Obama: We Can't Just Cut Way to Prosperity...

[Wacky Quacky]

My you've lived a sheltered life.

Cash for Clunkers raised the price of used cars.

My suggestion is hang onto that new more fuel-efficient car and get rid of your PC. Then we won't have to read your silly posts.

I didn't suggest cash for clunkers. Where the hell did you get that idea?

And sheltered? Hardly. There are more than enough free things to do, and free services to use. Your local library is an fantastic place to use the internet or rent movies.

I suggest investing in an English Comp course while you're at it.

 

[mudwhistle]

I didn't suggest cash for clunkers. Where the hell did you get that idea?

And sheltered? Hardly. There are more than enough free things to do, and free services to use. Your local library is an fantastic place to use the internet or rent movies.

I suggest investing in an English Comp course while you're at it.

Learn how to read and slow down before you make a bloody fool of yourself.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually, yes we can. It worked in the 1920s. it will work now.

Hmm--1920's--- I assume you meant the 1930's? No it didn't work. You can read a book called the Forgotten Man--which will tell you that we got little spurts of employment gains during the 1930's with all the road and bridge work. But as soon as those projects were completed--those jobs were gone--and unemployment rose again. The ONLY thing that brought us out of the great depression was WW2.

Nope. I meant the 1920s. Harding, followed by Coolidge, cut spending and cut taxes and escaped the Depression of 1920 in a very short period of time which was much deeper than the 1929 Depression.

Hoover changed that policy, FDR continued Hoovers policy of government intervention. They had a 12 year depression.

Coincidence? Is it a coincidence that government intervention now is prolonging the recession now?

Absolutely not. History repearts itself.

Defense spending went from 14% of GDP in WWI to 1.25% of GDP in the early 20's, explaining most of the spending cuts you refer to.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hmm--1920's--- I assume you meant the 1930's? No it didn't work. You can read a book called the Forgotten Man--which will tell you that we got little spurts of employment gains during the 1930's with all the road and bridge work. But as soon as those projects were completed--those jobs were gone--and unemployment rose again. The ONLY thing that brought us out of the great depression was WW2.

Nope. I meant the 1920s. Harding, followed by Coolidge, cut spending and cut taxes and escaped the Depression of 1920 in a very short period of time which was much deeper than the 1929 Depression.

Hoover changed that policy, FDR continued Hoovers policy of government intervention. They had a 12 year depression.

Coincidence? Is it a coincidence that government intervention now is prolonging the recession now?

Absolutely not. History repearts itself.

Defense spending went from 14% of GDP in WWI to 1.25% of GDP in the early 20's, explaining most of the spending cuts you refer to.

So cutting government spending works.

Thank you

 

[Avatar4321]

Defense spending went from 14% of GDP in WWI to 1.25% of GDP in the early 20's, explaining most of the spending cuts you refer to.

So?

 

[Mustang]

Prosperity for whom? Are you talking about Prosperity for the Government or Prosperity for the People because the way you plan on doing it your plan does not include the People.

News Headlines

I never cease to be amazed at how uninformed conservatives are about economics (even basic economics).

If and when our gov't cuts hundreds of billions of dollars out of the budget, it's going to lead to massive layoffs of gov't workers and dramatic cuts to ALL kinds of programs that actually pump real dollars into the state and local economies which also leads to more spending as those real dollars are spent and respent by individuals and businesses.

Now, what kind of effect on the overall unemployment rate do people think will result from laying off hundreds of thousands of federal, state, and local gov't workers?

So, at a time of anemic growth and high unemployment, conservatives want to take billions of dollars out of the economy and lay off hundreds of thousands of gov't workers? That may be a solution to the deficit problem, but it is absolutely NOT a solution to the economic and unemployment problem. It will make both of those things worse in the short term. Do you suppose that Republicans KNOW that, and want to do exactly that (make the economy and the unemployment problem worse) right before an election?

 

[EriktheRed]

Prosperity for whom? Are you talking about Prosperity for the Government or Prosperity for the People because the way you plan on doing it your plan does not include the People.

News Headlines

I never cease to be amazed at how uninformed conservatives are about economics (even basic economics).

If and when our gov't cuts hundreds of billions of dollars out of the budget, it's going to lead to massive layoffs of gov't workers and dramatic cuts to ALL kinds of programs that actually pump real dollars into the state and local economies which also leads to more spending as those real dollars are spent and respent by individuals and businesses.

Now, what kind of effect on the overall unemployment rate do people think will result from laying off hundreds of thousands of federal, state, and local gov't workers?

So, at a time of anemic growth and high unemployment, conservatives want to take billions of dollars out of the economy and lay off hundreds of thousands of gov't workers? That may be a solution to the deficit problem, but it is absolutely NOT a solution to the economic and unemployment problem. It will make both of those things worse in the short term. Do you suppose that Republicans KNOW that, and want to do exactly that (make the economy and the unemployment problem worse) right before an election?

Well damn, Mustang, what a question. It's pretty obvious these GOP assholes want to deliberately tank the economy further so they can do better in November of 2012. Look at their current crop of candidates. They very clearly need all the help they can get.

 

[Mustang]

Prosperity for whom? Are you talking about Prosperity for the Government or Prosperity for the People because the way you plan on doing it your plan does not include the People.

News Headlines

I never cease to be amazed at how uninformed conservatives are about economics (even basic economics).

If and when our gov't cuts hundreds of billions of dollars out of the budget, it's going to lead to massive layoffs of gov't workers and dramatic cuts to ALL kinds of programs that actually pump real dollars into the state and local economies which also leads to more spending as those real dollars are spent and respent by individuals and businesses.

Now, what kind of effect on the overall unemployment rate do people think will result from laying off hundreds of thousands of federal, state, and local gov't workers?

So, at a time of anemic growth and high unemployment, conservatives want to take billions of dollars out of the economy and lay off hundreds of thousands of gov't workers? That may be a solution to the deficit problem, but it is absolutely NOT a solution to the economic and unemployment problem. It will make both of those things worse in the short term. Do you suppose that Republicans KNOW that, and want to do exactly that (make the economy and the unemployment problem worse) right before an election?

Well damn, Mustang, what a question. It's pretty obvious these GOP assholes want to deliberately tank the economy further so they can do better in November of 2012. Look at their current crop of candidates. They very clearly need all the help they can get.

Remember Boehner's pledge when the Republicans took over the House? He said his first order of business was jobs. I think he actually said jobs three times. Since the Republicans have taken power, have you seen or heard about any jobs legislation? Now you know why.

Well, it's one thing to not work toward trying to help create jobs in the hope that Obama might pay a political price for a slow recovery. It's quite another thing to actively TRY to cause the unemployment rate to rise and the recovery to slow down in order to regain power.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The entire US Department of Education should be unemployed.

So what if we cut even 400,000 people from the Federal government, that's how many new filings for UE there are in American in an average Obama "ATM kicked my economy's ass" month

 

[NYcarbineer]

Defense spending went from 14% of GDP in WWI to 1.25% of GDP in the early 20's, explaining most of the spending cuts you refer to.

So?

You wanted to analogize the 2 situations to make a point, so if massive cuts in defense spending back then were followed by economic prosperity,

there's your analogy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Defense spending went from 14% of GDP in WWI to 1.25% of GDP in the early 20's, explaining most of the spending cuts you refer to.

So?

You wanted to analogize the 2 situations to make a point, so if massive cuts in defense spending back then were followed by economic prosperity,

there's your analogy.

Right. Keynesian Economics never worked and cutting government spending rules.

Again, thank you

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nope. I meant the 1920s. Harding, followed by Coolidge, cut spending and cut taxes and escaped the Depression of 1920 in a very short period of time which was much deeper than the 1929 Depression.

Hoover changed that policy, FDR continued Hoovers policy of government intervention. They had a 12 year depression.

Coincidence? Is it a coincidence that government intervention now is prolonging the recession now?

Absolutely not. History repearts itself.

Defense spending went from 14% of GDP in WWI to 1.25% of GDP in the early 20's, explaining most of the spending cuts you refer to.

So cutting government spending works.

Thank you

The 2 periods aren't comparable. Taxes were lowered in the 20's to account for the end of the wartime spending, when taxes had been raised. During Bush, our taxes were lowered just before one war and lowered further just after the second one started,

and irrational ass-backwards fiscal policy that could only be exacerbated by lowering taxes further.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So?

You wanted to analogize the 2 situations to make a point, so if massive cuts in defense spending back then were followed by economic prosperity,

there's your analogy.

Right. Keynesian Economics never worked and cutting government spending rules.

Again, thank you

Frank, not long ago, Sikorsky Helicopter, down the road from me, announced layoffs of about 400 workers largely due to cutbacks in US defense spending.

Tell us where that cutting of government spending creates 400 new jobs for those guys. And that would be just to get back to even, jobwise, let alone create net new jobs.

Explain that to us in detail.

(btw, I'm not arguing that the government shouldn't have cut that spending if we don't need it, I just want you to explain to us how and where, SPECIFICALLY, that creates new jobs).

 

[oreo]

Actually, yes we can. It worked in the 1920s. it will work now.

Hmm--1920's--- I assume you meant the 1930's? No it didn't work. You can read a book called the Forgotten Man--which will tell you that we got little spurts of employment gains during the 1930's with all the road and bridge work. But as soon as those projects were completed--those jobs were gone--and unemployment rose again. The ONLY thing that brought us out of the great depression was WW2.

No, the depression that was 1919ish to 1921ish or something like that... Harding cut like a mother fucker and it just went away like predicted. Hoover spent in 1930's + and depend the depression and FDR took many of Hoovers ideas and destroyed a good ten years of tens of millions of peoples lives while never managing to get the country out of the depression. Oddly many people try and find ways to not give credit to Hrading and Coolidge while lying their credibility away trying to make FDR look like the savvier that based on history and facts, he never was.

Depression of 1920

So now you're blaming FDR's spending on Hoover-- Nice try.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Prosperity for whom? Are you talking about Prosperity for the Government or Prosperity for the People because the way you plan on doing it your plan does not include the People.

News Headlines

I never cease to be amazed at how uninformed conservatives are about economics (even basic economics).

If and when our gov't cuts hundreds of billions of dollars out of the budget, it's going to lead to massive layoffs of gov't workers and dramatic cuts to ALL kinds of programs that actually pump real dollars into the state and local economies which also leads to more spending as those real dollars are spent and respent by individuals and businesses.

Now, what kind of effect on the overall unemployment rate do people think will result from laying off hundreds of thousands of federal, state, and local gov't workers?

So, at a time of anemic growth and high unemployment, conservatives want to take billions of dollars out of the economy and lay off hundreds of thousands of gov't workers? That may be a solution to the deficit problem, but it is absolutely NOT a solution to the economic and unemployment problem. It will make both of those things worse in the short term. Do you suppose that Republicans KNOW that, and want to do exactly that (make the economy and the unemployment problem worse) right before an election?

Right, because there's not a single dollar to be saved by cutting waste, fraud, abuse, earmarks, representative's pay and benefits, ending the wars, closing foreign military bases, and cutting some foreign aid.

Also, I loathe the thought of too many people working for the government. If too many people become dependent on the government for a job, then they wouldn't dare go against their government for fear of losing their job. Scary thought.

 

[Mustang]

Prosperity for whom? Are you talking about Prosperity for the Government or Prosperity for the People because the way you plan on doing it your plan does not include the People.

News Headlines

I never cease to be amazed at how uninformed conservatives are about economics (even basic economics).

If and when our gov't cuts hundreds of billions of dollars out of the budget, it's going to lead to massive layoffs of gov't workers and dramatic cuts to ALL kinds of programs that actually pump real dollars into the state and local economies which also leads to more spending as those real dollars are spent and respent by individuals and businesses.

Now, what kind of effect on the overall unemployment rate do people think will result from laying off hundreds of thousands of federal, state, and local gov't workers?

So, at a time of anemic growth and high unemployment, conservatives want to take billions of dollars out of the economy and lay off hundreds of thousands of gov't workers? That may be a solution to the deficit problem, but it is absolutely NOT a solution to the economic and unemployment problem. It will make both of those things worse in the short term. Do you suppose that Republicans KNOW that, and want to do exactly that (make the economy and the unemployment problem worse) right before an election?

Right, because there's not a single dollar to be saved by cutting waste, fraud, abuse, earmarks, representative's pay and benefits, ending the wars, closing foreign military bases, and cutting some foreign aid.

Also, I loathe the thought of too many people working for the government. If too many people become dependent on the government for a job, then they wouldn't dare go against their government for fear of losing their job. Scary thought.

Cutting waste (it's somewhat subject as to what constitutes waste) only gets you so far. Cutting fraud and abuse may actually require the gov't to hire MORE federal workers (as in trying to catch and prosecute people who engage in Medicare fraud). Earmarks don't actually amount to very much money relative to the entire budget. Neither does reps' pay. Ending the wars would make a dent. So would scaling back on all our military bases abroad. Of course, that might endanger some of our alliances, such as driving Japan into a closer alliance with China (as an example).

There actually IS such a thing as the law of unintended consequences when it comes to slashing the budget to the bone and laying off hundreds of thousands of gov't workers.

So, it's silly to think that cutting billions of dollars out of the federal budget is just going to somehow painlessly solve problems. Unemployment will go up. Schools will do a poorer job of educating kids (at a time when we're hard pressed to compete with other nations whose students are already outperforming ours).

Roads will be worse. Police protection will slip, likely leading to an increase of crime that will go unpunished because there just aren't enough law enforcement officers to handle the load.

Poverty, hunger, and homelessness will certainly increase. And of course, whatever services the average American relies on (without giving it that much thought) will become considerably less reliable and might even end completely. College tuition will skyrocket and be out of reach for average Americans. Public transportation costs will go way up while the availability of that transportation will diminish. Public health will be in greater jeopardy as food inspections decrease in frequency.

This is just a minor example of what to expect since cutting billions of dollars from the budget WILL have a ripple effect on both services and the economy.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I never cease to be amazed at how uninformed conservatives are about economics (even basic economics).

If and when our gov't cuts hundreds of billions of dollars out of the budget, it's going to lead to massive layoffs of gov't workers and dramatic cuts to ALL kinds of programs that actually pump real dollars into the state and local economies which also leads to more spending as those real dollars are spent and respent by individuals and businesses.

Now, what kind of effect on the overall unemployment rate do people think will result from laying off hundreds of thousands of federal, state, and local gov't workers?

So, at a time of anemic growth and high unemployment, conservatives want to take billions of dollars out of the economy and lay off hundreds of thousands of gov't workers? That may be a solution to the deficit problem, but it is absolutely NOT a solution to the economic and unemployment problem. It will make both of those things worse in the short term. Do you suppose that Republicans KNOW that, and want to do exactly that (make the economy and the unemployment problem worse) right before an election?

Right, because there's not a single dollar to be saved by cutting waste, fraud, abuse, earmarks, representative's pay and benefits, ending the wars, closing foreign military bases, and cutting some foreign aid.

Also, I loathe the thought of too many people working for the government. If too many people become dependent on the government for a job, then they wouldn't dare go against their government for fear of losing their job. Scary thought.

Cutting waste (it's somewhat subject as to what constitutes waste) only gets you so far. Cutting fraud and abuse may actually require the gov't to hire MORE federal workers (as in trying to catch and prosecute people who engage in Medicare fraud). Earmarks don't actually amount to very much money relative to the entire budget. Neither does reps' pay. Ending the wars would make a dent. So would scaling back on all our military bases abroad. Of course, that might endanger some of our alliances, such as driving Japan into a closer alliance with China (as an example).

There actually IS such a thing as the law of unintended consequences when it comes to slashing the budget to the bone and laying off hundreds of thousands of gov't workers.

So, it's silly to think that cutting billions of dollars out of the federal budget is just going to somehow painlessly solve problems. Unemployment will go up. Schools will do a poorer job of educating kids (at a time when we're hard pressed to compete with other nations whose students are already outperforming ours).

Roads will be worse. Police protection will slip, likely leading to an increase of crime that will go unpunished because there just aren't enough law enforcement officers to handle the load.

Poverty, hunger, and homelessness will certainly increase. And of course, whatever services the average American relies on (without giving it that much thought) will become considerably less reliable and might even end completely. College tuition will skyrocket and be out of reach for average Americans. Public transportation costs will go way up while the availability of that transportation will diminish. Public health will be in greater jeopardy as food inspections decrease in frequency.

This is just a minor example of what to expect since cutting billions of dollars from the budget WILL have a ripple effect on both services and the economy.

Then so be it.

 

[Mustang]

Right, because there's not a single dollar to be saved by cutting waste, fraud, abuse, earmarks, representative's pay and benefits, ending the wars, closing foreign military bases, and cutting some foreign aid.

Also, I loathe the thought of too many people working for the government. If too many people become dependent on the government for a job, then they wouldn't dare go against their government for fear of losing their job. Scary thought.

Cutting waste (it's somewhat subject as to what constitutes waste) only gets you so far. Cutting fraud and abuse may actually require the gov't to hire MORE federal workers (as in trying to catch and prosecute people who engage in Medicare fraud). Earmarks don't actually amount to very much money relative to the entire budget. Neither does reps' pay. Ending the wars would make a dent. So would scaling back on all our military bases abroad. Of course, that might endanger some of our alliances, such as driving Japan into a closer alliance with China (as an example).

There actually IS such a thing as the law of unintended consequences when it comes to slashing the budget to the bone and laying off hundreds of thousands of gov't workers.

So, it's silly to think that cutting billions of dollars out of the federal budget is just going to somehow painlessly solve problems. Unemployment will go up. Schools will do a poorer job of educating kids (at a time when we're hard pressed to compete with other nations whose students are already outperforming ours).

Roads will be worse. Police protection will slip, likely leading to an increase of crime that will go unpunished because there just aren't enough law enforcement officers to handle the load.

Poverty, hunger, and homelessness will certainly increase. And of course, whatever services the average American relies on (without giving it that much thought) will become considerably less reliable and might even end completely. College tuition will skyrocket and be out of reach for average Americans. Public transportation costs will go way up while the availability of that transportation will diminish. Public health will be in greater jeopardy as food inspections decrease in frequency.

This is just a minor example of what to expect since cutting billions of dollars from the budget WILL have a ripple effect on both services and the economy.

Then so be it.

Yeah, it's important that people should have a more realistic idea of what things would/will be like in that future new reality. With that said, I have a feeling that a LOT of people don't have a clue. Regardless, it's crazy to think that it makes sense to continue high end tax cuts (and maybe even cut taxes further) for the very wealthy at a time when the poor and the middle class will be getting hammered by massive cuts in services which previously benefited them.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Defense spending went from 14% of GDP in WWI to 1.25% of GDP in the early 20's, explaining most of the spending cuts you refer to.

So cutting government spending works.

Thank you

The 2 periods aren't comparable. Taxes were lowered in the 20's to account for the end of the wartime spending, when taxes had been raised. During Bush, our taxes were lowered just before one war and lowered further just after the second one started,

and irrational ass-backwards fiscal policy that could only be exacerbated by lowering taxes further.

Was there a point in there?

Are you saying Bush cut government spending?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Cutting waste (it's somewhat subject as to what constitutes waste) only gets you so far. Cutting fraud and abuse may actually require the gov't to hire MORE federal workers (as in trying to catch and prosecute people who engage in Medicare fraud). Earmarks don't actually amount to very much money relative to the entire budget. Neither does reps' pay. Ending the wars would make a dent. So would scaling back on all our military bases abroad. Of course, that might endanger some of our alliances, such as driving Japan into a closer alliance with China (as an example).

There actually IS such a thing as the law of unintended consequences when it comes to slashing the budget to the bone and laying off hundreds of thousands of gov't workers.

So, it's silly to think that cutting billions of dollars out of the federal budget is just going to somehow painlessly solve problems. Unemployment will go up. Schools will do a poorer job of educating kids (at a time when we're hard pressed to compete with other nations whose students are already outperforming ours).

Roads will be worse. Police protection will slip, likely leading to an increase of crime that will go unpunished because there just aren't enough law enforcement officers to handle the load.

Poverty, hunger, and homelessness will certainly increase. And of course, whatever services the average American relies on (without giving it that much thought) will become considerably less reliable and might even end completely. College tuition will skyrocket and be out of reach for average Americans. Public transportation costs will go way up while the availability of that transportation will diminish. Public health will be in greater jeopardy as food inspections decrease in frequency.

This is just a minor example of what to expect since cutting billions of dollars from the budget WILL have a ripple effect on both services and the economy.

Then so be it.

Yeah, it's important that people should have a more realistic idea of what things would/will be like in that future new reality. With that said, I have a feeling that a LOT of people don't have a clue. Regardless, it's crazy to think that it makes sense to continue high end tax cuts (and maybe even cut taxes further) for the very wealthy at a time when the poor and the middle class will be getting hammered by massive cuts in services which previously benefited them.

Well, I see no justification for taking any more than 37% of someone's income any more than I can see the justification for allowing 50% to pay no taxes.

Bottom line, suck it up now or wait for it to totally collapse.