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.

(NBC News)   Media: Economy shrank by 0.1 percent last quarter. GOP: MUAHAHA. Media: Due to government spending cuts   (nbcnews.com) divider line 537
    More: Obvious, GOP, Conference Board  
•       •       •

1089 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Jan 2013 at 11:03 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-30 09:09:22 AM
You mean that severe decreases in government spending hurt the economy?  Why didn't anyone tell us this?

/snark
 
2013-01-30 09:16:54 AM

Bottom line on GDP report: Reflects modest private sector recovery, helped by housing, hurt by continued gov't spending cuts.

- Zachary A. Goldfarb (@Goldfarb) January 30, 2013
 
2013-01-30 09:17:46 AM
It's almost as though the government can create jobs...
 
2013-01-30 09:22:48 AM

ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: It's almost as though the government can create jobs...


But only if the House approves the funding.
 
2013-01-30 09:52:41 AM
Defense spending cuts in particular.
 
2013-01-30 09:54:09 AM
Err uh, sorry I forgot.

HURR DURR OBUMMER IS KILLING AMERICA ONE INDUSTRY AT A TIME AND HATES THE MILITARY DURR
 
2013-01-30 09:59:30 AM
why do you think the GOP suddenly cared about deficits in 2009? they successfully got the media to hype deficits in order to force the obama administration to slash spending. and why would they do that? (after all, their guy spent like a drunken sailor on shore leave). because the fastest way to derail an economic recovery is to cut government spending.

this was their plan, literally from day one. and when that didn't work fast enough, they held the economy hostage over the debt ceiling in 2011, forcing a credit downgrade, which tanked the markets and stalled the recovery.

even with all that, they still had their asses handed to them the following november.
 
2013-01-30 10:02:40 AM
 
2013-01-30 10:05:27 AM
Thanks, Obama!
 
2013-01-30 10:29:57 AM
More on defense spending. Link
 
2013-01-30 10:32:16 AM
I would like to see a conservative analysis of this. Shouldn't they be thrilled about this report? Private sector gains, government shrinking. Is this not exactly what they claim to want?
 
2013-01-30 10:36:22 AM
It shrank because spending wasn't cut enough.  You want the economy to recover?  Give business owners a guarantee that the government will take its hands from around the neck of the private markets.

/that's the spin right there
 
2013-01-30 10:48:02 AM

ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: It's almost as though the government can create jobs...


Government doesn't create jobs, it just creates work that people get paid for.
 
2013-01-30 10:51:12 AM
Obama is that incompetent?  Regardless of what this usurper in chief does, it still doesn't work.
 
2013-01-30 10:55:56 AM
News flash to liberals: Government spending does not actually drive an economy
 
2013-01-30 11:04:18 AM

LordZorch: News flash to liberals: Government spending does not actually drive an economy


It appears the economy disagrees with you.
 
2013-01-30 11:04:34 AM
Uh, that's obviously not true. Cutting government spending will always improve the economy, just like downsizing a business.
 
2013-01-30 11:05:15 AM
 
2013-01-30 11:05:24 AM
It's like cutting State Department funding. Everybody cheers at first, but the first time somebody gets hurt because of it, the blame immediately shifts to the first black guy you can find.
 
2013-01-30 11:05:26 AM

Mentat: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: It's almost as though the government can create jobs...

Government doesn't create jobs, it just creates work that people get paid for.


Well, that's true, except for the jobs it does create.
 
2013-01-30 11:05:31 AM

LordZorch: News flash to liberals: Government spending does not actually drive an economy


It appears the linked article disagrees with you.
 
2013-01-30 11:05:41 AM

LordZorch: News flash to liberals: Government spending does not actually drive an economy


Who said it does? I'll wait.

Government spending is part of the economy.
 
2013-01-30 11:06:57 AM

LordZorch: News flash to liberals: Government spending does not actually drive an economy


Its like Republicans dont live in reality like the rest of us.
 
2013-01-30 11:06:59 AM
Where's the REAL Job Growth?

i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-30 11:08:54 AM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: You mean that severe decreases in government spending hurt the economy?  Why didn't anyone tell us this?

/snark


What severe decreases in spending? Federal spending is up 30% since 2009. State and local around even. What severe decreases?

Anyone else see the fallacy of including debt spending as part of gdp? Including it in current gdp doesn't acknowledge the negative future affects.
 
2013-01-30 11:09:26 AM
I don't know how often I'm going to have to explain this:

If the government spends money, financed via debt, on something that isn't productive, it will provide a temporary boom. When the government is forced to cut that program due to financial constraints, and raise taxes elsewhere to pay for the debt accrued, there will be a bust.

One just needs to look at a military base to understand why this is. Borrow money, build a military base. The base brings tons of jobs. Base becomes too expensive, and you need to close the base. Lose all of those jobs. Raise taxes elsewhere results in a drop in demand.

Simple concept, guys.
 
2013-01-30 11:10:06 AM

GiantRex: Where's the REAL Job Growth?

[i.imgur.com image 216x122]


My new favorite:

www.choosepp.net
 
2013-01-30 11:10:13 AM

MattStafford: I don't know how often I'm going to have to explain this:

If the government spends money, financed via debt, on something that isn't productive, it will provide a temporary boom. When the government is forced to cut that program due to financial constraints, and raise taxes elsewhere to pay for the debt accrued, there will be a bust.

One just needs to look at a military base to understand why this is. Borrow money, build a military base. The base brings tons of jobs. Base becomes too expensive, and you need to close the base. Lose all of those jobs. Raise taxes elsewhere results in a drop in demand.

Simple concept, guys.


Oh my god. You're doing it again.
 
2013-01-30 11:10:23 AM
Friend of mine is a civilian employee of the Air Force. Voted for Romney because ZOMGSPENDING. Now he's looking at furloughs, mad at Obama.

At the same time, he tells me that between him & another guy, there's maybe a day and a half of work in a given week.

I don't even.
 
2013-01-30 11:10:31 AM

CPennypacker: LordZorch: News flash to liberals: Government spending does not actually drive an economy

Who said it does? I'll wait.

Government spending is part of the economy.


John Maynard Keynes - "Keynesians therefore advocate an active stabilization policy to reduce the amplitude of the business cycle, which they rank among the most serious of economic problems. According to the theory, government spending can be used to increase aggregate demand, thus increasing economic activity, reducing unemployment and deflation."
 
2013-01-30 11:11:06 AM

DamnYankees: I would like to see a conservative analysis of this. Shouldn't they be thrilled about this report? Private sector gains, government shrinking. Is this not exactly what they claim to want?


Shouldn't liberals be thrilled with this report? Decrease in pentagon spending?
 
2013-01-30 11:11:29 AM

MattStafford: I don't know how often I'm going to have to explain this:

If the government spends money, financed via debt, on something that isn't productive, it will provide a temporary boom. When the government is forced to cut that program due to financial constraints, and raise taxes elsewhere to pay for the debt accrued, there will be a bust.

One just needs to look at a military base to understand why this is. Borrow money, build a military base. The base brings tons of jobs. Base becomes too expensive, and you need to close the base. Lose all of those jobs. Raise taxes elsewhere results in a drop in demand.

Simple concept, guys.


no it's the GOP yo.
 
2013-01-30 11:11:36 AM

FlashHarry: why do you think the GOP suddenly cared about deficits in 2009? they successfully got the media to hype deficits in order to force the obama administration to slash spending. and why would they do that? (after all, their guy spent like a drunken sailor on shore leave). because the fastest way to derail an economic recovery is to cut government spending.

this was their plan, literally from day one. and when that didn't work fast enough, they held the economy hostage over the debt ceiling in 2011, forcing a credit downgrade, which tanked the markets and stalled the recovery.

even with all that, they still had their asses handed to them the following november.


I love this ignorant meme of not caring about debts since it was uttered by one conservative when debt was below 70% of gdp which is the inflection point many economists put economic downturn at.

Also again. What cut in spending? Are liberals honestly ignorany to facts?
 
2013-01-30 11:11:40 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: DamnYankees: I would like to see a conservative analysis of this. Shouldn't they be thrilled about this report? Private sector gains, government shrinking. Is this not exactly what they claim to want?

Shouldn't liberals be thrilled with this report? Decrease in pentagon spending?


I'm actually ok with it.
 
2013-01-30 11:11:45 AM

MattStafford: I don't know how often I'm going to have to explain this:

If the government spends money, financed via debt, on something that isn't productive, it will provide a temporary boom. When the government is forced to cut that program due to financial constraints, and raise taxes elsewhere to pay for the debt accrued, there will be a bust.

One just needs to look at a military base to understand why this is. Borrow money, build a military base. The base brings tons of jobs. Base becomes too expensive, and you need to close the base. Lose all of those jobs. Raise taxes elsewhere results in a drop in demand.

Simple concept, guys.


Oh good, this thread wasn't dumb enough yet.
 
2013-01-30 11:11:54 AM
Republican response:  These defense spending cuts cost jobs.  The only way to solve this problem is to cut government jobs!  Just not defense jobs.
 
2013-01-30 11:12:00 AM

DamnYankees: Oh my god. You're doing it again.


Every damn thread. Tiresome.
 
2013-01-30 11:13:01 AM

DamnYankees: Oh my god. You're doing it again.


Presenting completely obvious facts? Yeah, guilty as charged.
 
2013-01-30 11:13:39 AM

Im_Gumby: CPennypacker: LordZorch: News flash to liberals: Government spending does not actually drive an economy

Who said it does? I'll wait.

Government spending is part of the economy.

John Maynard Keynes - "Keynesians therefore advocate an active stabilization policy to reduce the amplitude of the business cycle, which they rank among the most serious of economic problems. According to the theory, government spending can be used to increase aggregate demand, thus increasing economic activity, reducing unemployment and deflation."


I don't disagree. But its kind of a straw man to act like we all think the entire economy runs on government spending.
 
2013-01-30 11:14:17 AM
... is defense spending supposed to be good or bad nowadays?  I'm not up on the current spin.

/Yes, even the DoD overspends.  Try to contain your surprise.
 
2013-01-30 11:15:05 AM

CPennypacker: Oh good, this thread wasn't dumb enough yet.


What is dumb about what I said? It isn't a difficult farking concept. Just think about what happens when the government borrows money to build a military base, and then is eventually forced to close it and raise taxes.
 
2013-01-30 11:16:09 AM

MattStafford: CPennypacker: Oh good, this thread wasn't dumb enough yet.

What is dumb about what I said?


We spent a whole thread for the past few days explaining it to you. Just re-read that and don't ruin this thread also.
 
2013-01-30 11:17:10 AM

MattStafford: I don't know how often I'm going to have to explain this:

If the government spends money, financed via debt, on something that isn't productive, it will provide a temporary boom. When the government is forced to cut that program due to financial constraints, and raise taxes elsewhere to pay for the debt accrued, there will be a bust.


I agree but where are you going with this? We want and need the temporary boom. That's actually the goal, that's what we are striving for coming out of a depression - a government propped artificial boom to keep people employed so they can survive and so the economy can grow. The government then starts cutting programs as the economy recovers - those people who were working on your base can now work for private companies. Except instead of building bases, you invest in infrastructure to help the economy grow faster.

MattStafford: Simple concept, guys.


Simple concept dude.
 
2013-01-30 11:17:20 AM

MattStafford: CPennypacker: Oh good, this thread wasn't dumb enough yet.

What is dumb about what I said? It isn't a difficult farking concept. Just think about what happens when the government borrows money to build a military base, and then is eventually forced to close it and raise taxes.


And I'm sure all of this investment and jobs doesn't occur in the slightest when government jobs other than defense are cut.
 
2013-01-30 11:18:41 AM

MattStafford: I don't know how often I'm going to have to explain this:

If the government spends money, financed via debt, on something that isn't productive, it will provide a temporary boom. When the government is forced to cut that program due to financial constraints, and raise taxes elsewhere to pay for the debt accrued, there will be a bust.

One just needs to look at a military base to understand why this is. Borrow money, build a military base. The base brings tons of jobs. Base becomes too expensive, and you need to close the base. Lose all of those jobs. Raise taxes elsewhere results in a drop in demand.

Simple concept, guys.


It doesnt necessarily end in a 'bust', but rather can be a perpetual small drain to the economy. Our trillion dollar deficits are providing a boost now, but we'll be paying interest on it forever (ruling out the unlikely scenario that actually pay down our debt).

The question is whether the temporary boost now is worth the long term cost. Is building the addiotional base or extending unemployment benefits worth the cost of servicing the additional debt needed to finance these things?

The answer differs based on the type of spending and the point in the business cycle. Deficits were more justified in 2009 than they are now, but they're more justified now than they were in 2005.
 
2013-01-30 11:19:06 AM

EyeballKid: It's like cutting State Department funding. Everybody cheers at first, but the first time somebody gets hurt because of it, the blame immediately shifts to the first black guy you can find.


State funding on security was at record levels. It had increases 20% over 4 years. Even the director in charge of security said funding was not an issue on the congressional stand. But what do facts matter to liberals.
 
2013-01-30 11:19:08 AM

CPennypacker: Im_Gumby: CPennypacker: LordZorch: News flash to liberals: Government spending does not actually drive an economy

Who said it does? I'll wait.

Government spending is part of the economy.

John Maynard Keynes - "Keynesians therefore advocate an active stabilization policy to reduce the amplitude of the business cycle, which they rank among the most serious of economic problems. According to the theory, government spending can be used to increase aggregate demand, thus increasing economic activity, reducing unemployment and deflation."

I don't disagree. But its kind of a straw man to act like we all think the entire economy runs on government spending.


Zorch is wrong. Clearly the government CAN drive an economy as evidenced in countless areas. The entire economy most likely couldn't run an entire economy (see failures of commie/socialist countries), but only they think it could/should. Libs don't.
 
2013-01-30 11:19:32 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: DamnYankees: I would like to see a conservative analysis of this. Shouldn't they be thrilled about this report? Private sector gains, government shrinking. Is this not exactly what they claim to want?

Shouldn't liberals be thrilled with this report? Decrease in pentagon spending?


Thrilled isn't the right word. As a libbo, I'm thrilled we decreased pentagon spending. I'm not thrilled it cost us economic growth. I would have preferred to see some of the savings instead spent on other things like infrastructure and alternative energy sources to keep the economy growing.
 
2013-01-30 11:19:40 AM
So Commerce Department == Media?
 
2013-01-30 11:19:51 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: It doesnt necessarily end in a 'bust', but rather can be a perpetual small drain to the economy. Our trillion dollar deficits are providing a boost now, but we'll be paying interest on it forever (ruling out the unlikely scenario that actually pay down our debt).

The question is whether the temporary boost now is worth the long term cost. Is building the addiotional base or extending unemployment benefits worth the cost of servicing the additional debt needed to finance these things?

The answer differs based on the type of spending and the point in the business cycle. Deficits were more justified in 2009 than they are now, but they're more justified now than they were in 2005.


Wow - sanity. Well said.
 
Displayed 50 of 537 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report