If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Cutbacks in government spending unleash power of private sector. GDP growth slows to 2.2%   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 269
    More: Fail, government spending, cutbacks, private sector  
•       •       •

2189 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Apr 2012 at 7:38 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



269 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-28 01:32:26 AM

jigger: X-boxershorts: jigger: X-boxershorts: I gave up on Murry and the Mises folks years ago. Care to summarize? Do they finally admit their models have no answer for when US interest rates are at the zero bound and that crowding out doesn't occur in a depressed economy?

I guess I linked it to the wrong person.

It was just FYI, thought it was worth listening to.

I don't think this little talk even addresses interest rates. It's short and non-technical. Give it a listen. I'm interested in your take on it.

I'm tired and almost drunk.

I'd rather listen to this: Steve Kimock and theCAUSE with Sugaree

Damn, I think that's even more boring than the Mises talk.


ouch!
 
2012-04-28 01:34:25 AM

rohar: I think I understand the concept quite well. Put money in the hands of those that will spend it. Sure, we're spending money in some odd places, but our current social spending alone (putting money in the hands that will spend it) is about 6x the entire federal budget at the end of the great depression. (again, per capita real dollars).


You are going to have to cite that statistic.
 
2012-04-28 01:36:54 AM
What I learn on he Fark politics tab every day is the NOTHING is EVER Obama's fault and despite the fact that the Democrats control 2/3 of Legislative and Presidential branches of Government EVERYTHING is the fault of Bush, Chaney, and the Republicans. Spending has increased under Obama. Despite Republican opposition in the House her has gotten virtually everything he wanted in his budgets.

Honest question: When do things become Obama's fault or is that a rainbow colored unicorn?
 
2012-04-28 01:38:03 AM

Delawheredad: What I learn on he Fark politics tab every day is the NOTHING is EVER Obama's fault and despite the fact that the Democrats control 2/3 of Legislative and Presidential branches of Government EVERYTHING is the fault of Bush, Chaney, and the Republicans. Spending has increased under Obama. Despite Republican opposition in the House her has gotten virtually everything he wanted in his budgets.

Honest question: When do things become Obama's fault or is that a rainbow colored unicorn?


That certainly SOUNDS like an honest question.
 
2012-04-28 01:39:00 AM

Sabyen91: rohar: I think I understand the concept quite well. Put money in the hands of those that will spend it. Sure, we're spending money in some odd places, but our current social spending alone (putting money in the hands that will spend it) is about 6x the entire federal budget at the end of the great depression. (again, per capita real dollars).

You are going to have to cite that statistic.


gravitron5.files.wordpress.com

Source data from http://www.bea.gov/
 
2012-04-28 01:41:49 AM

Sabyen91: rohar: I think I understand the concept quite well. Put money in the hands of those that will spend it. Sure, we're spending money in some odd places, but our current social spending alone (putting money in the hands that will spend it) is about 6x the entire federal budget at the end of the great depression. (again, per capita real dollars).

You are going to have to cite that statistic.


Eh, it could be accurate. Hell, every single economist in government estimated a 3.5 to 3.9% GDP decline at the onset of this recession.

Later calculations put it between 8.5 and 9% economy shrinkage. Which added a SHIATLOAD of newly unemployed people to the safetynets.
And the GoP kept up the pressure, denying the administration it's attempt to do a real infrastructure program or a second round of stimulus.

The need was far greater than Bush's AND Obama's economic teams first estimates.

But Krugman was right. So was Yves Smith, Brad Delong, Calculated Risk, Nouriel Rubini, Joseph Stiglitz, Robert Reich....

These are the folks I pay attention to now.
 
2012-04-28 01:42:35 AM

rohar: Sabyen91: rohar: I think I understand the concept quite well. Put money in the hands of those that will spend it. Sure, we're spending money in some odd places, but our current social spending alone (putting money in the hands that will spend it) is about 6x the entire federal budget at the end of the great depression. (again, per capita real dollars).

You are going to have to cite that statistic.

[gravitron5.files.wordpress.com image 640x433]

Source data from http://www.bea.gov/


What year are you attributing to the end of the great depression?

/What is the deal with the federal interest payments? I would have thought it would have been going up every single year.
 
2012-04-28 01:44:23 AM

X-boxershorts: Sabyen91: rohar: I think I understand the concept quite well. Put money in the hands of those that will spend it. Sure, we're spending money in some odd places, but our current social spending alone (putting money in the hands that will spend it) is about 6x the entire federal budget at the end of the great depression. (again, per capita real dollars).

You are going to have to cite that statistic.

Eh, it could be accurate. Hell, every single economist in government estimated a 3.5 to 3.9% GDP decline at the onset of this recession.

Later calculations put it between 8.5 and 9% economy shrinkage. Which added a SHIATLOAD of newly unemployed people to the safetynets.
And the GoP kept up the pressure, denying the administration it's attempt to do a real infrastructure program or a second round of stimulus.

The need was far greater than Bush's AND Obama's economic teams first estimates.

But Krugman was right. So was Yves Smith, Brad Delong, Calculated Risk, Nouriel Rubini, Joseph Stiglitz, Robert Reich....

These are the folks I pay attention to now.


That is one thing Obama should have done much better. Robert Reich should be his lead economic adviser. His economic team are weak-assed corporatists.
 
2012-04-28 01:45:23 AM

Delawheredad: What I learn on he Fark politics tab every day is the NOTHING is EVER Obama's fault and despite the fact that the Democrats control 2/3 of Legislative and Presidential branches of Government EVERYTHING is the fault of Bush, Chaney, and the Republicans. Spending has increased under Obama. Despite Republican opposition in the House her has gotten virtually everything he wanted in his budgets.

Honest question: When do things become Obama's fault or is that a rainbow colored unicorn?


Obama's team severely underestimated the severity of the decline in GDP. That was bad.
Obama's team did some stimulus then shifted to Health Care reform, that was bad.
Obama's team failed to appoint important positions at the FED and in other key treasury spots when they had the veto proof majority in the senate. That was bad.
Obama's team transitioned from stimulus to budget balancing cuts way too early. That too was bad.

Feel better?
 
2012-04-28 01:47:17 AM

X-boxershorts: Delawheredad: What I learn on he Fark politics tab every day is the NOTHING is EVER Obama's fault and despite the fact that the Democrats control 2/3 of Legislative and Presidential branches of Government EVERYTHING is the fault of Bush, Chaney, and the Republicans. Spending has increased under Obama. Despite Republican opposition in the House her has gotten virtually everything he wanted in his budgets.

Honest question: When do things become Obama's fault or is that a rainbow colored unicorn?

Obama's team severely underestimated the severity of the decline in GDP. That was bad.
Obama's team did some stimulus then shifted to Health Care reform, that was bad.
Obama's team failed to appoint important positions at the FED and in other key treasury spots when they had the veto proof majority in the senate. That was bad.
Obama's team transitioned from stimulus to budget balancing cuts way too early. That too was bad.

Feel better?


Obama picked a bad economic team (but much better than a supply-side Republican team).

/Could be better. Could be much worse.
 
2012-04-28 01:48:40 AM

Sabyen91: X-boxershorts: Delawheredad: What I learn on he Fark politics tab every day is the NOTHING is EVER Obama's fault and despite the fact that the Democrats control 2/3 of Legislative and Presidential branches of Government EVERYTHING is the fault of Bush, Chaney, and the Republicans. Spending has increased under Obama. Despite Republican opposition in the House her has gotten virtually everything he wanted in his budgets.

Honest question: When do things become Obama's fault or is that a rainbow colored unicorn?

Obama's team severely underestimated the severity of the decline in GDP. That was bad.
Obama's team did some stimulus then shifted to Health Care reform, that was bad.
Obama's team failed to appoint important positions at the FED and in other key treasury spots when they had the veto proof majority in the senate. That was bad.
Obama's team transitioned from stimulus to budget balancing cuts way too early. That too was bad.

Feel better?

Obama picked a bad economic team (but much better than a supply-side Republican team).

/Could be better. Could be much worse.


Yeah, Christy Roehmer had far too little support and Obama deferred to political expediency way too easily.
 
2012-04-28 01:51:15 AM
Now were getting somewhere. This economy was not formed in a Republican vacuum. The President shares some responsibility.
 
2012-04-28 01:52:38 AM

Delawheredad: Now were getting somewhere. This economy was not formed in a Republican vacuum. The President shares some responsibility.


So which part of the economy is Obama's fault? I admit it hasn't rebounded as well as it could if he had a less Republican economic team.
 
2012-04-28 01:53:02 AM

Sabyen91: rohar: Sabyen91: rohar: I think I understand the concept quite well. Put money in the hands of those that will spend it. Sure, we're spending money in some odd places, but our current social spending alone (putting money in the hands that will spend it) is about 6x the entire federal budget at the end of the great depression. (again, per capita real dollars).

You are going to have to cite that statistic.

[gravitron5.files.wordpress.com image 640x433]

Source data from http://www.bea.gov/

What year are you attributing to the end of the great depression?

I was thinking 1939-1940ish. As I remember, that's when unemployment dropped severly

/What is the deal with the federal interest payments? I would have thought it would have been going up every single year.

When population growth + inflation matches the interest rate, the line should be flat on a per capita/ real $ basis. Interestingly, we're seeing 2%-3% population growth, 2%-3% inflation. Interest rates are all extremely low so every dollar we borrow on a 10 year bond, we'll only pay $.30 on that basis. The fed's given us a HUGE tax cut :)
 
2012-04-28 01:54:20 AM

Delawheredad: Now were getting somewhere. This economy was not formed in a Republican vacuum. The President shares some responsibility.


Yes, yes he does. Mostly for keeping proponents of failed economic policy on the payroll.
 
2012-04-28 01:55:38 AM

rohar: Sabyen91: rohar: Sabyen91: rohar: I think I understand the concept quite well. Put money in the hands of those that will spend it. Sure, we're spending money in some odd places, but our current social spending alone (putting money in the hands that will spend it) is about 6x the entire federal budget at the end of the great depression. (again, per capita real dollars).

You are going to have to cite that statistic.

[gravitron5.files.wordpress.com image 640x433]

Source data from http://www.bea.gov/

What year are you attributing to the end of the great depression?

I was thinking 1939-1940ish. As I remember, that's when unemployment dropped severly

/What is the deal with the federal interest payments? I would have thought it would have been going up every single year.

When population growth + inflation matches the interest rate, the line should be flat on a per capita/ real $ basis. Interestingly, we're seeing 2%-3% population growth, 2%-3% inflation. Interest rates are all extremely low so every dollar we borrow on a 10 year bond, we'll only pay $.30 on that basis. The fed's given us a HUGE tax cut :)


Am I wrong in thinking the fed interest payments include interest paid on the national debt?
 
2012-04-28 01:57:07 AM
I am off to bed, it's almost 2 am here.

Good night all...
 
2012-04-28 01:58:58 AM

X-boxershorts: I am off to bed, it's almost 2 am here.

Good night all...


Me too. Too much immoderation for one night.
 
2012-04-28 02:01:28 AM

rohar: Source data from http://www.bea.gov/


The argument I'd make is that it's not just the current magnitude of the spending that determines the effect of the stimulus. If spending goes up and stays up for a long time, the economy simply adapts to that as the new 'normal', and then to stimulate beyond that would require even more spending.

A true Keynesian approach would boost spending in a poor economy and cut spending in a good economy; it would reduce the peaks and raise the valleys of the economic cycle, both of which are a benefit to the economy as a whole.
 
2012-04-28 02:02:54 AM

Sabyen91: rohar: Sabyen91: rohar: Sabyen91: rohar: I think I understand the concept quite well. Put money in the hands of those that will spend it. Sure, we're spending money in some odd places, but our current social spending alone (putting money in the hands that will spend it) is about 6x the entire federal budget at the end of the great depression. (again, per capita real dollars).

You are going to have to cite that statistic.

[gravitron5.files.wordpress.com image 640x433]

Source data from http://www.bea.gov/

What year are you attributing to the end of the great depression?

I was thinking 1939-1940ish. As I remember, that's when unemployment dropped severly

/What is the deal with the federal interest payments? I would have thought it would have been going up every single year.

When population growth + inflation matches the interest rate, the line should be flat on a per capita/ real $ basis. Interestingly, we're seeing 2%-3% population growth, 2%-3% inflation. Interest rates are all extremely low so every dollar we borrow on a 10 year bond, we'll only pay $.30 on that basis. The fed's given us a HUGE tax cut :)

Am I wrong in thinking the fed interest payments include interest paid on the national debt?


Not at all. Inflation + population growth has kept it lower than it appears though. Because of the negative real interest rates , continued population growth and rolling out debt over every 10 years, that line will drop through the floor shortly.
 
2012-04-28 02:04:32 AM

rohar: Sabyen91: rohar: Sabyen91: rohar: Sabyen91: rohar: I think I understand the concept quite well. Put money in the hands of those that will spend it. Sure, we're spending money in some odd places, but our current social spending alone (putting money in the hands that will spend it) is about 6x the entire federal budget at the end of the great depression. (again, per capita real dollars).

You are going to have to cite that statistic.

[gravitron5.files.wordpress.com image 640x433]

Source data from http://www.bea.gov/

What year are you attributing to the end of the great depression?

I was thinking 1939-1940ish. As I remember, that's when unemployment dropped severly

/What is the deal with the federal interest payments? I would have thought it would have been going up every single year.

When population growth + inflation matches the interest rate, the line should be flat on a per capita/ real $ basis. Interestingly, we're seeing 2%-3% population growth, 2%-3% inflation. Interest rates are all extremely low so every dollar we borrow on a 10 year bond, we'll only pay $.30 on that basis. The fed's given us a HUGE tax cut :)

Am I wrong in thinking the fed interest payments include interest paid on the national debt?

Not at all. Inflation + population growth has kept it lower than it appears though. Because of the negative real interest rates , continued population growth and rolling out debt over every 10 years, that line will drop through the floor shortly.


I am going to have to study that phenomena tomorrow when my brain cells have healed themselves (yes they do!)

/Later, dude.
 
2012-04-28 02:05:21 AM

Sabyen91: rohar: Sabyen91: rohar: Sabyen91: rohar: Sabyen91: rohar: I think I understand the concept quite well. Put money in the hands of those that will spend it. Sure, we're spending money in some odd places, but our current social spending alone (putting money in the hands that will spend it) is about 6x the entire federal budget at the end of the great depression. (again, per capita real dollars).

You are going to have to cite that statistic.

[gravitron5.files.wordpress.com image 640x433]

Source data from http://www.bea.gov/

What year are you attributing to the end of the great depression?

I was thinking 1939-1940ish. As I remember, that's when unemployment dropped severly

/What is the deal with the federal interest payments? I would have thought it would have been going up every single year.

When population growth + inflation matches the interest rate, the line should be flat on a per capita/ real $ basis. Interestingly, we're seeing 2%-3% population growth, 2%-3% inflation. Interest rates are all extremely low so every dollar we borrow on a 10 year bond, we'll only pay $.30 on that basis. The fed's given us a HUGE tax cut :)

Am I wrong in thinking the fed interest payments include interest paid on the national debt?

Not at all. Inflation + population growth has kept it lower than it appears though. Because of the negative real interest rates , continued population growth and rolling out debt over every 10 years, that line will drop through the floor shortly.

I am going to have to study that phenomena tomorrow when my brain cells have healed themselves (yes they do!)

/Later, dude.


phenomenon. Do doo do do do.
 
2012-04-28 02:11:32 AM

Sabyen91: Delawheredad: Now were getting somewhere. This economy was not formed in a Republican vacuum. The President shares some responsibility.

So which part of the economy is Obama's fault? I admit it hasn't rebounded as well as it could if he had a less Republican economic team.


At least this much is Obama's fault

img.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-28 02:35:52 AM

cameroncrazy1984: TheDumbBlonde: Government spending = Growth in Gross National Product? That's a great model.

Austerity certainly caused the GNP of all those European economies to grow drastically, right?

Oh, I mean fall, sorry. Fall.


There you go with all those facts and logic. What a poindexter.
 
2012-04-28 02:45:48 AM
that chart with the revenues vs. spending really illustrates how dumb the Bush/GOP borrow and spend time was for our country.
 
2012-04-28 07:11:14 AM

Delawheredad: Now were getting somewhere. This economy was not formed in a Republican vacuum. The President shares some responsibility.


True, he didn't kick the teatards in the nuts early or often enough, nor ridicule them as they deserved.
 
2012-04-28 07:21:52 AM

ghare: Delawheredad: Now were getting somewhere. This economy was not formed in a Republican vacuum. The President shares some responsibility.

True, he didn't kick the teatards in the nuts early or often enough, nor ridicule them as they deserved.


That's my biggest complaint too. He really did try his best to appease the other side of the aisle regardless of how many times they spit on his face.

He is/was too much of a nice guy to them and that doesn't fly in DC.

That said, I feel like we're in a much better position now than where we would be if the GOP was in charge.
 
2012-04-28 09:41:02 AM

Mrtraveler01: He is/was too much of a nice guy to them and that doesn't fly in DC.


Not sure if serious.jpg

He is the nicest person eva ("we won").
 
2012-04-28 11:01:35 AM
Is this the thread where we have posters who believe government spending goes into some alternate universe outside of the national economy?
 
2012-04-28 11:11:39 AM

TwoHead: It really is a testament to the power of this nations economy. When you consider how much effort has gone into trying to slow or stop the recovery 2.2% is amazing. Imagine if everyone was working towards success what that number might be.


I'm gonna need a lot more LSD to complete this task
 
2012-04-28 11:15:48 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: He is/was too much of a nice guy to them and that doesn't fly in DC.

Not sure if serious.jpg

He is the nicest person eva ("we won").


The fact that he's even bothered to negotiate with a party whose EXPLICIT GOAL is to make him fail, even at the expense of the country, makes him pretty damn nice.
 
2012-04-28 11:19:48 AM
Cutbacks? What cutbacks?
 
2012-04-28 11:26:06 AM
Krugman tried to warn Obama.

But Obama is completely worthless.
 
2012-04-28 11:31:06 AM

DozeNutz: Cutbacks? What cutbacks?


I see, so if you keep pretending they didn't happen, then... actually I don't know what the endgame would be.

Bob16: Krugman tried to warn Obama.

But Obama is completely worthless.


WAT
 
2012-04-28 11:48:19 AM

Bob16: Krugman tried to warn Obama.

But Obama is completely worthless.


We get it. He's Kenyun Muslin soshulist fascist communist black
 
2012-04-28 12:25:06 PM
Ok. I'm going to get slammed on that, but when don't I? Color me whatever color dumbass is....

Ah, gotta love that self-inflicted persecution complex.

'I say stupid and incorrect bullshiat every post and rightfully get called on it all the time. I'M the REAL victim here!'
 
2012-04-28 12:31:35 PM
The deficit right now is caused entirely by reduced revenue due to the economy and an increase in social spending required by the depressed economy (more food stamps, unemployment, etc). Without those two the deficit right now would be right around nothing. If you eliminated the wars, we'd be in the black most likely. This says there is zero fiscal stimulus right now due to the deficit, despite what teatards believe.

Likewise, state and local spending is significantly off due to the economy and the fact they cannot run deficits in hard times like Uncle Sam. Instead they layoff people and drastically cut services. This is effective austerity for the economy in aggregate. So, overall we have had mild austerity rather than any stimulus. It is amazing things are not significantly worse.

Krugman talks about all of this today (and he has been harping on it for years now) http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/28/four-fiscal-charts/#more-3 0532
 
2012-04-28 12:36:10 PM

LordJiro: tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: He is/was too much of a nice guy to them and that doesn't fly in DC.

Not sure if serious.jpg

He is the nicest person eva ("we won").

The fact that he's even bothered to negotiate with a party whose EXPLICIT GOAL is to make him fail,


No, you are wrong.
It wasn't that the goal was for him to fail. It was recognizing that since he was failing, that he needs to be voted out in 2012.

Or do you think that the goal of the dems in 2004 was not to unseat Bush?
 
2012-04-28 12:40:26 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: It wasn't that the goal was for him to fail.


Link

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

You were saying?
 
2012-04-28 12:46:17 PM

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: It wasn't that the goal was for him to fail.

Link

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

You were saying?


That the goal was not for him to fail.

Why is that so hard to understand? Bush I achieved many things, but was not re-elected. That does not mean everything he did failed.

Even 0bama said something to the effect that he wanted to achieve things even if it meant he was a one-term President.
 
2012-04-28 01:01:12 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: LordJiro: tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: He is/was too much of a nice guy to them and that doesn't fly in DC.

Not sure if serious.jpg

He is the nicest person eva ("we won").

The fact that he's even bothered to negotiate with a party whose EXPLICIT GOAL is to make him fail,

No, you are wrong.
It wasn't that the goal was for him to fail. It was recognizing that since he was failing, that he needs to be voted out in 2012.

Or do you think that the goal of the dems in 2004 was not to unseat Bush?


Funny, because they decided to make him a 'one term President' before he actually did anything, and thus, before he could have possibly failed at it.
 
2012-04-28 01:20:36 PM

LordJiro:

Funny, because they decided to make him a 'one term President' before he actually did anything, and thus, before he could have possibly failed at it.


Funny that you would admit that 0bama did nothing up to October 24, 2010 which is when McConnall made that quote.

See, since you agree that 0bama did nothing up until 10/10, that is exactly why he should be a 1 term president

Besides, you missed what was said in that same interview:
"If President Obama does a Clintonian backflip, if he's willing to meet us halfway on some of the biggest issues, it's not inappropriate for us to do business with him."
 
2012-04-28 01:25:18 PM

meat0918: Propain_az: meat0918: Propain_az: Weaver95: Propain_az: I have a delima. I want to purchase a new MacBook Pro (15" matte screen), but I can only afford it if I cut my other spending (food, rent, etc. and stuff for kid). I'm thinking I should apply for government assistance for food and rent. THen I can get the laptop. Is that a good idea? I think it is.

you just described how the oil industry runs it business....

Well, I don't know about that, but I do know that I want this laptop. I think I'm going to do it, that is get on a couple of assistance programs.

Good luck.

You need to be destitute for the rent assistance, if you're lucky. Even having just $300 in income is too much for TANF for a family of 3 with one on the way. Believe me, I know this from experience.

You might want to quit your job, just to pad your numbers, but you might, depending on income, still qualify for $10 or $20 in Food stamps, maybe even $100-$200. Even though Food stamps usage has gone up, many families that qualify have not applied for assistance.

I'll tell you, living in fear of being evicted if I missed rent, having the heat turned off, barely making the electric, barely affording gas, those sweet government assistance programs kept me living high on the hog with the latest in hand me down 19" tube TV with the knobs for channel changers technology, and an old PS2, no cable TV, just internet so I could continue to apply for work and keep my programming skills up on my 5 year old computer. Oh, and I had a fridge that was lovingly provided by my apartment complex.

You ignorant jackass.

It got better at least. After the hard times, working multiple shiatty jobs at once, I finally landed a decent job back in 2005. My last raise pushed me just above 60K.

Look I just want a MacBook. Sorry you had a hard road. Nice name calling also.

You're strawmanning pretty hard there. So when is Macbook/iPad Welfare King gonna become the new Cadillac Welfare Queen?

I take serious of ...


Already is a Cadillac Welfare Queen. Her name is Anne Romney.
 
2012-04-28 01:34:22 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: LordJiro:

Funny, because they decided to make him a 'one term President' before he actually did anything, and thus, before he could have possibly failed at it.

Funny that you would admit that 0bama did nothing up to October 24, 2010 which is when McConnall made that quote.

See, since you agree that 0bama did nothing up until 10/10, that is exactly why he should be a 1 term president

Besides, you missed what was said in that same interview:
"If President Obama does a Clintonian backflip, if he's willing to meet us halfway on some of the biggest issues, it's not inappropriate for us to do business with him."


Except they decided to sabotage his Presidency as soon as he was inaugurated.

The Republicans know that the only way Obama will be a one-term President is if the economy stops improving. They already got our credit downgraded by trying to force a default., and now this. At worst, Republicans are traitors who'd sacrifice the country's health for political gain. At best, they're just idiots, mindlessly following the same Laffer Curve, Reaganomic bullshiat that skullfarked our middle class in the first place.
 
2012-04-28 01:45:50 PM

Serious Black: The slowdown in GDP growth is obviously because we didn't cut government spending enough. If we cut a humongous amount of spending by, say, abolishing food stamps and Medicaid, I guarantee that GDP would grow by at least 10,000% the following quarter.


Not-Serious Black, by your sarcasm I take it you honestly think GDP is a direct reflection of government bureaucracy and spending and welfare. We are spending an incredible amount of borrowed tax dollars now, perhaps more than we have ever been before, so I guess we just spend some more borrowed money and create some more bureaus we would all be economic utopia?

Sheesh. Such amazing logic.
 
2012-04-28 01:55:20 PM

Deftoons: Serious Black: The slowdown in GDP growth is obviously because we didn't cut government spending enough. If we cut a humongous amount of spending by, say, abolishing food stamps and Medicaid, I guarantee that GDP would grow by at least 10,000% the following quarter.

Not-Serious Black, by your sarcasm I take it you honestly think GDP is a direct reflection of government bureaucracy and spending and welfare. We are spending an incredible amount of borrowed tax dollars now, perhaps more than we have ever been before, so I guess we just spend some more borrowed money and create some more bureaus we would all be economic utopia?

Sheesh. Such amazing logic.


How about we raise taxes (particularly on the people who can afford a hike, get the most benefit out of the infrastructure paid for by taxes, and pay less, percentagewise, in the first and cut military spending to reasonable levels (and stop buying shiat we don't want or need as handouts to contractors)?
 
2012-04-28 01:57:05 PM

Deftoons: GDP is a direct reflection of government bureaucracy and spending and welfare


Well government spending is part of the equation:

upload.wikimedia.org

C=Consumer Spending
I=Investiment
G=Government spending
X=Exports
M=Imports
 
2012-04-28 01:58:40 PM

Sum Dum Gai: World War II basically kickstarted our economy by paying one person to make a bomb and another to blow it up, and it was a very successful economic stimulus.

Laborers are far, far better at stimulating the economy compared to investors


No.

Nothing is kickstarted by paying one person to make a bomb and another person to drop the bomb on a city. At the end of the day, you've paid two people to perform and task and received absolutely no asset in return. it was necessary to do in wartime for the protection of the country but it doesn't stimulate the economy. Work is up but production is still zero

You're falling victim to a fallacy that afflicts most. The idea that a dollar in a bank is static and that a dollar in a laborer's pocket will move and so it is better to transfer the wealth. When the investor or the venture capitalist holds money in a bank, that is then leveraged to make loans for business, payroll, homes, cars or equipment. In fact, a dollar in a bank can be responsibly leveraged 10:1 so in the short term, it is better that investors have the money than a laborer.

We are slowly transitioning to a service economy on the fallacy that consumption is the key to economic prosperity and this is patently false. Welath is measured in the value of assets and savings, not the amount of consumption or the kind of busybody work schemes
 
2012-04-28 02:03:47 PM

cruci fiction: Krugman talks about all of this today (and he has been harping on it for years now) http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/28/four-fiscal-charts/#more-3 0532


Krugman said that 9/11 would stimulate the economy in NYC because building and construction services would be in higher demand. I dont care how many nobel prizes he has claimed, that statement alone is borderline retarded.
 
2012-04-28 02:05:21 PM

o5iiawah: cruci fiction: Krugman talks about all of this today (and he has been harping on it for years now) http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/28/four-fiscal-charts/#more-3 0532

Krugman said that 9/11 would stimulate the economy in NYC because building and construction services would be in higher demand. I dont care how many nobel prizes he has claimed, that statement alone is borderline retarded.


Although it's pretty insensitive. It's not that far from the truth.
 
Displayed 50 of 269 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report