say Yes

[blackangst1]

So senseamp. How far the shitter does the country need to get before its someone other than the R's fault?

/smirk

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: 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'.

Even Herbert Hoover, after he tried it, realized that balancing the budget in an economic downturn is a bad idea. You need to read up on the 1929 Great Depression.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
So senseamp. How far the shitter does the country need to get before its someone other than the R's fault?
/smirk

Oh, it could be someone other than the R's fault, if D's try to please the conservatives.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: 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'.

Even Herbert Hoover, after he tried it, realized that balancing the budget in an economic downturn is a bad idea. You need to read up on the 1929 Great Depression.

You'd have to be a complete moron or pretty much openly hate America to want to try this stuff again knowing what we know now.

 

[trooper11]

Originally posted by: senseamp

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

ok your right, if someone is 'anti-regulation', that must mean they are against all regulation, but Im saying thats not a republican ideal. I want any republican to work on smart regulation which means cutting back the red tape where possible while doing what is neccesary to enforce the regulations that keep things from chaos. regardless of what leaders of the party have done, I belive thats the ideal that needs to be supported.


i just dont agree that this whole issue is the fault of the executive branch, how can anyone not see the serious fault shared by the legeslative branch?

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Even Herbert Hoover, after he tried it, realized that balancing the budget in an economic downturn is a bad idea. You need to read up on the 1929 Great Depression.

America was a major creditor prior to the Great Depression. We're now a major debtor. The situations aren't exactly the same.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Herbert Hoover tried to raise taxes to close the deficit. Boy was that a mistake. Obama himself has shifted on taxes THREE TIMES during his campaign. And then in January he didn't raise corporate taxes nor capital gains taxes. Hmmmm.

He then started the whole RFC which was a mini New Deal. I think it's ACCEPTED that you use deficit spending in the form of infrastructure to stimulate the economy. Hence the supposed stimulus bill that was loaded with pork.

Some of the spending which Obama is talking about... i.e. healthcare and what not is spending that we DON'T need. It's spending that would yes make America better perhaps, but it's stuff we can't afford right now and isn't stuff that will stimulate the economy to get us out of the hole.

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.

Word. Regulations also have loopholes and I think it's time we crack down on those once and for all.

 

[trooper11]

Originally posted by: senseamp

You'd have to be a complete moron or pretty much openly hate America to want to try this stuff again knowing what we know now.

not saying your point is wrong, but trying to say someone hates america if they dissagree with your opinion makes you sound just as bad as those that would say your unpatrotic if you disagreed with the war.



anyway, I dont think its wrong to want a responsible government that tends to spend money wisely and not excessively. Right now, this situation obviously isnt better. We have been through TARP and a huge stimulous bill and still things hang in the balance. Now we hear that things might be turning around and yet we are still geared up to spend more money just this year. Again, I dont mind them spending money to grow the economy, I disagree with how they have spent our money up to this point. It hasnt been fast enough or going to places it was promised.

Lets say things are turning around, then wouldnt you agree that we should be cutting back on the spending? If balancing a budget in a downturn is bad, then it should be good if the downturn is over right?

If the government is going to put us so far into debt, then maybe they should have looked at cutting back in other areas temporarily to offset the huge costs? Of course thats impossible for a couple reasons. One, the government never shrinks, they just add mroe on top. And two, we couldnt cut enough to offset the costs anyway.


Its sounds like to me that the answer for government is to just spend when times are good and spend even more when times are bad.... going by what people say around here.

 

[Siddhartha]

I hope the economy is turning around. If it stays bad another year, I will probably lose my job. That would be very bad!

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: trooper11

Originally posted by: senseamp

You'd have to be a complete moron or pretty much openly hate America to want to try this stuff again knowing what we know now.

not saying your point is wrong, but trying to say someone hates america if they dissagree with your opinion makes you sound just as bad as those that would say your unpatrotic if you disagreed with the war.

I didn't say they hate America, I said they are either complete morons OR hate America.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Great news - when the economy falls into a gutter, it does hit bottom!

~ 10% unemployment for the next year or so. Several million foreclosures to go. Debt not seen since WW2.

Mission accomplished!

Continuing Thank yous to Republicans, Bush and his supporters

Heck of a job

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: themusgrat
Believe it or not, most of the GOP is fine with a healthy free market system hahahaha, and no half smart republican would want to inherit a failing economy from Obama or anyone else. Get a life.

From Rush Limbaugh, your voice of the GOP "I hope Obama fails"

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Who was the great economist we all worship who said the depression was the coming of the Dark Ages which lasted 400 years?

dmcowen674?

I am your worst nitemare :laugh:

 

[theeedude]

As to second part of your question:

Originally posted by: trooper11
anyway, I dont think its wrong to want a responsible government that tends to spend money wisely and not excessively. Right now, this situation obviously isnt better. We have been through TARP and a huge stimulous bill and still things hang in the balance. Now we hear that things might be turning around and yet we are still geared up to spend more money just this year. Again, I dont mind them spending money to grow the economy, I disagree with how they have spent our money up to this point. It hasnt been fast enough or going to places it was promised.

Because it was watered down by opposition from the right. We will probably need a second stimulus package, because the first one was watered down with too many slower acting tax cuts instead of more immediate spending to win Republican support, which was necessary until Franken became Senator.

Lets say things are turning around, then wouldnt you agree that we should be cutting back on the spending? If balancing a budget in a downturn is bad, then it should be good if the downturn is over right?

Yes, once we know we are out of the woods. Keep in mind that a lot of economic activity will be in anticipation of this government spending coming online, so cutting back too early could jeopardize the recovery.

If the government is going to put us so far into debt, then maybe they should have looked at cutting back in other areas temporarily to offset the huge costs? Of course thats impossible for a couple reasons. One, the government never shrinks, they just add mroe on top. And two, we couldnt cut enough to offset the costs anyway.

Government cutting back now = even more people out of work. What you call "huge cost" is paying people's salaries.

Its sounds like to me that the answer for government is to just spend when times are good and spend even more when times are bad.... going by what people say around here.

Yes, government should spend when times are good, but spend more in bad times. Are you suggesting we have no government spending when times are good? Do we not need a military, highways, etc during boom times?

 

[bamacre]

Senseamp, how do you explain Harding's cutting spending and cutting taxes to get us out of a recession in 1920-21?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Senseamp, how do you explain Harding's cutting spending and cutting taxes to get us out of a recession in 1920-21?

You are assuming that was what got us out of that recession, when it was the end of government war spending that got us into that recession in the first place.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: senseamp

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.

Sure it was, a very large one followed by a jobless recovery and expansion of govt.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: themusgrat
Believe it or not, most of the GOP is fine with a healthy free market system hahahaha, and no half smart republican would want to inherit a failing economy from Obama or anyone else. Get a life.

From Rush Limbaugh, your voice of the GOP "I hope Obama fails"

If you completely disagree with someone's policies and with what they are doing, of course you hope they fail. Why would you want someone to succeed in doing something that you don't think they should be doing in the first place?

 

[Genx87]

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.

IMO in the end it isnt much different. Trickle down assumes when the rich save more of their income it is put back into the business or into the market and used for expansion. Which then employs people and the money flows down. This new keynsian idea is the same idea but more proactive. They give the money to the rich and hope they create jobs and trickle the money down. So far we have plowed billions into this and have shed millions of jobs while the rich are making out pretty well.

One problem with the new keynsian approach is the broken glass falacy.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Genx87

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.

IMO in the end it isnt much different. Trickle down assumes when the rich save more of their income it is put back into the business or into the market and used for expansion. Which then employs people and the money flows down. This new keynsian idea is the same idea but more proactive. They give the money to the rich and hope they create jobs and trickle the money down. So far we have plowed billions into this and have shed millions of jobs while the rich are making out pretty well.

One problem with the new keynsian approach is the broken glass falacy.

So now we want to spend billions creating more government, thus more jobs, thus more revenue into cities? Im not seeing how its any better. In fact, what shows is it will create more of an entitlement mentality than we have now (God forbid), thus permanently increasing the burden on the tax base to pay for it all. To think somewhere down the road we will cut back (thus cutting jobs eek) is a pipe dream IMO.

 

[Slew Foot]

As someone who did predict the housing buubble and its consequent recession, I too think the worst is over. Now begins the long painful period of stagflation to bring the dollar/GDP back in line with debt obligations.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: bamacre
Senseamp, how do you explain Harding's cutting spending and cutting taxes to get us out of a recession in 1920-21?

You are assuming that was what got us out of that recession, when it was the end of government war spending that got us into that recession in the first place.

LOL, yeah, but shouldn't Harding have increased gov't spending?

Seems odd that a president facing a recession would do something so unpatriotic as to cut gov't spending and taxes in the face of a recession, and tell people to cut back, too. Good thing Hoover didn't take Harding's advice, huh?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: bamacre
Senseamp, how do you explain Harding's cutting spending and cutting taxes to get us out of a recession in 1920-21?

You are assuming that was what got us out of that recession, when it was the end of government war spending that got us into that recession in the first place.

LOL, yeah, but shouldn't Harding have increased gov't spending?

Seems odd that a president facing a recession would do something so unpatriotic as to cut gov't spending and taxes in the face of a recession, and tell people to cut back, too. Good thing Hoover didn't take Harding's advice, huh?

Even a broken clock is "right" twice a day. There were still a lot of economic aftershocks of WWI, so economic swings were likely unrelated to anything Harding did or didn't do.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: bamacre
Senseamp, how do you explain Harding's cutting spending and cutting taxes to get us out of a recession in 1920-21?

You are assuming that was what got us out of that recession, when it was the end of government war spending that got us into that recession in the first place.

LOL, yeah, but shouldn't Harding have increased gov't spending?

Seems odd that a president facing a recession would do something so unpatriotic as to cut gov't spending and taxes in the face of a recession, and tell people to cut back, too. Good thing Hoover didn't take Harding's advice, huh?

Even a broken clock is "right" twice a day. There were still a lot of economic aftershocks of WWI, so economic swings were likely unrelated to anything Harding did or didn't do.

When it comes down to it, bamacre read this whole Harding thing on mises.org and this is now his "big thing". He'll prattle on and on about it in thread after thread, pretending he's some massive genius, just like he did with the whole Fed/Interest Rate thing, until I shut him down.

Just like BansheeX did with the "inflation" no "deflation" no "inflation" no "deflation" flipfloppopottimus bullshit from the last 24 months.

Or, kinda like how that moron that these guys always quote (that one guy who lost a shit-ton of money for his clients in his massively bad calls about the dollar and foreign investments being "delinked").

These guys are like a drowning man in a sea of knowledge, clinging to any flotsam floating by to stop from drowning, even if it's a fishing net that'll entangle them instead of just
realizing things on their own they cling to the trash.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
As of 1:22 PM EST, we, as a nation, are $11,504,255,823,121.38 in debt.

That number is increasing by an average of $3,860,000,000 per day.

You can't even begin to fathom what "the worst" is going to look like.

YEAR -- Debt in Billions $ -- as % of GDP
2007 -- 8,950.7 -- 65.5
2008 -- 9,985.8 -- 70.2
2009 -- (est.) 12,867.5 -- 90.4
2010 -- (est.) 14,456.3 -- 98.1
2011 -- (est.) 15,673.9 -- 101.1
2012 -- (est.) 16,565.7 -- 100.6
2013 -- (est.) 17,440.2 -- 99.7
2014 -- (est.) 18,350.0 -- 99.9

And, worse yet, these numbers don't even include the UHC fantasy.

Invest in beans and bullets my friends... beans and bullets.

Bump for senseamp, and the "ZOMG must spend tons of money to get through this!"

So we need to spend money on an astronomical scale until 2012, and then we scale back to just plain old stupendously staggering?

Obamaco. Making GWB, Bush Senior, and Reagan COMBINED look downright fiscally conservative.