Patranus
Diamond Member
- Apr 15, 2007
- 9,280
- 0
- 0
I don't see how the federal "spend and pretend" policy is averting a second depression. In fact, they're hiding the facts that we're already in a depression, and are only setting us up for an even bigger crash. The economic bubble we were used to living in is unsustainable, only idiocy would try to sustain and stabilize that which is unstable and unsustainable.
So you want to bring on a Great Depression 2.0?
Govt deficit spending can bridge the gap until consumer spending recovers. Or we can just let the economy collapse, which will destroy tax revenues and make the deficit even worse while making it harder for everyone.
Oh please a liquid financial sector is more important than govt overspending. The govt will have dropped nearly 1 trillion by the end of this year in some kind of stimulus. For that we have a weak consumer market and nearly double digit unemployment. And worse yet, little to no consumer confidence, and little confidence the country is heading in the right direction.
So you want to bring on a Great Depression 2.0?
Govt deficit spending can bridge the gap until consumer spending recovers. Or we can just let the economy collapse, which will destroy tax revenues and make the deficit even worse while making it harder for everyone.
Weak consumer market is better than a disastrous consumer market. Take away govt spending, and you are going to have much higher unemployment and a spiral of layoffs.
What makes you think consumer spending will magically recover? I will argue that consumer spending was already too high in the first place, and all the government spending does is try to support the unsustainable bubble by replacing consumer spending with deficit spending. If we are to deal with the underlying issue, then we'll have to face the consequences of reckless credit expansion that's been going on for the last few decades. I'd rather have a great depression 2.0 now than total economic armageddon later.
I hope it's shens, otherwise, Great Depression 2.0 here we come.
Did they do Clinton Surplus vs Bush Deficit in pictures chart too, or are deficits only a problem when a Democrat is running them?
I thought this was a good link: http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/
I have no idea how objective they are, but the numbers tell a story...
And here we have Krugman argung for more govt spending....
"governments are obsessing about inflation when the real threat is deflation, preaching the need for belt-tightening when the real problem is inadequate spending."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/opinion/28krugman.html
It's all talk and hypotheticals. The consequences from govt spending pullback now are going to be very real. Economy is sputtering, this will choke it.
don't listen to the nobel-prize-winning economist.
your bible will fix the economy
The consequences MUST happen. Whether or not we like it is irrelevant. Recessions are mathematical necessities that balance out excessive credit expansion during the "boom" cycles. By trying to avert and manage recessions the government has done nothing but set us up for an even bigger fall.
The same expert economists who never saw the crisis coming in the first place? Or the ones who knew but chose to lie and deceive the public anyways? Thanks, but no thanks.
Annual adopted Budget 'Deficits' do not equal increases in 'Annual Debt'. Federal debt under W increased $500b+ each year --- they had this nasty habit of funding expensive items (like War) by supplementals. So that chart, at best, is highly misleading.
Perfesser Johnnie tried the same crap as the chart when suggesting that Bush was "...balancing the budget! ..." when in fact the supplementals outside the budget process were adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the Federal debt each year.
don't listen to the nobel-prize-winning economist.
your bible will fix the economy
It's all talk and hypotheticals. The consequences from govt spending pullback now are going to be very real. Economy is sputtering, this will choke it.
