Proof! That liberal progressives want to destroy the country!!

[Jhhnn]

Obama has already won the 2012 Presidential election. This progressive group is just making headlines for the sake of attention whoring. Their support is inconsequential to his campaign.

Likely true, but there's a lot of open territory between now & the election, & it's possible that progressives might splinter from the Democratic Party if they get beat down too badly by their own corporate leadership. A truly discouraged base has a tendency to stay home on election day, too.

Just sayin'...

 

[Engineer]

All things being equal doesn't an increase in reserves increase a banks willingness to lend?
If nothing else, if people are saving more it drives down interest rates making it easier for people to borrow.

Even if my bank is not lending, if I'm giving them cash to lend out, how is that me "hoarding cash"?
They are the ones holding the cash, not me.

Saving money in a bank to be loaned to the public is not the same as spending the money or hiring people placing the money (earned in this case) into their hands by buying their products or services.

Corporations have producing less than in 2007 yet have record profits and record cash on the books (was on CNN this morning with Larry Summers). In a consumer driven economy, if certain people are hording the cash, not much gets spent by anybody....but oh yes, let's increase the trickle down theory and see if some of the money finally runs down their legs, like piss, to us ants.

 

[cubby1223]

Likely true, but there's a lot of open territory between now & the election, & it's possible that progressives might splinter from the Democratic Party if they get beat down too badly by their own corporate leadership. A truly discouraged base has a tendency to stay home on election day, too.

Just sayin'...

They're not hurting one bit
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/13/us-usa-campaign-obama-funds-idUSTRE76C2KX20110713

This "progressive" group is inconsequential to the 2012 presidential election. And don't kid yourself for a second by thinking "progressives" are more valuable than they are. If given the choice between voting for Obama, or sitting at home discouraged and possibly allow Sarah Palin to win the presidency - you can bet your sweet ass every "progressive" will be in the voting booth enthusiastically pulling the lever for Obama.

 

[matt0611]

Saving money in a bank to be loaned to the public is not the same as spending the money or hiring people placing the money (earned in this case) into their hands by buying their products or services.

Corporations have producing less than in 2007 yet have record profits and record cash on the books (was on CNN this morning with Larry Summers). In a consumer driven economy, if certain people are hording the cash, not much gets spent by anybody....but oh yes, let's increase the trickle down theory and see if some of the money finally runs down their legs, like piss, to us ants.

If companies or banks could spend cash and make money, they would do so. There is a fundamental reason they are not doing so. They are not doing it because they are "greedy and want to hoard all the green piece of paper for themselves". Come on, this is a thought process of an 8 year old child.

The economy is fucked, systemically, and physically. Real resource allocations need to be changed, and until the economy is allowed to fix itself you won't see companies spending a lot of money, you won't see a lot of growth.

Consumers do not drive an economy, the production of goods drives an economy (a sustainable one anyway).
Cash is not the same thing as wealth, holding green pieces of paper does nothing unless there are goods to buy them with.
You can print all the little green pieces of paper you want and let them rain down from the sky on us all, it won't do shit to fix the economy though.

 

[Engineer]

Consumers do not drive an economy, the production of goods drives an economy (a sustainable one anyway).

Explain that to the people that define GDP in this country as it's made up of 70% consumer (and maybe government) spending. I don't disagree that we need to make stuff and have more people making stuff instead of servicing stuff, or it will be the first generation in US history to have a lower standard of living....and it may be too late to avoid that now.

And while it's true that business/people aren't going to spend money to make money, they are cutting off the very people who are buying their stuff. If the cash that is sitting in their bank accounts doesn't make it out there to the general economy, it will not grow and their own sales will flat line. The record profits they are making right now are now on the back of rising sales/revenues....its from cuts, cuts, cuts. At some point, either they will need to put some of that cash into the economy or enough people will vote it to themselves via the government (i.e. taxes and wealth redistribution)...count on it.

 

[Fern]

Saving money in a bank to be loaned to the public is not the same as spending the money or hiring people placing the money (earned in this case) into their hands by buying their products or services.
-snip-

How is it not the same?

If the "public" (I assume you mean non-governmental entities like businesses and individuals) don't get a loan they can't spend it. To put it another way, those people and businesses SPEND the money they borrow from banks.

Even if they're buying stocks with the money, that means someone else is cashing out so they spend the money, whether it's a pension plan needing cash for paying retirees or somebody cashing out to help finance their business or living expenses in this economy.

Fern

 

[Engineer]

How is it not the same?

If the "public" (I assume you mean non-governmental entities like businesses and individuals) don't get a loan they can't spend it. To put it another way, those people and businesses SPEND the money they borrow from banks.

Even if they're buying stocks with the money, that means someone else is cashing out so they spend the money, whether it's a pension plan needing cash for paying retirees or somebody cashing out to help finance their business or living expenses in this economy.

Fern

People are already at their limits on paying for credit (credit cards, mortgages, etc) and need "new money" to continue higher. Giving more loans to them is not the answer to drive the economy forward, giving them larger paychecks is the way, whether that means buying their stuff, hiring them, using their services, etc. Giving all the loans to people who are increasingly not able to take on more debt is not the answer....I would have thought the housing bubble would have taught you this.

Oh, and to the OP...how are people who paid into the system (and still) and wanting what they were promised (and paid) for wanting to destroy the country? I guess it's OK for people like John McCain to get SS while working in Congress for the last 10 years but it's not OK for the poor masses to get what they paid in? You champion tax cuts for the top while cheering the bottom to lose what they have paid in for. Not surprising though....not surprising in the least.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Posting in an Anarchist thread.

 

[Fern]

People are already at their limits on paying for credit (credit cards, mortgages, etc) and need "new money" to continue higher. Giving more loans to them is not the answer to drive the economy forward, giving them larger paychecks is the way, whether that means buying their stuff, hiring them, using their services, etc. Giving all the loans to people who are increasingly not able to take on more debt is not the answer....I would have thought the housing bubble would have taught you this.
-snip-

So you do agree they WILL spend it.

You raise concerns about their ability to repay, that is something different.

Small businesses, for whom no recent administration has done anything much, are in need of cash to try to expand (that means buying goods and services and hiring people) or hang on until the economy picks up. There are many worthwhile reasons to lend money. Liquidity is a problem for small and midsized businesses.

As long as you're not burning it, burying it or sending it abroad, any uses of the money by the rich are equally helpful. The only real difference is the number of steps the money takes before it's in the hands of someone who will spend it.

Fern

 

[sao123]

If companies or banks could spend cash and make money, they would do so. There is a fundamental reason they are not doing so. They are not doing it because they are "greedy and want to hoard all the green piece of paper for themselves". Come on, this is a thought process of an 8 year old child.

The economy is fucked, systemically, and physically. Real resource allocations need to be changed, and until the economy is allowed to fix itself you won't see companies spending a lot of money, you won't see a lot of growth.

Consumers do not drive an economy, the production of goods drives an economy (a sustainable one anyway).
Cash is not the same thing as wealth, holding green pieces of paper does nothing unless there are goods to buy them with.
You can print all the little green pieces of paper you want and let them rain down from the sky on us all, it won't do shit to fix the economy though.

Consumption absolutely drives the economy... if no one consumes, then there is no reason to produce.
the only way to fix the economy is to remove concentrations of wealth and create cash throughput.

 

[Engineer]

So you do agree they WILL spend it.

Oh, they will spend it. I've said it at least a dozen times...give Bill Gates $1,000,000 in tax cuts and he "might" spend it. Give 1,000 people (like me) a $1,000 tax cut and WE WILL SPEND IT.

Oh, and I don't know if business are still having trouble getting loans or cash flow (small business that is). If that's the case, then sure, giving them more money whether it's the purchase of their products via larger companies turning loose of some of their cash or banks relaxing their lending would greatly help.

 

[ProfJohn]

Still waiting on nPJ to explain how Obama moving to within 2% of the GOP proposal isn't compromise, while the GOP then backtracked away from their proposal of 85/15 to move further away to 100/0.

Where is this proposal that you cliam?

And where are the details behind the Obama 'proposal'

From my understand Obama has thrown numbers around, but has never explained where those numbers come from. Even the CBO called him out on it saying "we don't grade speeches' when asked if the Obama numbers worked.

Perhaps you are too busy cheering on your side to realize that there has NEVER been a concrete offer in writing from Obama. It is all hollow numbers.

 

[fskimospy]

Where is this proposal that you cliam?

And where are the details behind the Obama 'proposal'

From my understand Obama has thrown numbers around, but has never explained where those numbers come from. Even the CBO called him out on it saying "we don't grade speeches' when asked if the Obama numbers worked.

Perhaps you are too busy cheering on your side to realize that there has NEVER been a concrete offer in writing from Obama. It is all hollow numbers.

That's because it's part of an ongoing negotiation. You don't put out specifics during those sorts of things because it forces positions on both sides to harden and puts negotiators in the position of having appeared to have granted concessions without necessarily having pinned down what they are getting for them yet.

You might think this negotiation works differently because of the Little League style of negotiation that Eric Cantor has been trying, but you appear to mistake his foolish and irresponsible behavior for how things are supposed to be run. Either Eric Cantor is extremely inexperienced at real negotiations and doesn't know any better, or he's an ideologue/career climber trying to improve his lot by blowing things up. (you can choose between stupid and evil, I leave it to you)

You're too busy cheering your side to realize that there shouldn't have been a concrete settlement. I've noticed you've been getting dogpiled here again, but this is what you deserve for making such a ridiculous thread.

 

[matt0611]

Consumption absolutely drives the economy... if no one consumes, then there is no reason to produce.
the only way to fix the economy is to remove concentrations of wealth and create cash throughput.

So if I just print up a few trillion dollar bills and start spending them that would get us out of this economic slump? LMAO ok.

People cannot consume what is not produced.

Consumption of goods absolutely does NOT drive an economy.
Or have you been asleep this whole decade?

The economy has been in a state of unsustainable resource allocation, there are REAL problems with the economy, simply spending money printed out of this air will not cure the real problems.

 

[ProfJohn]

Oh, they will spend it. I've said it at least a dozen times...give Bill Gates $1,000,000 in tax cuts and he "might" spend it. Give 1,000 people (like me) a $1,000 tax cut and WE WILL SPEND IT.

Give Bill Gates $1,000,000 and he'll invest in a business that will create jobs.

Take that $1,000,000 and give it to poor people via welfare and they will spend it, but they won't create any more jobs or advance the economy.

That is the problem with wealth transfers. They are good socially and the help out the poor/old people, but they are a drag on the economy because they suck money out it. We have to strike a balance between social spending and taxes. When we have too much of both then the economy will suffer, growth will not happen and unemployment stays high.

Look at Europe. They have great social programs, but they pay for them via slower growth and higher unemployment. And that is because their governments suck up all the money and leaves less for economic growth and new businesses.

 

[Fern]

I've googled several times now on different days and I've bee unable to find any specifics too.

If any has found specifics, by all means pls link them.

A deal with no details isn't any kind of real solution. We'd just see the fighting move to whose favorite program gets cut. Cutting real items/programs is a lot harder than just broadly agreeing on numbers.

Fern

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Where is this proposal that you cliam?

And where are the details behind the Obama 'proposal'

From my understand Obama has thrown numbers around, but has never explained where those numbers come from. Even the CBO called him out on it saying "we don't grade speeches' when asked if the Obama numbers worked.

Perhaps you are too busy cheering on your side to realize that there has NEVER been a concrete offer in writing from Obama. It is all hollow numbers.

So you got nothing. Got it. Retract your post then since it is an 100% lie.

Again, explain how moving to within 2% is NOT compromise. Then explain how the GOP moving from 85/15 FURTHER AWAY to 100/0 is compromise. You have two very tough things to try and explain, so get thinking.

We'll be waiting to hear this doozy.

EDIT:
Eskimospy said:

I've noticed you've been getting dogpiled here again, but this is what you deserve for making such a ridiculous thread.

I have to agree 100%. nPJ time and time again starts a thread with totally false and misleading information, then tries to pawn it off as true. He gets called out and shown he is 100% wrong, but then he never defends himself, he just starts a new thread about something else. If nPJ at least fact-checked before posting, or provided some shred of facts to support his case, it would be better. But to throw out lie after lie, and basically just move on each time without defending his post, is just pathetic. In a public forum, when you start a thread, you should be able to argue and defend it with facts, not just blindly state your opinion, and move on once called on it.

 

[Engineer]

Give Bill Gates $1,000,000 and he'll invest in a business that will create jobs.

Take that $1,000,000 and give it to poor people via welfare and they will spend it, but they won't create any more jobs or advance the economy.

That is the problem with wealth transfers. They are good socially and the help out the poor/old people, but they are a drag on the economy because they suck money out it. We have to strike a balance between social spending and taxes. When we have too much of both then the economy will suffer, growth will not happen and unemployment stays high.

Look at Europe. They have great social programs, but they pay for them via slower growth and higher unemployment. And that is because their governments suck up all the money and leaves less for economic growth and new businesses.

I said nothing about welfare, I said people like me. You think I'm on welfare? How do you know Bill Gates will invest in a business and create jobs? We've had huge tax cuts since 2001 and where are the jobs? They are creating jobs alright....in China and other countries around the world as they invest their money in opening up factories there to produce good using pennies on the hour rate labor.

You also don't think that spending creates demand and therefore the need for more product to be produced driving the economy up? lol.

Since Gates and the others would invest it into new business, why are US companies sitting on trillions of dollars in cash right now and not investing it? Maybe they are afraid that nobody will be able to consume the products they are producing?

 

[Fern]

So you got nothing. Got it. Retract your post then since it is an 100% lie.

Again, explain how moving to within 2% is NOT compromise. Then explain how the GOP moving from 85/15 FURTHER AWAY to 100/0 is compromise. You have two very tough things to try and explain, so get thinking.

We'll be waiting to hear this doozy.

Well, excuse me for intruding, but I've seen where Obama refers to tax increases as "spending cuts".

Given that and the lack of details hard to say how much, or even if, Obama is really compromising.

I understand Eski's above point about negotiating, but if we're truly running out of time it's a little late to stick with that model.

Edit: Tell you what, if Obama submitted a real plan to the CBO and they agreed it legitimately did what you say, I'd agree it was a compromise.

Fern

 

[ProfJohn]

So you got nothing. Got it. Retract your post then since it is an 100% lie.

Again, explain how moving to within 2% is NOT compromise. Then explain how the GOP moving from 85/15 FURTHER AWAY to 100/0 is compromise. You have two very tough things to try and explain, so get thinking.

We'll be waiting to hear this doozy.

Where are the facts that back up your 85/15 plan????

Who said that? When did they say it? Was it a real offer or just made up BS??

 

[fskimospy]

I've googled several times now on different days and I've bee unable to find any specifics too.

If any has found specifics, by all means pls link them.

A deal with no details isn't any kind of real solution. We'd just see the fighting move to whose favorite program gets cut. Cutting real items/programs is a lot harder than just broadly agreeing on numbers.

Fern

Of course it isn't a real solution, if it were, the deal would have already been made. The Republicans have simply staked out a radical negotiating position that precludes a deal of any sort. Obama's numbers are absolutely a decent framework for any deal, and in all honestly they are a better deal than anyone in the GOP should have hoped to get. (Obama's numbers being more conservative than median REPUBLICAN voter)

It's just inescapable, the Republicans have staked out a position that isn't a negotiation at all. It requires total capitulation to them or no deal. Their position is so manifestly absurd that they tried to say they were giving something up to Obama by raising the ceiling at all, as if they were doing the US a favor by not blowing up the world economy.

 

[JSt0rm]

So if I just print up a few trillion dollar bills and start spending them that would get us out of this economic slump? LMAO ok.

People cannot consume what is not produced.

Consumption of goods absolutely does NOT drive an economy.
Or have you been asleep this whole decade?

The economy has been in a state of unsustainable resource allocation, there are REAL problems with the economy, simply spending money printed out of this air will not cure the real problems.

Idiot. We all consume everything. The only time we dont consume is if we are dead. If everyone was dead what kind of economy would be left?

We consume energy, entertainment, food, housing, transportation, upkeep services, clothing the list goes on. This is what drives the economy. This is what drives the stock market speculation. This is what drives all of the financial instruments.

 

[JSt0rm]

Give Bill Gates $1,000,000 and he'll invest in a business that will create jobs.

He invests his money before he pays taxes you fucking idiot, he would be more apt to invest the million if he knew he would be taxed at 90% on it instead of 10%. Trickle down is an illusion.

 

[Fern]

-snip-

It's just inescapable, the Republicans have staked out a position that isn't a negotiation at all.

You may not like their position, but for Repubs who ran, and got elected, on a platform of not increasing the debt they ARE compromising by agreeing to increasing debt.

We've got Repubs who ran on a balanced budget amendment etc.

Fern

 

[Fern]

He invests his money before he pays taxes you fucking idiot, he would be more apt to invest the million if he knew he would be taxed at 90% on it instead of 10%. Trickle down is an illusion.

Investments of a $ million must be made with after-tax funds. I.e., with very exceptions there is no deduction available for an investment of that sort (a $ million and one Gates would likely make).

Therefore tax rates wouldn't have the kind of effect you describe.

Fern