The hard truth

[DiveCon]

Its not one person its one set of ideas that caused this.

They are the republican ideas of deregulation and unfettered markets.

It is one set of ideas - but not the ones attributed by TruthSplatters.

The one set of ideas belong to Big Government Statism in which whatever is accretive to centralized government power is promoted.

sorry but the road toward the financial meltdown was a traffic jam populated by private financiers and politicians of both stripes.

this is true, but TneverM will only see it from one angle

 

[boedicca]

Its not one person its one set of ideas that caused this.

They are the republican ideas of deregulation and unfettered markets.

It is one set of ideas - but not the ones attributed by TruthSplatters.

The one set of ideas belong to Big Government Statism in which whatever is accretive to centralized government power is promoted.

sorry but the road toward the financial meltdown was a traffic jam populated by private financiers and politicians of both stripes.

Private Financiers are not always Free Marketeers, bub. In fact, more often than not, they prefer statism.

Big Government colludes with its Big Bank Cronies to squash the competition.

 

[LiberalNut]

You can't blame just Republicans for a way of life among ALL OF US (the debtor's life)

I haven't been in debt for many years. Yes, people that lived beyond their means, putting the house in further hoc so that they could take a trip to Boca or buy too many overpriced coffees at Starbucks are partially to blame. You just shouldn't kid yourself into believing that it was "everyone".

Also, you have to get over the Republican/Democrat thing. He wasn't blaming parties but IDEAS. The IDEAS that have been running the show economically, since 1980, have been decidedly conservative. It is the return to pre-depression economics that is to blame for the current mess.

Some people...actually a lot of people...simply refuse to admonish their party of choice.

Insofar as my party went along with the return to pre-depression economics, they are equally to blame. Again, the PERSONAL blame game is useless. However, the ideological blame game is completely relevant and important.

 

[code1211]

Republicans and Conservatives have been braying that since it's not raining gold coins on everyone..that everything that's been tried has been a failure. And this flies up against the face of facts. Never mind that before our current President even sat his ass down in the office the righty talking heads were proclaiming that if this man "succeeds" America "fails" or that "responsible" conservative congress people have been praying for a "Waterloo" to break the man..They somehow have the right idea.

Well if the "right" idea is to make the Country ungovernable, and erect a small monied class of privateers that run the show..or Plutocracy..

That's no idea any true American should want any part of..

I think that I remember, but i could be wrong, that very shortly AFTER the Innauguration, Rush Limbaugh said, "I hope he fails." As I recall, this set off a bit of fire storm in the media and the among the elite of the Left condemning Limbaugh as a racist and so forth.

The media proceeded to proclaim that Obama was a centrist, a post raciolist and would act as a unifier.

Turns out he's a radical leftist, a racial polarizer and a partisan hack.

At every turn, in every sense, at every opportunity, he pits us against them and constructs enemies and actively campaigns to reduce freedom of the press and shut down rational debate. After witnessing his tactics, his goals, his hyperbole, his dishonesty and his failures when measuring his accomplishments against his promises, many others have joined Limbaugh in wishing that this man fails.

Any reasonable citizen would at this point.

The only goal of the Right at this point is to stop this man from dismantaling what's left of the Republic and rolling back some of the damage before it takes effect in whole.

November 2 will be either his day of victory or his Waterloo. This might be an appropriate anaolgy. Napoleon scared most of Europe into an unwilling coalition to stop him. The Big 0 has done the same. The Big 0 thinks he has the right message but somehow the public has failed to understand it despite being subjected to it 24/7 since the guy took office.

We get it. It scares us to death. It was passed over the objections of the majority say those on the right. It represents the will of the people say Pelosi, Reid and the Big 0. On November 2, we will find out who is right.

 

[Trajan]

Sorry, but I've followed this economic tragedy going way back to the collapse of Bear Stearns, and have read hundreds of viewpoints as to the "cause," and of course they followed along party lines. The WSJ would spin it one way; the NYT another. But all sorted out, it was a combination of failed practices of both the private and public sectors supported by BOTH parties all along the miserable trail leading to the eventual meltdown. As for the solutions put in place by Bush and Obama (TARP) and the stimulus package (Obama), there was really nothing to do but hold my breath. Something had to be done. Only time will tell how successful those bandaids were.

I agree with the reasonableness of your analysis. Shocking I know. Anyone that reads with a bit of skeptism would come to the same conclusion. However, I guess I am addressing only partisans on both sides, whether in media or even something with limited impact like this messageboard.

As for the stimulus, I think that's pretty much already determined, at least in my opinion. TARP to some degree was needed, the stimulus? No. In fact probably has caused more problems, with more to come in the coming years.

Appearing in US News and World Report, owned by Mort Zuckerman, and therefore considered more conservative than its competition, this article tends to disagree:

5 Campaign Fibs About the Economy - Rick Newman (usnews.com)

mort was an early Obama convert. ( my disclosure) I have had a subscription to us news and world rpt. for over a decade.I let it go 2 years ago because the coverage imho became as jaded as Time and Newsweek, no not as much, so I agree with your comment ala more con. than its competition which to me news wise translates into more objective, but the 2006 election cycle coverage was just to much for me..so I didn't renew...

that being said, mort has written several articles taking obama to task for his lackluster team and there politics first scorched earth policy which translated into very poor economic decisions, last years omni bus budget bill and the stimulus. ( he has me interesting comments on foreign affairs to).

Anyway, the point is I truly wish it were it were not so.
I lost my goddamn job over this economy, that gets you out of partisanship pretty friggin quick and into real self interest/survival mode, which equals- just fix it best you can or that is assist in fixing it best you can..... it just aint happening.

 

[Immanuel]

Its not one person its one set of ideas that caused this.

They are the republican ideas of deregulation and unfettered markets.

No, dear, it wasn't. But don't let fact get in the way of your rabid hatred of Republicans.

Don't worry, she won't.

Immie

 

[finebead]

The repub insistence that although they controlled the house, senate and white house from 2001-2006, and the subprime lending mess really accelerated to the upside in 2004-2006 (2004 subprime debt issuance was 10 times higher than 2001 issuance and remained at that level in 2005 and 2006) and somehow this was all barney franks fault, sickens me. As I say, the dems were not helpful, but I cannot tolerate the failure of the repubs to take responsibility for their policies.

Now, to the original post, when we get to trying to get the economy to RECOVER, well, that's a horse of another color, and I don't think this is an interest rate or tax policy issue, at it's core.

I had a post on here, basically my own thinking, that nobody responded to very much, but here it is, post # 13, page 1:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/117430-what-is-really-the-culprit-of-our-economy.html

One thing I am sure of, if you don't get the diagnosis of the problem correct, the remedy prescribed will fail.

 

[Flopper]

I agree with the reasonableness of your analysis. Shocking I know. Anyone that reads with a bit of skeptism would come to the same conclusion. However, I guess I am addressing only partisans on both sides, whether in media or even something with limited impact like this messageboard.

As for the stimulus, I think that's pretty much already determined, at least in my opinion. TARP to some degree was needed, the stimulus? No. In fact probably has caused more problems, with more to come in the coming years.

Appearing in US News and World Report, owned by Mort Zuckerman, and therefore considered more conservative than its competition, this article tends to disagree:

5 Campaign Fibs About the Economy - Rick Newman (usnews.com)

well even your article said that the stimulus was a failure by it's own metrics. And for all we know it may have no long term benefits at all. But in any case it wasn't well conceived or targeted. It was more like a porkasbord.

Although I don't see a long term benefit in the stimulus bill, I think we would be a lot worse off without it. It has undoubted created or saved a lot of jobs. There are hundreds of thousands of people, mostly in state and local government and construction that would not have jobs without these funds.

Unfortunate this type economic stimulus is wasteful. A lot of grants did not produce the anticipated jobs and the opposition has made this well known. The major problem with this type of stimulus is when the funds disappear, so do the jobs. If the economy has not recovered sufficiently then we will get a big up tick in unemployment.

The job stimulus and financial bailouts probably kept the country out of a depression, but has certainly not lived up to the administrations expectations.

Top Agencies, as reported by recipients (Apr 1 - June 30, 2010)

 

[MaggieMae]

I have always maintained that only time will heal our economic problems. Jobs aren't coming back until employers are confident that consumer spending is coming back and consumer spending is not coming back without more jobs. Home buyers don't buy if banks don't lend. Banks don't want to lend into a weak housing with 3 million foreclosures. It's pretty much a vicious cycle and there is little government can do to break the cycle. Job stimulus, financial bailouts, low interest, tax breaks, and increases in the money supply have most probably avoided a depression but have not provided the spark needed to break the cycle. WWII was the spark that pulled us out of the Great Depression. That spark might come in the form of strength in overseas markets, a technological breakthrough, a natural disaster, or business investing it's expanding cash reserves.

Our involvement in another "world" war won't help our economy much unless we're all ready to pitch in and sacrifice. WWII saw stay-at-home mothers going to work on assembly lines in munitions factories that had been converted from making all sorts of non-military equipment. People had jobs due to the war, and businesses saw profits from the war effort, which kept the economy flowing nicely in spite of the horrors of war. That's what Douger means. I can remember my own father returning from the war and unable to find work because there were thousands of other GIs looking for work at the same time, and by then the factory work was winding down. I remember him saying "We need another war" when he would get frustrated by not finding a job, not really understanding what he meant at the time. Now I do. But both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been nothing but costly no-win adventures, with no sacrifice except by our troops and their families and boosting the profits of mercenaries.

 

[MaggieMae]

It is one set of ideas - but not the ones attributed by TruthSplatters.

The one set of ideas belong to Big Government Statism in which whatever is accretive to centralized government power is promoted.

sorry but the road toward the financial meltdown was a traffic jam populated by private financiers and politicians of both stripes.

this is true, but TneverM will only see it from one angle

And neither will boiedicca. The right is always innocent as a newborn and pure as the driven snow to her.

 

[MaggieMae]

Republicans and Conservatives have been braying that since it's not raining gold coins on everyone..that everything that's been tried has been a failure. And this flies up against the face of facts. Never mind that before our current President even sat his ass down in the office the righty talking heads were proclaiming that if this man "succeeds" America "fails" or that "responsible" conservative congress people have been praying for a "Waterloo" to break the man..They somehow have the right idea.

Well if the "right" idea is to make the Country ungovernable, and erect a small monied class of privateers that run the show..or Plutocracy..

That's no idea any true American should want any part of..

I think that I remember, but i could be wrong, that very shortly AFTER the Innauguration, Rush Limbaugh said, "I hope he fails." As I recall, this set off a bit of fire storm in the media and the among the elite of the Left condemning Limbaugh as a racist and so forth.

The media proceeded to proclaim that Obama was a centrist, a post raciolist and would act as a unifier.

Turns out he's a radical leftist, a racial polarizer and a partisan hack.

At every turn, in every sense, at every opportunity, he pits us against them and constructs enemies and actively campaigns to reduce freedom of the press and shut down rational debate. After witnessing his tactics, his goals, his hyperbole, his dishonesty and his failures when measuring his accomplishments against his promises, many others have joined Limbaugh in wishing that this man fails.

Any reasonable citizen would at this point.

The only goal of the Right at this point is to stop this man from dismantaling what's left of the Republic and rolling back some of the damage before it takes effect in whole.

November 2 will be either his day of victory or his Waterloo. This might be an appropriate anaolgy. Napoleon scared most of Europe into an unwilling coalition to stop him. The Big 0 has done the same. The Big 0 thinks he has the right message but somehow the public has failed to understand it despite being subjected to it 24/7 since the guy took office.

We get it. It scares us to death. It was passed over the objections of the majority say those on the right. It represents the will of the people say Pelosi, Reid and the Big 0. On November 2, we will find out who is right.

Yeah, that's why he couldn't muster his "majority" in either the House or Senate to get the health care bill passed. When the majority of the LIBERALS didn't like the final version, and most of the BLUE DOG democrats didn't either, that points to the simple truth that Obama was trying to govern from the center.

The rest of your post is just pure propaganda (bullshit) with zero backup for your allegations, and zero solutions of your own, other than to just get rid of him. If that doesn't define propaganda, I don't know what does.

When Mitch McConnell continues his verbal vendetta against Obama (identical to yours, by the way) by repeating in the current issue of National Review that he has no goal other than to unseat Obama, it's pretty clear that the Republicans have no other platform. And I seriously doubt THAT is what the people of this country really want.

 

[uscitizen]

Take off the rose-colored glasses and stop playing the blame game.

Appearing in FORTUNE magazine, October 15, 2010:

Who can magically fix the economy? No one - Full version - Oct. 15, 2010

From listening to what passes for public debate in our country, you'd never know that. You'd think that the federal government could revive the economy quickly if only Congress would let it be more aggressive with stimulus spending. Or that the Fed could fix it if only it weren't overly worried about touching off inflation. Or that the free market could fix it if only we made deep and permanent tax cuts. Watch enough cable TV, listen to enough talk radio, read enough blogs and columns, and you'd think that they -- the bad guys -- are forcing the country to suffer needlessly when a simple and painless solution to our problems is at hand.

But if you look at things rationally rather than politically, you'll see that Washington has far less power over the economy, and far less maneuvering room, than many people think.

More at link.

So the eggspurts are finally catching up with what I have been saying for years.

 

[MaggieMae]

I agree with the reasonableness of your analysis. Shocking I know. Anyone that reads with a bit of skeptism would come to the same conclusion. However, I guess I am addressing only partisans on both sides, whether in media or even something with limited impact like this messageboard.

As for the stimulus, I think that's pretty much already determined, at least in my opinion. TARP to some degree was needed, the stimulus? No. In fact probably has caused more problems, with more to come in the coming years.

Appearing in US News and World Report, owned by Mort Zuckerman, and therefore considered more conservative than its competition, this article tends to disagree:

5 Campaign Fibs About the Economy - Rick Newman (usnews.com)

mort was an early Obama convert. ( my disclosure) I have had a subscription to us news and world rpt. for over a decade.I let it go 2 years ago because the coverage imho became as jaded as Time and Newsweek, no not as much, so I agree with your comment ala more con. than its competition which to me news wise translates into more objective, but the 2006 election cycle coverage was just to much for me..so I didn't renew...

that being said, mort has written several articles taking obama to task for his lackluster team and there politics first scorched earth policy which translated into very poor economic decisions, last years omni bus budget bill and the stimulus. ( he has me interesting comments on foreign affairs to).

Anyway, the point is I truly wish it were it were not so.
I lost my goddamn job over this economy, that gets you out of partisanship pretty friggin quick and into real self interest/survival mode, which equals- just fix it best you can or that is assist in fixing it best you can..... it just aint happening.

Oh please. Mort Zuckerman has always been a newsman who sticks his finger to the wind to see which way it's blowing. Initially, it was blowing in Obama's direction.

As for your job loss, it's a sad situation, and it's a given that the party in power will get blamed for your loss. Although George H.W. Bush was headed in the right direction in getting the economy under control, he took took the hit, and Clinton was elected. But it didn't take long before Clinton was getting hit from all sides too. Everyone hurting wants immediate results. And that irrational attitude doesn't ever seem to change.

 

[MaggieMae]

The repub insistence that although they controlled the house, senate and white house from 2001-2006, and the subprime lending mess really accelerated to the upside in 2004-2006 (2004 subprime debt issuance was 10 times higher than 2001 issuance and remained at that level in 2005 and 2006) and somehow this was all barney franks fault, sickens me. As I say, the dems were not helpful, but I cannot tolerate the failure of the repubs to take responsibility for their policies.

Now, to the original post, when we get to trying to get the economy to RECOVER, well, that's a horse of another color, and I don't think this is an interest rate or tax policy issue, at it's core.

I had a post on here, basically my own thinking, that nobody responded to very much, but here it is, post # 13, page 1:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/117430-what-is-really-the-culprit-of-our-economy.html

One thing I am sure of, if you don't get the diagnosis of the problem correct, the remedy prescribed will fail.

I remember reading that, and I think I may have responded that while it contained very good and valid points it was way too long. Another unfortunate truth is that people don't want to take the time to absorb well thought out rational opinions. They much prefer slogans and snippets, or perhaps a blaring headline that piques their interest enough to read an entire article. Sometimes I too am tempted to go off on a long-winded opinion covering a myriad of connected points, but I KNOW it won't get read. So I just put all the thoughts in one collective file in my head and make the several points in several different responses. Works best that way.

 

[Flopper]

I have always maintained that only time will heal our economic problems. Jobs aren't coming back until employers are confident that consumer spending is coming back and consumer spending is not coming back without more jobs. Home buyers don't buy if banks don't lend. Banks don't want to lend into a weak housing with 3 million foreclosures. It's pretty much a vicious cycle and there is little government can do to break the cycle. Job stimulus, financial bailouts, low interest, tax breaks, and increases in the money supply have most probably avoided a depression but have not provided the spark needed to break the cycle. WWII was the spark that pulled us out of the Great Depression. That spark might come in the form of strength in overseas markets, a technological breakthrough, a natural disaster, or business investing it's expanding cash reserves.

Our involvement in another "world" war won't help our economy much unless we're all ready to pitch in and sacrifice. WWII saw stay-at-home mothers going to work on assembly lines in munitions factories that had been converted from making all sorts of non-military equipment. People had jobs due to the war, and businesses saw profits from the war effort, which kept the economy flowing nicely in spite of the horrors of war. That's what Douger means. I can remember my own father returning from the war and unable to find work because there were thousands of other GIs looking for work at the same time, and by then the factory work was winding down. I remember him saying "We need another war" when he would get frustrated by not finding a job, not really understanding what he meant at the time. Now I do. But both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been nothing but costly no-win adventures, with no sacrifice except by our troops and their families and boosting the profits of mercenaries.

No, I don't think war would provide the spark needed. Today war is more of a drag on the economy because it runs up the deficit without producing a significant number of jobs.

As an economics professor once said, recession is the cost of business expansion in a free market economy. All economic expansions result in excesses which bring on recessions. A recession corrects excesses, increases productivity, and positions business for a new round of expansion.

Government can not create an economic recovery. It can only provide incentives for business to do so. Major corporations are once again raking in the profits and are sitting on a ton cash. They have cut back to a point that they can be profitable without increased sales. For big business to expand, they are going to have to see increased consumer demand which will only occur when banks start providing more loans to small business, home building, and home buyers. And that's not going to happen until they see a significant decrease in the 3 million foreclosures. This is going to take time, probably several years.

 

[editec]

You can't blame just Republicans for a way of life among ALL OF US (the debtor's life)

I haven't been in debt for many years. Yes, people that lived beyond their means, putting the house in further hoc so that they could take a trip to Boca or buy too many overpriced coffees at Starbucks are partially to blame. You just shouldn't kid yourself into believing that it was "everyone".

Also, you have to get over the Republican/Democrat thing. He wasn't blaming parties but IDEAS. The IDEAS that have been running the show economically, since 1980, have been decidedly conservative. It is the return to pre-depression economics that is to blame for the current mess.

Some people...actually a lot of people...simply refuse to admonish their party of choice.

Insofar as my party went along with the return to pre-depression economics, they are equally to blame. Again, the PERSONAL blame game is useless. However, the ideological blame game is completely relevant and important.

Funny you should say this.

I just heard an economist who studied the buying patterns of the boomer generation in comparison to the WWII generation.

Know what she found?

That the boomer generation actually spent less money on decretionary items than their fathers.

SIGNFICANTLY less, actually.

Guess where they put their money?

Into shelter and paying off for things like health care, insurance and other things that are necessary.

Yeah, that's right...contrary to the myth that Americans have been foolishly spending their money on toys, the real fact is that as Americans purchasing power has declined, they've been spending their money mostly on ESSENTIALS, not on descretionary spending.

The myth that Americans are in trouble because of foolish spending is another of those BIG LIES brought to us by the apologists for the BIG MONEY that dominates our media, our government and our lives.

My generation was the best educated and the most hard working generation of the XXTH century.

And we started losing real purchasing power in about 1970 at just about the time most of us started our working careers, too.

We put our woman to work, we worked more hours, get better educations and went into DEBT just to keep going,

But even those financial strategies could not overcomethe decline in real purchasing power that has plagued the American working classes economy for the last 40 YEARS.

You kids simply have no idea how much easier it was to find a job that paid a living wage back in the 50s and 60s.

You truly have been fed a steady diet of nonsense about how every problem facing the American people is THEIR FAULT.

All this anecdoatal evidence that you've been exposed to is NOT supported by the real statistics about how people spend their dough.

 

[Sallow]

Republicans and Conservatives have been braying that since it's not raining gold coins on everyone..that everything that's been tried has been a failure. And this flies up against the face of facts. Never mind that before our current President even sat his ass down in the office the righty talking heads were proclaiming that if this man "succeeds" America "fails" or that "responsible" conservative congress people have been praying for a "Waterloo" to break the man..They somehow have the right idea.

Well if the "right" idea is to make the Country ungovernable, and erect a small monied class of privateers that run the show..or Plutocracy..

That's no idea any true American should want any part of..

I think that I remember, but i could be wrong, that very shortly AFTER the Innauguration, Rush Limbaugh said, "I hope he fails." As I recall, this set off a bit of fire storm in the media and the among the elite of the Left condemning Limbaugh as a racist and so forth.

The media proceeded to proclaim that Obama was a centrist, a post raciolist and would act as a unifier.

Turns out he's a radical leftist, a racial polarizer and a partisan hack.

At every turn, in every sense, at every opportunity, he pits us against them and constructs enemies and actively campaigns to reduce freedom of the press and shut down rational debate. After witnessing his tactics, his goals, his hyperbole, his dishonesty and his failures when measuring his accomplishments against his promises, many others have joined Limbaugh in wishing that this man fails.

Any reasonable citizen would at this point.

The only goal of the Right at this point is to stop this man from dismantaling what's left of the Republic and rolling back some of the damage before it takes effect in whole.

November 2 will be either his day of victory or his Waterloo. This might be an appropriate anaolgy. Napoleon scared most of Europe into an unwilling coalition to stop him. The Big 0 has done the same. The Big 0 thinks he has the right message but somehow the public has failed to understand it despite being subjected to it 24/7 since the guy took office.

We get it. It scares us to death. It was passed over the objections of the majority say those on the right. It represents the will of the people say Pelosi, Reid and the Big 0. On November 2, we will find out who is right.

Have to disagree with you on almost every point. And the right basically did the very same thing with Clinton. Sure there was opposition from the left when Bush assumed office but given the manner in which it happened, it was ridiculously mild and they took a "wait and see" attitude toward his administration and hoped that he would be a pragmatist like his father. He wasn't.

Fast forward to the new Democratic President. The right is up to their old tricks. This President reached out to the opposition even more then Clinton did and was smacked back. Did he have an agenda..yes. Was he going to advocate for it..yes. Was he going to keep Republicans out of the process..absolutely not. But they wanted all or nothing. And given that he won by a clear majority..that simply was not an option.

And as to the Republic? This President is the most "process" oriented in memory. He is an adherent to the process outlined in the Constitution to produce legislation. If he weren't his lawyers wouldn't be fighting the court sanctioned repeal of DADT or the draw down in Iraq. And you can add to that many Bush policies..which it seems he wants congress to address through the proper process..

 

[MaggieMae]

I have always maintained that only time will heal our economic problems. Jobs aren't coming back until employers are confident that consumer spending is coming back and consumer spending is not coming back without more jobs. Home buyers don't buy if banks don't lend. Banks don't want to lend into a weak housing with 3 million foreclosures. It's pretty much a vicious cycle and there is little government can do to break the cycle. Job stimulus, financial bailouts, low interest, tax breaks, and increases in the money supply have most probably avoided a depression but have not provided the spark needed to break the cycle. WWII was the spark that pulled us out of the Great Depression. That spark might come in the form of strength in overseas markets, a technological breakthrough, a natural disaster, or business investing it's expanding cash reserves.

Our involvement in another "world" war won't help our economy much unless we're all ready to pitch in and sacrifice. WWII saw stay-at-home mothers going to work on assembly lines in munitions factories that had been converted from making all sorts of non-military equipment. People had jobs due to the war, and businesses saw profits from the war effort, which kept the economy flowing nicely in spite of the horrors of war. That's what Douger means. I can remember my own father returning from the war and unable to find work because there were thousands of other GIs looking for work at the same time, and by then the factory work was winding down. I remember him saying "We need another war" when he would get frustrated by not finding a job, not really understanding what he meant at the time. Now I do. But both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been nothing but costly no-win adventures, with no sacrifice except by our troops and their families and boosting the profits of mercenaries.

No, I don't think war would provide the spark needed. Today war is more of a drag on the economy because it runs up the deficit without producing a significant number of jobs.

As an economics professor once said, recession is the cost of business expansion in a free market economy. All economic expansions result in excesses which bring on recessions. A recession corrects excesses, increases productivity, and positions business for a new round of expansion.

Government can not create an economic recovery. It can only provide incentives for business to do so. Major corporations are once again raking in the profits and are sitting on a ton cash. They have cut back to a point that they can be profitable without increased sales. For big business to expand, they are going to have to see increased consumer demand which will only occur when banks start providing more loans to small business, home building, and home buyers. And that's not going to happen until they see a significant decrease in the 3 million foreclosures. This is going to take time, probably several years.

Consumer demand isn't going to happen on any large scale until unemployment goes down, people have jobs and money to spend. And they won't start spending it on new home loans for quite some time as long as existing foreclosed properties can be bought for next to nothing. The whole future depends upon renewed consumer CONFIDENCE, and I can tell ya, we're going to be tippy-toeing for at least another couple of years. If I were in the market for a new home, I sure wouldn't be looking for a loan to build a new one, but I'd been looking around for a bargain at a historically low interest rate. So that's an indicator that new home construction will remain in the toilet for a long time.

 

[MaggieMae]

You can't blame just Republicans for a way of life among ALL OF US (the debtor's life)

I haven't been in debt for many years. Yes, people that lived beyond their means, putting the house in further hoc so that they could take a trip to Boca or buy too many overpriced coffees at Starbucks are partially to blame. You just shouldn't kid yourself into believing that it was "everyone".

Also, you have to get over the Republican/Democrat thing. He wasn't blaming parties but IDEAS. The IDEAS that have been running the show economically, since 1980, have been decidedly conservative. It is the return to pre-depression economics that is to blame for the current mess.

Some people...actually a lot of people...simply refuse to admonish their party of choice.

Insofar as my party went along with the return to pre-depression economics, they are equally to blame. Again, the PERSONAL blame game is useless. However, the ideological blame game is completely relevant and important.

Funny you should say this.

I just heard an economist who studied the buying patterns of the boomer generation in comparison to the WWII generation.

Know what she found?

That the boomer generation actually spent less money on decretionary items than their fathers.

SIGNFICANTLY less, actually.

Guess where they put their money?

Into shelter and paying off for things like health care, insurance and other things that are necessary.

Yeah, that's right...contrary to the myth that Americans have been foolishly spending their money on toys, the real fact is that as Americans purchasing power has declined, they've been spending their money mostly on ESSENTIALS, not on descretionary spending.

The myth that Americans are in trouble because of foolish spending is another of those BIG LIES brought to us by the apologists for the BIG MONEY that dominates our media, our government and our lives.

My generation was the best educated and the most hard working generation of the XXTH century.

And we started losing real purchasing power in about 1970 at just about the time most of us started our working careers, too.

We put our woman to work, we worked more hours, get better educations and went into DEBT just to keep going,

But even those financial strategies could not overcomethe decline in real purchasing power that has plagued the American working classes economy for the last 40 YEARS.

You kids simply have no idea how much easier it was to find a job that paid a living wage back in the 50s and 60s.

You truly have been fed a steady diet of nonsense about how every problem facing the American people is THEIR FAULT.

All this anecdoatal evidence that you've been exposed to is NOT supported by the real statistics about how people spend their dough.

There's one big flaw in the financial strategies of the baby boomers, though. And that is that in general (not you, necessarily, because I know nothing about you personally), the baby boomers indeed were more concerned with SECURE futures, but they also foolishly allowed their offspring to believe they were therefore privileged to have anything their little hearts desired. One of three siblings, my brother was the only one that my own parents put through college. My sister and I put ourselves through. So my brother of course had a leg up on a successful career and was able to put both of his children through college and also finance any other adventure they so desired. One of his kids at 28 is still what you'd call a professional student, and her father (my brother) continues to pay her rent, buys her cars and pays her insurance because she still hasn't decided on a career. His own son bounced around in and out of several colleges and dropped out of each, of course after my brother had already spent considerable amounts getting him in. My point is that my brother didn't want his own children to see him and their mother struggling to give them a better life than they had. But they went overboard with it.

 

[loosecannon]

No, I don't think war would provide the spark needed. Today war is more of a drag on the economy because it runs up the deficit without producing a significant number of jobs.

great point

As an economics professor once said, recession is the cost of business expansion in a free market economy. All economic expansions result in excesses which bring on recessions. A recession corrects excesses, increases productivity, and positions business for a new round of expansion.

absolutely correct!

Government can not create an economic recovery. It can only provide incentives for business to do so.

ordinarily the feds can provide for recovery by allowing inflation to occur, assuming that inflation is the correction the economy requires.

But in deflationary traps you may well be correct. There may be nothing that can help.

BUT history does demonstrate that the full employment of total war has forced recoveries. So something that had that same effect could as well.