Many Now predicting Double-Dip Recession

[Fern]

We need aid to states to avoid layoffs in state and local government and cuts to state and local infrastructure projects. Now, not later. We are already seeing austerity at state level, and it's already paying "dividends" in securing a prolonged and painful recession.

Really?

That's just more of the same. As we've seen, that's just an expensive short-term solution that achieves little but temporarily cushioning the fall somewhat.

If we get another stimulous plan it needs to result in sustained long-term GDP growth. No more temporary and expensive 'bandaids' please.

Fern

 

[Attic]

So now what was that about the intent of the OP? Fern, is a good poster who generally doesn't post just silly crap. But Fern doesn't like dems, liberals, and has zero love for Obama. And clearly the feel of her post is that this is more "good news for republicans". I don't know if Fern is a man or woman. But none the less.....

You and I are interpreting the post differently. I did not take away the feeling that the possible news of a double dip recession was a good thing for any group, just that our economic woes are far from over.

 

[classy]

Really?

That's just more of the same. As we've seen, that's just an expensive short-term solution that achieves little but temporarily cushioning the fall somewhat.

If we get another stimulous plan it needs to result in sustained long-term GDP growth. No more temporary and expensive 'bandaids' please.

Fern

Okay, I'll play the game, you are on the spot. The next stimulous where do spend it and how do you spend it? I don't wanna hear about the mistakes of the dems, I want you post your plan.

 

[bamacre]

LOL, our resident economists said we'd be "out of this mess in 12 months." That was well over a year ago. We bailed out the banks, run up the debt with stimulus, and now we hear "things are going to get worse."

WELL, NO FUCKING SHIT.

 

[classy]

You and I are interpreting the post differently. I did not take away the feeling that the possible news of a double dip recession was a good thing for any group, just that our economic woes are far from over.

Well let me adrress that. When the economy was showing signs of turning around and being sustainable, many republicans claimed it wasn't the stimulous. Now we have some signs of trouble again, but now its the stimulous failure. If stimulous is not responsible for the positive growth, how is it responsible for the negative growth?

 

[Attic]

Really?

That's just more of the same. As we've seen, that's just an expensive short-term solution that achieves little but temporarily cushioning the fall somewhat.

If we get another stimulous plan it needs to result in sustained long-term GDP growth. No more temporary and expensive 'bandaids' please.

Fern

I agree.

Patching up broken state budgets doesn't accomplish anything but implicitly motivating broken policies that got the budgets into trouble in the first place.

If the policies that a state or federally funded program follow have led them to become unsustanable on their current track, how does funding them further and to greater lengths encourage them to find a more sustainable policy?

 

[theeedude]

Really?

That's just more of the same. As we've seen, that's just an expensive short-term solution that achieves little but temporarily cushioning the fall somewhat.

So is a parachute.

If we get another stimulous plan it needs to result in sustained long-term GDP growth. No more temporary and expensive 'bandaids' please.
Fern

You are welcome to let perfect be the enemy of good, you are going to get a Great Depression 2.0 for your efforts, and it's going to take a lot more government spending to get out of that one. So you can have short term stimulus now, or New Deal 2.0 later. Your call.

 

[Fern]

Really?

Hmmmm.......

Fern wrote...

For many of us who felt the Dem's stimulous package was poorly designed, this was our fear - we now don't really have any money left to try again but get it right. We blew good money on bad medicine and now can't afford the real cure.

So now what was that about the intent of the OP? Fern
-snip-...

Mention of the stimulous package is entirely relevent here. Had it worked as advertised we wouldn't be in this situation (basically stagnant growth and continuing high unemployment) and perhaps looking at another dip. I see very few Democratic commentators on TV or in ink who argue that point. Many are still unhappy there was little-to-no infrastructure investment in the stim bill (Chris Matthews is still bringing that up).

While Obama signed it, it's Congresses' plan. And mostly at the direction of Pelosi. So yes, it's accurately described as the Dem's stim plan.

While I am aware that there will likely be political ramifications if we enter another dip, I started this thread purely from the economic perspective. It's you who's attempted to highly politicize it and veered away from an economic discussion.

Fern

 

[charrison]

We need aid to states to avoid layoffs in state and local government and cuts to state and local infrastructure projects. Now, not later. We are already seeing austerity at state level, and it's already paying "dividends" in securing a prolonged and painful recession.

What if the state needs layoffs? delaying what needs to be done does not help. Most state govt has been growing faster than population/inflation.

 

[classy]

Mention of the stimulous package is entirely relevent here. Had it worked as advertised we wouldn't be in this situation (basically stagnant growth and continuing high unemployment) and perhaps looking at another dip. I see very few Democratic commentators on TV or in ink who argue that point. Many are still unhappy there was little to no infrastructure investment in the stim bill (Chris Matthews is still bringing that up).

While Obama signed it, it's Congresses' plan. And mostly at the direction of Pelosi. So yes, it's accurately described as the Dem's stim plan.

Fern

I knew all this was being implied in the original post. But as usual I hear the cries of failure but no alternative.

 

[charrison]

I knew all this was being implied in the original post. But as usual I hear the cries of failure but no alternative.

Drop cap and trade.
actually address health care costs.
drop min wage back down to encourage business to hire low wage workers again.(the youth have not been helped by min wage increase at all at this point)

streamline the tax code, both corp and personal.

 

[Attic]

Well let me adrress that. When the economy was showing signs of turning around and being sustainable, many republicans claimed it wasn't the stimulous. Now we have some signs of trouble again, but now its the stimulous failure. If stimulous is not responsible for the positive growth, how is it responsible for the negative growth?

I do not know enough about the political jousting surrounding the economy to give a good answer to that. I find both sides misrepresent far to many half truths or lies and pass them on as fact.

I have never felt or interpreted from the news that the economy ever turned around to an extent that deserved any confidence. I worry that without the right implementation of policy that our country will be unable to maintain the kind of things we currently take for granted. We can't keep spending without something to show for it other than larger government programs.

 

[sandorski]

Mention of the stimulous package is entirely relevent here. Had it worked as advertised we wouldn't be in this situation (basically stagnant growth and continuing high unemployment) and perhaps looking at another dip. I see very few Democratic commentators on TV or in ink who argue that point. Many are still unhappy there was little-to-no infrastructure investment in the stim bill (Chris Matthews is still bringing that up).

While Obama signed it, it's Congresses' plan. And mostly at the direction of Pelosi. So yes, it's accurately described as the Dem's stim plan.

While I am aware that there will likely be political ramifications if we enter another dip, I started this thread purely from the economic perspective. It's you who's attempted to highly politicize it and veered away from an economic discussion.

Fern

Stagnant Growth is a ok as far as Stimulus is concerned. It is meant to Stabilize the Economy, not bring about an Economic Boom. GDP Growth and significant Job Growth is for the Private Sector to create, Public Stimulus simply stops the shrinkage.

 

[Fern]

Okay, I'll play the game, you are on the spot. The next stimulous where do spend it and how do you spend it? I don't wanna hear about the mistakes of the dems, I want you post your plan.

The first question to be answered is who spends it?

I think it fair to say almost everyone, whether Rep, Dem or Indie, agreed we needed a stim plan, but the initial and fundamental disagreement was who gets to spend it? The Dem's expressed concern that if it was people, they'ds just use the money to pay down debt and not spend it. So they went with government spending. I can agree to that to the extent it's real infrastructure improvements (not just freakin repaving type stuff). The complaint is that doesn't move quickly at all. But I still think it should done. (And yet it's the Dems who speak of don't "let perfect be the enemy of good", go figure).

Incentives need to heavily directed at small business; that's not been done at all despite promises by obama. Small businesses are the ones who hire etc. There are an awful lot of people who would like start a new small business, if only because they are unemployed (in fact, the IRS has reported a substanial increase in new small businesses because people can't find a job and have little other choice). A good way to help here is expanded SBA loans, regular banks aren't lending now. Target new SBA guaranteed loans for new small business that want to start up, or existing ones that want to expand. These just need to be guarantees, not subsidies. While some losses can be expected, it should be far less expensive as many will be able to pay back the money.

You'd also want to encourage investment in equipment, software and employees etc. You're incentivizing productivity and employment. Accelerated deductions and credits for new employees (that's cheaper than unemployment and welfare type benefits) targeted at small business would, I think, be enormously helpful.

That should be enough for a damn good start.

Fern

 

[classy]

Drop cap and trade.
actually address health care costs.
drop min wage back down to encourage business to hire low wage workers again.(the youth have not been helped by min wage increase at all at this point)

streamline the tax code, both corp and personal.

In light of the BP oil spill Cap and Trade may be a very necessary approach.

I am with you on healthcare, I was not a fan of the bill. No savings or improvement I can see. Broader coverage obviously, but the true evil, cost, not addressed at all.

No way minimum wage should be reduced. This could be a discussion all on its own.

Tax code reform I support as well. Simpler tax code that can be adjusted accordingly in conjunction with economic factors affecting both personal and business. I also support less tax breaks for businesses. Not take more in taxes necessarily, but less breaks.

So 50% ain't too bad

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Public Stimulus simply stops the shrinkage.

But it only does so temporarily, and therein lies the problem.

I've never argued that "public stimulous" should have been zero. I understand the need to cushion the downfall by funding states to make their unemployment payments and so forth.

But just as the "public stimulous" shouldn't have been zero, neither should the 'private business stimulous' part. Yet it was for all practical purposes, and that's the problem IMO.

Fern

 

[charrison]

In light of the BP oil spill Cap and Trade may be a very necessary approach.

It might be, but now is not the time. Killing offshore drilling is already pusing good paying jobs away. Talk oncap and trade is keeping capital in the sidelines.

No way minimum wage should be reduced. This could be a discussion all on its own.

Unskilled young workers unemployment is greater than 20%. Increased minimum is not helping them.

Tax code reform I support as well. Simpler tax code that can be adjusted accordingly in conjunction with economic factors affecting both personal and business. I also support less tax breaks for businesses. Not take more in taxes necessarily, but less breaks.

I would just shoot for revenue neutral changes at this point.

 

[sandorski]

But it only does so temporarily, and therein lies the problem.

I've never argued that "public stimulous" should have been zero. I understand the need to cushion the downfall by funding states to make their unemployment payments and so forth.

But just as the "public stimulous" shouldn't have been zero, neither should the 'private business stimulous' part. Yet it was for all practical purposes, and that's the problem IMO.

Fern

That's not the Problem, that's the Point. It's there to provide stability until the Private Sector gets its' issues worked out.

 

[glenn1]

So is a parachute.

You are welcome to let perfect be the enemy of good, you are going to get a Great Depression 2.0 for your efforts, and it's going to take a lot more government spending to get out of that one. So you can have short term stimulus now, or New Deal 2.0 later. Your call.

Even if those were the only options (and they aren't), I'd rather take the Great Depression 2.0 if that's what it takes to cut the government beast down to size and get us back onto a sustainable model of government spending. Progressives have no credibility when they claim they'll cut back later, if only they're allowed to borrow trillions more to "stimulate" further. When you're an addict, you don't get clean by saying "I need to take another hit of crack today in order to regain the strength to quit tomorrow."

As it is, the only depression I see happening is the depression mood of liberals who no longer will have the ability to spend money on their pet projects and dreams of a "great society."

 

[theeedude]

What if the state needs layoffs? delaying what needs to be done does not help. Most state govt has been growing faster than population/inflation.

Sure it helps. If state is laying off people when private sector is hiring, no big deal, people just change jobs.
If state AND private sector are laying off simultaneously, you are just creating more unemployment, and further undermining economic recovery.
If you want to use this recession to push small government agenda and austerity, fine, but don't be surprised if it leads to a depression and then requires much bigger government intervention to dig out of this hole. Your small government push may well result in another New Deal.

 

[sandorski]

Even if those were the only options (and they aren't), I'd rather take the Great Depression 2.0 if that's what it takes to cut the government beast down to size and get us back onto a sustainable model of government spending. Progressives have no credibility when they claim they'll cut back later, if only they're allowed to borrow trillions more to "stimulate" further. When you're an addict, you don't get clean by saying "I need to take another hit of crack today in order to regain the strength to quit tomorrow."

As it is, the only depression I see happening is the depression mood of liberals who no longer will have the ability to spend money on their pet projects and dreams of a "great society."

Clearly, you have no Idea what a Depression is.

 

[bfdd]

LOL
It is sad, no it is f'in sad to see you and a few others actually hoping and posting with such giddyness for economic failure just so you can hope Obama goes down in an election. Patriotism at its highest.......

I don't want it to fail because of any particular person. I want it to fail because rewarding failure doesn't work ever.

 

[Fern]

In light of the BP oil spill Cap and Trade may be a very necessary approach.
-snip-

I keep seeing utter confusion like this and am astounded.

Cap-n-trade concerns emmissions from electrical generating plants. What the heck does that have to do with oil/petroleum?

Basically not a damn thing.

A whopping 1% of our electrical power comes from petroleum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2008_US_electricity_generation_by_source_v2.png

You can cap-n-trade all you want, it will have no effect on our need for oil.

Fern

 

[charrison]

Sure it helps. If state is laying off people when private sector is hiring, no big deal, people just change jobs.
If state AND private sector are laying off simultaneously, you are just creating more unemployment, and further undermining economic recovery.
If you want to use this recession to push small government agenda and austerity, fine, but don't be surprised if it leads to a depression and then requires much bigger government intervention to dig out of this hole. Your small government push may well result in another New Deal.

But the only problem is govt has been growing in good times and many state govt are waste being able to provide what they did in good times. Many state govts are way to bloated.

The problem with funding state govt is that is does not encourage private sector growth and borrowing crowds the private sector. This current stimulus package is not working well at all.

 

[sandorski]

I don't want it to fail because of any particular person. I want it to fail because rewarding failure doesn't work ever.

So, when you Succeed in getting Fail, what will you do in order to not Reward it? :\