Obama: Debt Could Fuel 'Double-Dip Recession'

[sandorski]

nmd

 

[sandorski]

that is the lamest analogy yet...

there's plenty other water to drink, just it takes a little walking to get to and may not get him and his cronies reelected if they were to choose to go get it...

so let's all drink dirty water!!!

nah, his analogy was exactly correct. There is *only* Dirty Water. Do you Drink or not Drink?

 

[PJABBER]

I can't tell if your post is in jest/satire, or if your serious?

Its frightful to think that you base your opinion on history, yet it is obvious that you are completely ignorant towards that history. If the government were to stop doing stuff, then the economy would clash just like it did during the great depression when the government "stopped doing stuff."

The "mistake" of the great depression was that there wasn't enough deficit spending to boost the economy and the government didn't do enough fast enough.

Fortunatly, there are democrats in office, so there shouldn't be any big cuts .....
Hopefully they will make cuts once the economy has recovered though.

In the mean time, what needs to be done is an increase in income taxes.

It is frightful that you exist in such a state of ignorance.

It's hard to exaggerate how truly collectivist Roosevelt's vision was. At his behest, Congress passed the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which attempted to regulate the entire economy, based on the Italian fascist model. In each industry, management and labor were ordered to collude to set prices, wages, output, etc. (acts that today would be a criminal violation of the anti-trust law). So intrusive were these regulations that what in retrospect seems like an incredibly silly regulation made it all the way to the Supreme Court, which responded by declaring the entire scheme unconstitutional. The current proposal to mandate health insurance purchases by everyone on penalty of tax evasion charges, fines and imprisonment would seem to fall into the same category.

Everything the Democrats have decided to spend on is paid through an increasing deficit where money is borrowed. Government debt is only supported so long as their are sovereign buyers of the debt out there like the Chinese. The Chinese stop buying and it is good-bye "free" money entitlements.

You know, the government doesn't have to increase income taxes. Your ideas are so "logical" than you should immediately and voluntarily turn over all of your income to the IRS and show us how this will work by example.

 

[bfdd]

I can't tell if your post is in jest/satire, or if your serious?

Its frightful to think that you base your opinion on history, yet it is obvious that you are completely ignorant towards that history. If the government were to stop doing stuff, then the economy would clash just like it did during the great depression when the government "stopped doing stuff."

The "mistake" of the great depression was that there wasn't enough deficit spending to boost the economy and the government didn't do enough fast enough.

Fortunatly, there are democrats in office, so there shouldn't be any big cuts .....
Hopefully they will make cuts once the economy has recovered though.

In the mean time, what needs to be done is an increase in income taxes.

right.... you don't actually believe that garbage you're spewing do you?

 

[taisingera]

I can't tell if your post is in jest/satire, or if your serious?

Its frightful to think that you base your opinion on history, yet it is obvious that you are completely ignorant towards that history. If the government were to stop doing stuff, then the economy would clash just like it did during the great depression when the government "stopped doing stuff."

The "mistake" of the great depression was that there wasn't enough deficit spending to boost the economy and the government didn't do enough fast enough.

Fortunatly, there are democrats in office, so there shouldn't be any big cuts .....
Hopefully they will make cuts once the economy has recovered though.

In the mean time, what needs to be done is an increase in income taxes.

Or reduce spending and/or cut the salaries of these elected officials.

 

[Darwin333]

I can't tell if your post is in jest/satire, or if your serious?

Its frightful to think that you base your opinion on history, yet it is obvious that you are completely ignorant towards that history. If the government were to stop doing stuff, then the economy would clash just like it did during the great depression when the government "stopped doing stuff."

The "mistake" of the great depression was that there wasn't enough deficit spending to boost the economy and the government didn't do enough fast enough.

Fortunatly, there are democrats in office, so there shouldn't be any big cuts .....
Hopefully they will make cuts once the economy has recovered though.

In the mean time, what needs to be done is an increase in income taxes.

Playing devils advocate a bit:

You think the way out of this mess is to ensure that the relatively few people who are actually consuming in our consumer based economy consume less?

I am personally one of those crazy people that think taxes need to go up on everyone if we intend to continue with our current "lifestyle" but even I am not crazy enough to raise taxes right now.

 

[sandorski]

right.... you don't actually believe that garbage you're spewing do you?

He is 100% Correct. This is Elementary Economics.

 

[DanDaManJC]

what i dont get is how you people can whine about obama's stimulus when bush jr was one to sign in that first 700 billion bank recovery act

 

[werepossum]

He is 100% Correct. This is Elementary Economics.

Elementary school economics, maybe. Government is inherently inefficient. Taking more money out of the economy takes money - people have to spend time taking the money, people have to spend time accounting for it, people have to spend time finding and punishing those who don't pay the extra money. Returning the money to the economy takes money - people have to spend time deciding who is eligible for the money, people have to spend time applying for the money, people have to spend time making sure that those people are telling the truth about their qualifications, and then people have to spend time taxing the money again. And all of these people need supervisors, who in turn need supervisors, and so forth. None of this time produces any wealth - no goods, no services, no intellectual property. It's simply overhead in moving money around.

Meanwhile the people from whom the money was taken have less money to purchase or invest, and the overhead means that the net effect is always negative; you simply can't give out more money than you take. Taxes always produce a net negative effect on the economy, it's simply inevitable. The only acceptable reason for taxes is to do things that people cannot easily do without government. It would be considerably cheaper for individuals to band together to build an interstate highway system or an army for defense, but it's not practical; therefore we create governments.

Thinking the government can remove money from the economy, hand it back out, and therefore stimulate the economy in any lasting fashion is the very essence of bat shit crazy.

 

[sandorski]

Elementary school economics, maybe. Government is inherently inefficient. Taking more money out of the economy takes money - people have to spend time taking the money, people have to spend time accounting for it, people have to spend time finding and punishing those who don't pay the extra money. Returning the money to the economy takes money - people have to spend time deciding who is eligible for the money, people have to spend time applying for the money, people have to spend time making sure that those people are telling the truth about their qualifications, and then people have to spend time taxing the money again. And all of these people need supervisors, who in turn need supervisors, and so forth. None of this time produces any wealth - no goods, no services, no intellectual property. It's simply overhead in moving money around.

Meanwhile the people from whom the money was taken have less money to purchase or invest, and the overhead means that the net effect is always negative; you simply can't give out more money than you take. Taxes always produce a net negative effect on the economy, it's simply inevitable. The only acceptable reason for taxes is to do things that people cannot easily do without government. It would be considerably cheaper for individuals to band together to build an interstate highway system or an army for defense, but it's not practical; therefore we create governments.

Thinking the government can remove money from the economy, hand it back out, and therefore stimulate the economy in any lasting fashion is the very essence of bat shit crazy.

Incorrect.

 

[spittledip]

If he is finally being honest about the situation, then people should give him credit for being honest at this point. Maybe he naively believed, like the majority of people on this forum, that we will be able to get out of this recession in a good state. In that case, he wasn't lying at all, and he is finally seeing reality. You can't be trillions in debt and still expect your dollar to be worth much.

 

[Jaskalas]

In the mean time, what needs to be done is an increase in income taxes.

Oh yes, strengthening the stranglehold of centralized planning is sure to cure our debt.

 

[Jaskalas]

If he is finally being honest about the situation, then people should give him credit for being honest at this point. Maybe he naively believed, like the majority of people on this forum, that we will be able to get out of this recession in a good state. In that case, he wasn't lying at all, and he is finally seeing reality. You can't be trillions in debt and still expect your dollar to be worth much.

If he was honest then he would be acting in accordance to his "belief". His actions do not match his words. He will raise the debt while speaking against it. That is not honesty.

 

[sandorski]

Oh yes, strengthening the stranglehold of centralized planning is sure to cure our debt.

Has nothing to do with "centralized planning".

 

[Jaskalas]

Has nothing to do with "centralized planning".

If you question such a basic concept then it's quite clear that you have no idea where those tax dollars are going.

 

[spittledip]

If he was honest then he would be acting in accordance to his "belief". His actions do not match his words. He will raise the debt while speaking against it. That is not honesty.

touche'

 

[sandorski]

If you question such a basic concept then it's quite clear that you have no idea where those tax dollars are going.

It is quite clear that you have no idea what "centralized planning" is.

 

[werepossum]

Incorrect.

Ah, now I see your logic. All of it. Boy, is my face red.

 

[sandorski]

Ah, now I see your logic. All of it. Boy, is my face red.

Glad to help.

 

[bfdd]

i'm pretty sure sandorski is trolling, people that stupid generally can't figure out how to use a computer.

 

[sandorski]

i'm pretty sure sandorski is trolling, people that stupid generally can't figure out how to use a computer.

The possibility exists or perhaps the Correct response was given.

 

[werepossum]

Glad to help.

Yes, it's always helpful to be schooled in the magic cupboard school of economics. Thanks a pantload!

 

[Jaskalas]

It is quite clear that you have no idea what "centralized planning" is.

Apologies for using terms you don't understand.

Centralized: to bring under one control
Planning: the act or process of making a plan or plans

Seems to be exactly what Congress is accomplishing these days between TARP, stimulus and UHC. How much of the economy will they have direct control over when they are finished?

Oh but that's right, the crisis continues and the job of saving us is never over. They continue to expand the wealth they own. There's a hole burning in their wallet begging to be filled and the solution? More fuel to the fire!

Just wait until they have to bailout failed states.

 

[sandorski]

Apologies for using terms you don't understand.

Centralized: to bring under one control
Planning: the act or process of making a plan or plans

Seems to be exactly what Congress is accomplishing these days between TARP, stimulus and UHC. How much of the economy will they have direct control over when they are finished?

Oh but that's right, the crisis continues and the job of saving us is never over. They continue to expand the wealth they own. There's a hole burning in their wallet begging to be filled and the solution? More fuel to the fire!

Just wait until they have to bailout failed states.

Fail, sorry. Look up "Centralized Planning", then get back to the discussion.

 

[MotF Bane]

what i dont get is how you people can whine about obama's stimulus when bush jr was one to sign in that first 700 billion bank recovery act

Because both acts were retarded.