Obama: 'We can't spend our way out of this recession'

[Patranus]

"We are under no illusion that somehow the federal government can spend its way out of this recession, but it is absolutely true that any of the ideas that have been mentioned here are still going to require some public dollars and those are actually good investments to make right now," Mr. Obama told an audience of more than 100 corporate executives, economists, union leaders and local government officials at the forum.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/04/obama-more-spending-needed-to-boost-jobs/


Its almost as if it is amateur hour in Washington D.C.
What the hell was that 1.4 trillion dollar stimulus package if not designed to do just that, have the federal government spend its way out of a recession.

This guy is up there with Dan Quayle except Dan Quayle wasn't president.

 

[fskimospy]

You aren't really this stupid are you? Neither Obama or any other person ever said that we could spend our way out of the recession, but they did say (correctly) that government spending could mitigate the suffering from a recession. Keynesian economics has never advocated government spending as a permanent replacement for private sector action or as a driver of economic growth.

I mean all this time and all these posts on the subject and you really didn't know something that basic? This sort of thing might explain a lot of your posts, because you apparently just have no idea what is going on.

Did you notice the irony of you insulting Obama's intelligence while making a post this colossally stupid?

 

[StageLeft]

Anyway, to be perfectly accurate the government literally HAS spent its way out of the recession. The last reported posited GDP numbers were only positive because of government spending, so in this sense Obama is actually wrong in what he says but right in what he did, although obviously there is a definite cost to that government spending, arguably higher than any continued technical recession.

One could say the spending has been great because it's ended the recession and another may say that without the heavily debt-financed spending we're still in a recession, so it's merely masking what is still there.

 

[dmcowen674]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/04/obama-more-spending-needed-to-boost-jobs/


Its almost as if it is amateur hour in Washington D.C.
What the hell was that 1.4 trillion dollar stimulus package if not designed to do just that, have the federal government spend its way out of a recession.

This guy is up there with Dan Quayle except Dan Quayle wasn't president.

Don't worry, Obama is the Messiah.

He will fix this mess you and your buds got us into.

 

[Ausm]

Don't worry, Obama is the Messiah.

He will fix this mess you and your buds got us into.

A majority of Republican fanboi's don't realize it was their Messiah Ronnie Raygun who was instrumental in the start of this clusterfuck.

 

[drebo]

You aren't really this stupid are you? Neither Obama or any other person ever said that we could spend our way out of the recession, but they did say (correctly) that government spending could mitigate the suffering from a recession. Keynesian economics has never advocated government spending as a permanent replacement for private sector action or as a driver of economic growth.

I mean all this time and all these posts on the subject and you really didn't know something that basic? This sort of thing might explain a lot of your posts, because you apparently just have no idea what is going on.

Did you notice the irony of you insulting Obama's intelligence while making a post this colossally stupid?

"Mitigate suffering"? You mean "prolong", right? Because that's all that's going to happen.

Keynesian economics doesn't work. I would have thought we'd have realized this by now. "Boom-and-bust" are NOT natural economic cycles. They are cycles that are symptomatic of an economy that is based on the whim of an organization that is controlled by noone (the Federal Reserve). "Boom" happens when the Fed introduces more money into the system, thereby lowering interest rates and spuring domestic investment. "Bust" happens when the Fed has introduced credit, thereby encouraging more risky investments that would not have been profitable under non-artificially inflated conditions, and when that credit has been abused and prices have soared out of control. Free market economics do not exhibit these symptoms because when supply and demand dictate prices, people don't make stupid and speculative investments.

By the government authorizing the Fed to create $1.4 trillion more dollars, all that's going to do is further artificially inflate credit markets. Yes, it might make things more bearable for about 6 months because that new credit runs out and the Fed has to make more. At which point, prices are so outrageous that the next time it's again twice as much. Pretty soon, we're burning our dollars for heat because we can't afford the natural gass.

No, spending will NOT help ease the suffering. It will only make it worse or make it last longer. Propping up companies who made bad investments is a terrible idea. Artificially keeping credit markets afloat is a terrible idea.

Let the bad credit be liquidated and let the free market take over in determining prices of both goods and credit. That's the ONLY way we're going to get out of this...but as long as the government is injecting more funny money into the system under the guise of "stimulus", we're only going to be worse and worse off.

 

[PJABBER]

"Mitigate suffering"? You mean "prolong", right? Because that's all that's going to happen.

Keynesian economics doesn't work. I would have thought we'd have realized this by now.

By the government authorizing the Fed to create $1.4 trillion more dollars, all that's going to do is further artificially inflate credit markets. Yes, it might make things more bearable for about 6 months because that new credit runs out and the Fed has to make more. At which point, prices are so outrageous that the next time it's again twice as much. Pretty soon, we're burning our dollars for heat because we can't afford the natural gass.

No, spending will NOT help ease the suffering. It will only make it worse or make it last longer. Propping up companies who made bad investments is a terrible idea. Artificially keeping credit markets afloat is a terrible idea.

Let the bad credit be liquidated and let the free market take over in determining prices of both goods and credit. That's the ONLY way we're going to get out of this...but as long as the government is injecting more funny money into the system under the guise of "stimulus", we're only going to be worse and worse off.

Hear, hear!

BTW, Dan Quayle is actually very smart. Al Gore, by contrast, is dumb as a box of rocks.

 

[Zebo]

Obama is not a stupid man at all above 150 at least just in a serious bind. Massive debt, massive deadbeats, tax receipts plummeting, and so on. He has a couple choices neither good. Spend and borrow like no tomorrow praying it jump starts economy without setting off interest rates to Carter levels. Slash spending to his base so bond holders still have faith in USA and continue to buy bonds and long term bonds more importantly. I do not envy his position. Seems to be coming to realization stimulus didn't do jack and is opting for later.

 

[sandorski]

"Mitigate suffering"? You mean "prolong", right? Because that's all that's going to happen.

Keynesian economics doesn't work. I would have thought we'd have realized this by now. "Boom-and-bust" are NOT natural economic cycles. They are cycles that are symptomatic of an economy that is based on the whim of an organization that is controlled by noone (the Federal Reserve). "Boom" happens when the Fed introduces more money into the system, thereby lowering interest rates and spuring domestic investment. "Bust" happens when the Fed has introduced credit, thereby encouraging more risky investments that would not have been profitable under non-artificially inflated conditions, and when that credit has been abused and prices have soared out of control. Free market economics do not exhibit these symptoms because when supply and demand dictate prices, people don't make stupid and speculative investments.

By the government authorizing the Fed to create $1.4 trillion more dollars, all that's going to do is further artificially inflate credit markets. Yes, it might make things more bearable for about 6 months because that new credit runs out and the Fed has to make more. At which point, prices are so outrageous that the next time it's again twice as much. Pretty soon, we're burning our dollars for heat because we can't afford the natural gass.

No, spending will NOT help ease the suffering. It will only make it worse or make it last longer. Propping up companies who made bad investments is a terrible idea. Artificially keeping credit markets afloat is a terrible idea.

Let the bad credit be liquidated and let the free market take over in determining prices of both goods and credit. That's the ONLY way we're going to get out of this...but as long as the government is injecting more funny money into the system under the guise of "stimulus", we're only going to be worse and worse off.

Keynesian Economics work just fine, Politicians don't

 

[Malfeas]

"Mitigate suffering"? You mean "prolong", right? Because that's all that's going to happen.

Keynesian economics doesn't work. I would have thought we'd have realized this by now. "Boom-and-bust" are NOT natural economic cycles. They are cycles that are symptomatic of an economy that is based on the whim of an organization that is controlled by noone (the Federal Reserve). "Boom" happens when the Fed introduces more money into the system, thereby lowering interest rates and spuring domestic investment. "Bust" happens when the Fed has introduced credit, thereby encouraging more risky investments that would not have been profitable under non-artificially inflated conditions, and when that credit has been abused and prices have soared out of control. Free market economics do not exhibit these symptoms because when supply and demand dictate prices, people don't make stupid and speculative investments.

By the government authorizing the Fed to create $1.4 trillion more dollars, all that's going to do is further artificially inflate credit markets. Yes, it might make things more bearable for about 6 months because that new credit runs out and the Fed has to make more. At which point, prices are so outrageous that the next time it's again twice as much. Pretty soon, we're burning our dollars for heat because we can't afford the natural gass.

No, spending will NOT help ease the suffering. It will only make it worse or make it last longer. Propping up companies who made bad investments is a terrible idea. Artificially keeping credit markets afloat is a terrible idea.

Let the bad credit be liquidated and let the free market take over in determining prices of both goods and credit. That's the ONLY way we're going to get out of this...but as long as the government is injecting more funny money into the system under the guise of "stimulus", we're only going to be worse and worse off.

So, there were no boom and bust cycles before the introduction of the Federal Reserve system? And if things only proceed from worse to worse under this system, then it is only logical to conclude that the nation is worse off than it was in the 1930s?

 

[drebo]

So, there were no boom and bust cycles before the introduction of the Federal Reserve system? And if things only proceed from worse to worse under this system, then it is only logical to conclude that the nation is worse off than it was in the 1930s?

Quite right. The Federal Reserve was initiated in 1913. The first major depression didn't hit until 1920 (which, because it was left alone by the government, corrected itself within a year). The next depression hit in 1929, which persisted for many years precisely BECAUSE the government tried to fix it by spending money. The New Deal didn't work then, and it's not going to work now.

I'm a little fuzzy on the exact causes of the 1920 depression, but I do know that every single recession since, including those in the 1970s, the one in the early 1990s, the one in 2000, and the one we're having now, are direct results of the Fed having created too much credit causing a boom, and then a bust when prices became unsustainable.

And, yes, we are much worse off than we were in 1913. To borrow figures from Ron Paul, an item that cost $100 in 1913 would cost over $2000 now. And comparing an item that cost $100 in the 1830s, it would have cost roughly $63 in 1913. Inflation is not the sign of a healthy economy. The fiat system was a nice experiment, but we can all see now that it has failed miserably.

 

[Mani]

Hear, hear!

BTW, Dan Quayle is actually very smart. Al Gore, by contrast, is dumb as a box of rocks.

Now I've heard it all.

 

[Ausm]

Now I've heard it all.

Oh your're going to enjoy this supreme right wing tool.

 

[ElFenix]

Keynesian economics doesn't work. I would have thought we'd have realized this by now. "Boom-and-bust" are NOT natural economic cycles. They are cycles that are symptomatic of an economy that is based on the whim of an organization that is controlled by noone (the Federal Reserve). "Boom" happens when the Fed introduces more money into the system, thereby lowering interest rates and spuring domestic investment. "Bust" happens when the Fed has introduced credit, thereby encouraging more risky investments that would not have been profitable under non-artificially inflated conditions, and when that credit has been abused and prices have soared out of control. Free market economics do not exhibit these symptoms because when supply and demand dictate prices, people don't make stupid and speculative investments.

no, boom and bust never did once happen back in the agrarian 1800s between when jackson strangled the Bank of the United States and when the Federal Reserve was created. not once. no panics. no runs. no speculators at all.

 

[Pens1566]

Hear, hear!

BTW, Dan Quayle is actually very smart. Al Gore, by contrast, is dumb as a box of rocks.

Just when it seemed you couldn't be any more ridiculous ....

 

[Sinsear]

Oh your're going to enjoy this supreme right wing tool.

About as much as we enjoy you being a left wing tool.

 

[drebo]

no, boom and bust never did once happen back in the agrarian 1800s between when jackson strangled the Bank of the United States and when the Federal Reserve was created. not once. no panics. no runs. no speculators at all.

The fact is that there is not one single solitary economic downturn in human history that was not caused by government intervention...whether it was the Fed or price fixing policies set by the legislature or the executive.

http://www.google.com/search?q=depr...ine_result&ct=title&resnum=11&ved=0CD8Q5wIwCg

The main difference, however, is that the severity of the downturns pre- and post-Fed are night and day.

 

[PJABBER]

Oh your're going to enjoy this supreme right wing tool.

Damn right you are! Nonetheless, a highly appreciated compliment from our resident insane peanut. Hehehehe.

Anyway, my comment about the relative intellect of Quayle and Gore is factual and not political.

Quayle is actually very bright, though he did make a number of misstatements while ad libbing, which the press blew up as they are wont to do with conservative Republicans.

I will rephrase my earlier comment describing Al Gore's native intellect for greater accuracy. Al Gore is close to being dumber than a box of not very bright rocks. ;-)

 

[blackangst1]

Jesus. People throw around John Keynes's theory like our government was modeled after it, and it is the perfect model Ah well. I guess we all have our kool aid.

Anyway.

 

[ElFenix]

The fact is that there is not one single solitary economic downturn in human history that was not caused by government intervention...whether it was the Fed or price fixing policies set by the legislature or the executive.

http://www.google.com/search?q=depr...ine_result&ct=title&resnum=11&ved=0CD8Q5wIwCg

The main difference, however, is that the severity of the downturns pre- and post-Fed are night and day.

uh, what do you think that graph represents?

 

[lothar]

Dan Quayle is actually very smart. Al Gore, by contrast, is dumb as a box of rocks.

Al Gore knows how to spell potato.

 

[blackangst1]

Al Gore knows how to spell potato.

Thats howe he got the idia for the interwebs. To spell check.

 

[Ausm]

About as much as we enjoy you being a left wing tool.

Gee nice comeback

 

[CottonRabbit]

http://www.google.com/search?q=depr...ine_result&ct=title&resnum=11&ved=0CD8Q5wIwCg

The main difference, however, is that the severity of the downturns pre- and post-Fed are night and day.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...saur+invasions+in+united+states&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Wow, we've had some pretty bad dinosaur invasions here in the last 20 years.

 

[Craig234]

"Mitigate suffering"? You mean "prolong", right? Because that's all that's going to happen.

Keynesian economics doesn't work.

Where do you people come from? It's like a flat earther convention.

Keynesian economics are what work.

I would have thought we'd have realized this by now. "Boom-and-bust" are NOT natural economic cycles. They are cycles that are symptomatic of an economy that is based on the whim of an organization that is controlled by noone (the Federal Reserve). "Boom" happens when the Fed introduces more money into the system, thereby lowering interest rates and spuring domestic investment. "Bust" happens when the Fed has introduced credit, thereby encouraging more risky investments that would not have been profitable under non-artificially inflated conditions, and when that credit has been abused and prices have soared out of control. Free market economics do not exhibit these symptoms because when supply and demand dictate prices, people don't make stupid and speculative investments.[/q]

You appear not to have learned any real history - presumably you get your info from talk radio or similar?

Boom and bust was the norm during our history before the fed ever existed.

It's the new deal policies you attack as the problem that gave our nation its longest period without major crashes in its history from FDR to Reagan, who undid rules and started problems.

And the word 'natural' doesn't apply to economics, you iseologues get that wrong too. It's a man-made institution and it's 'artificial' through and through, whether the forces are private of public.

This whol 'natural' thing is cooked up ideology to turn it into a pseudo religious worship you have for the magic forces of the 'invisible hand' and hate for the evil government - i.e., the public - inffluence.

You appear not to have a clue in your worship of the private 'free market', about how it has a tendency to become corrupted for the benefit of a few, stopped only by the government.

Try readin Kevin Phillips some time, and learn a little.

By the government authorizing the Fed to create $1.4 trillion more dollars, all that's going to do is further artificially inflate credit markets.

All borrowed stimulus spending has some inflationary effect, the trick is doing the spending that has more benefit than cost. A huge crash costs a lot too and good stimulus can preseve the economy.

No, spending will NOT help ease the suffering. It will only make it worse or make it last longer. Propping up companies who made bad investments is a terrible idea. Artificially keeping credit markets afloat is a terrible idea.

Stimulus spending and propping up 'too big to fail' crooks are not the same thing, and the 'free market' does not solve the problem of corrupt concentrated wealth.

Corrupt bailouts are a symptom. You offer nothing about the problem of the concentratede corruption. Reducing government would only free it to act in even stronger measure against the public.