Why we want stimulus now and worry about deficits later

[editec]

The national DEBT is NOT the problem.

Changing circumstance surrounding things like production and trade are.

Also our energy and HC delievery system is total WHACK.

All those things (some of which are the MASTERS fault, some of which are organic outcomes of changes in the state of the world) are at the root of our nations AND THE WORLDS economic problems.

Our problems have nothing to do with socialist v capitalism.

People who believe that nonsense are just damned fools

 

[Cammmpbell]

The national DEBT is NOT the problem.

Changing circumstance surrounding things like production and trade are.

Also our energy and HC delievery system is total WHACK.

All those things (some of which are the MASTERS fault, some of which are organic outcomes of changes in the state of the world) are at the root of our nations AND THE WORLDS economic problems.

Our problems have nothing to do with socialist v capitalism.

People who believe that nonsense are just damned fools

There are plenty of those. In this world there are as many humans with an IQ less than 100 as there are with IQ's more than 100. Something I always consider when I see weird, off the wall bullshit! It's like someone who calls themself a bank robber tearing down an ATM terminal.

 

[The Rabbi]

There is even less proof that it didn't.



The government clearly underestimated the depth of the crisis and the size of an adequate stimulus. But it does not mean that the stimulus we had was useless.

That's true. It did wonders paying off Obama's union supporters. For the rest of us, not so much.

You have absolutely no proof of that.

If I provided proof would you admit it and shut the fuck up?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I don't care who claims what. The recession was the result of private sector cutting its spending. The increased spending by the government made recession milder. It is not rocket science.

You believe this recession was so much more severe than any other? The recession of 1981 was actually worse and it ended sooner and with much larger increases in GDP and much faster decreases in unemployment. So all that spending sure didn't do much to make this recession resolve faster did it?

Larry Elder: 5 Myths About President Obama Economic Recovery

"The country had to dig out of a historically deep hole. Obama often explains the length of the recovery by noting how deep the recession had been. But while the so-called Great Recession lasted 18 months and sent unemployment to 10.1%, the 1981-82 recession was comparable in length and severity. That one lasted 16 months, and pushed unemployment even higher, to 10.8%. The difference is that today unemployment is still at an historically high 8.6%, and it's only that low because the labor force has declined. Real GDP is a mere 0.04% above its pre-recession peak. At the comparable point in the Reagan recovery, unemployment had plunged to 7.3%, while the economy had grown 12% above its pre-recession peak, and was still climbing fast."]The country had to dig out of a historically deep hole. Obama often explains the length of the recovery by noting how deep the recession had been. But while the so-called Great Recession lasted 18 months and sent unemployment to 10.1%, the 1981-82 recession was comparable in length and severity. That one lasted 16 months, and pushed unemployment even higher, to 10.8%. The difference is that today unemployment is still at an historically high 8.6%, and it's only that low because the labor force has declined. Real GDP is a mere 0.04% above its pre-recession peak. At the comparable point in the Reagan recovery, unemployment had plunged to 7.3%, while the economy had grown 12% above its pre-recession peak, and was still climbing fast.[/URL]

This recession was caused by the government's artificially low interest rates and the wanton borrowing and spending and the huge bubbles in housing it caused.

If you look carefully you'll see the government is doing the same wanton borrowing that tanked the economy.

Again, there are different kind of recessions. Some are deliberately caused by Fed to bring down inflation -- those (even severe ones) end right after Fed loosens the monetary policy. The recessions of early 20s or early 80s are the examples.

Other recessions are caused by a bubble bursting -- like dot-com, or the retail one. Fed can lower rates to fight it, but it only can can go as far as zero. And if zero rate is not enough, then economy gets in a prolonged slump -- unless the government rises spending enough.

Again, you're flat out wrong about Bam Bam spending us out of a recession.

The fact is that the recession of 81-82 was more severe than this one and we came out of it faster and stronger than we are coming out of this one.

SO Bam Bam didn't do shit to decrease the severity or the duration of this recession no matter how many times he said he did.

 

[Full-Auto]

The last stimulus was $1 trillion and it failed.

It did not fail, it stopped the economy from sliding deeper into recession.

It would be nice if you had something to demonstrate the correlation.

But you dont...................

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just like fdr prolonged the Great Depression.

wonder who knows why it got the title of The 'Great' Depression?

You are just making things up.

You don't know that there was a depression in the 20's. The government did nothing and it was over in a year.

fdr was a tyrant that made things worse to keep himself in power. It was our entrance into the war that brought us out of the GD

If WWII brought us out of the great depression, as you claim, then it was an unprecedented government spending program (for the war) financed with borrowed money that did it.

That, by definition, is what a stimulus is.

 

[Cammmpbell]

You believe this recession was so much more severe than any other? The recession of 1981 was actually worse and it ended sooner and with much larger increases in GDP and much faster decreases in unemployment. So all that spending sure didn't do much to make this recession resolve faster did it?

Larry Elder: 5 Myths About President Obama Economic Recovery

This recession was caused by the government's artificially low interest rates and the wanton borrowing and spending and the huge bubbles in housing it caused.

If you look carefully you'll see the government is doing the same wanton borrowing that tanked the economy.

Again, there are different kind of recessions. Some are deliberately caused by Fed to bring down inflation -- those (even severe ones) end right after Fed loosens the monetary policy. The recessions of early 20s or early 80s are the examples.

Other recessions are caused by a bubble bursting -- like dot-com, or the retail one. Fed can lower rates to fight it, but it only can can go as far as zero. And if zero rate is not enough, then economy gets in a prolonged slump -- unless the government rises spending enough.

Again, you're flat out wrong about Bam Bam spending us out of a recession.

The fact is that the recession of 81-82 was more severe than this one and we came out of it faster and stronger than we are coming out of this one.

SO Bam Bam didn't do shit to decrease the severity or the duration of this recession no matter how many times he said he did.

That's a damn lie. This downturn was absolutely and without question the worst thing that's happened in America since the early 30's. I'm surprised even a hard Right prick would assert such horse shit.

 

[WillowTree]

The chart above shows a deeply depressed economy. The US still produce about 1 trillion less in annual GDP than they are capable of. Not only it results in a lot of human suffering, but it also starves the government of tax revenues, creating huge budget deficits.

Therefore we need more stimulus to help the economy closing the gap (which basically means creating more jobs) -- because it will also reduce the deficits.

you're so damn stupid. another damn stupid stimulus will increase the stupid deficit stupid.

 

[Rozman]

Now is the WRONG time to be worrying about deficits. When you're having a heart attack, costs are secondary.

We are 16 Trillion in debt.
The interest alone amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars..
WHICH WE DON'T HAVE.

And the answer to this is to spend more......

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The last stimulus was $1 trillion and it failed.

It did not fail, it stopped the economy from sliding deeper into recession.

Bullshit. Utter bullshit.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Again, there are different kind of recessions. Some are deliberately caused by Fed to bring down inflation -- those (even severe ones) end right after Fed loosens the monetary policy. The recessions of early 20s or early 80s are the examples.

Other recessions are caused by a bubble bursting -- like dot-com, or the retail one. Fed can lower rates to fight it, but it only can can go as far as zero. And if zero rate is not enough, then economy gets in a prolonged slump -- unless the government rises spending enough.

Again, you're flat out wrong about Bam Bam spending us out of a recession.

The fact is that the recession of 81-82 was more severe than this one and we came out of it faster and stronger than we are coming out of this one.

SO Bam Bam didn't do shit to decrease the severity or the duration of this recession no matter how many times he said he did.

That's a damn lie. This downturn was absolutely and without question the worst thing that's happened in America since the early 30's. I'm surprised even a hard Right prick would assert such horse shit.

Compare the numbers little sheep.

In 81 the unemployment rate was higher, nearly 11% therefore the recession was worse.

In 82 when we came out of the recession unemployment was in the mid 7% range and GDP was 12% over pre-recession numbers.

Currently even with all the so called stimulus we are still over 8% unemployment and GDP is a pathetic .04% over pre-recession numbers.

So to recap 1981 had higher unemployment but we came out of the recession faster and with more momentum than this current recession despite your claims that government spending improved our recovery.

 

[hortysir]

The last stimulus was $1 trillion and it failed.

It did not fail, it stopped the economy from sliding deeper into recession.

So $1 trillion was just enough to stop us from diving deeper.

Do we throw $5 trillion at it to get it to climb positive?


When will you be sending in your check to pay for it?

 

[Oldstyle]

Now is the WRONG time to be worrying about deficits. When you're having a heart attack, costs are secondary.

Bad analogy actually...

A more apt one is that we are a grossly overweight patient who has been warned by a specialist (S&P) that we either need to drop a lot of pounds (the deficit) or we'll be dead in a matter of years but rather than heeding that advice...we decide to listen to Doctor Barack Obama and go on the "Progressive Diet" which is where we eat as much as we want of whatever we want and worry about the health consequences later.

The reason we have to not only worry about deficits but acutally DO something about them is that if we don't...we are on the road to an "economic cardiac arrest".

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The chart above shows a deeply depressed economy. The US still produce about 1 trillion less in annual GDP than they are capable of. Not only it results in a lot of human suffering, but it also starves the government of tax revenues, creating huge budget deficits.

Therefore we need more stimulus to help the economy closing the gap (which basically means creating more jobs) -- because it will also reduce the deficits.

This makes about as much sense as someone losing full-time employment without the ability to replenish your previous gross earnings because you can only obtain part-time employment. So to make up with the "shortfall" of income, you believe the intelligent thing to do is to make up for it by throwing it onto a credit card whereby taking yourself further into debt.

The Federal Government can NOT sustain long term employment, only provide a temporary band-aid on the SORT term at best. This only achieves massive debt with no long term results. If you want a prosperous economy, you have to set policies that ecourage bank lending, encourages companies earning a "profit" to create more growth and encourage job creation.

If you want to kill an economy, blame banks, demonize corporations that dare earn a profit that results in encouraging further investment into the private sector (meaning more jobs), and double down on the national debt that at BEST obtains 1.8% drop in unemployment after 3 years. If the stimulus actually worked, the unemployment rate would be better now than when Obama first took office. Democrats don't have the slightest CLUE as to how to bring unemployment down to even 7.8% (the unfortunate undisputed fact is the best numbers on the unemployment rate this nation has seen, happened BEFORE Obama spent a single dime with his so called "stimulus" and tinkering Big Government policies).

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The last stimulus was $1 trillion and it failed.

It did not fail, it stopped the economy from sliding deeper into recession.

Really? The stimulus bill passed in early 2009. What was the unemployment rate in January 2010, did it go up or down? Show me the facts of the unemployment rate and UNDERemployment rate by the numbers.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The US still produce about 1 trillion less in annual GDP than they are capable of. Not only it results in a lot of human suffering, but it also starves the government of tax revenues, creating huge budget deficits.

Therefore we need more stimulus to help the economy closing the gap (which basically means creating more jobs) -- because it will also reduce the deficits.

I totally agree! Plus, the first stimulus was too small and was not allocated properly.

Greece spent more money to try to get their country to show some improvements from their economic recession, so did France. How are those countries doing at the moment? Explains what government overspending is able to achieve when you look at the International Credit Rating scores in Europe.

The Greek problem has been a long time coming. In order to join the Euro zone countries were to keep their deficits to no more than 3 percent of GDP. Greece has managed to more than quadruple that. The country already has a top income tax rate of 40 percent, and a value-added tax of 21 percent.

In addition, employers pay 28 percent of salary for social security and employees pay 16 percent. These high tax rates have led to a culture of tax evasion, with the government struggling to collect the revenues due it. The high tax rates also lead to a reduction in economic growth. Indeed part of debt problem of Greece is that its GDP is estimated to shrink by 5 percent in 2010, according to Economist Intelligence Unit Forecast.

The Greek government has made many more promises than it can keep. It has a bloated public sector with high retirement benefits that are not sustainable given the country’s growth rate and aging population. It has a Socialist government with all the attendant difficulties of central planning that were endemic to the Soviet Union.

http://www.hillsdale-econ.com/content/problem-greece

 

[Rozman]

My only advice to anyone who comes across a person
who wants another Stimulus is this.
Make the sign of the cross and pray to whatever God you recognize.
Then run as fast as you can in the opposite direction.

And just hope there aren't too many more of their kind out there.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Again, you're flat out wrong about Bam Bam spending us out of a recession.

The fact is that the recession of 81-82 was more severe than this one and we came out of it faster and stronger than we are coming out of this one.

SO Bam Bam didn't do shit to decrease the severity or the duration of this recession no matter how many times he said he did.

That's a damn lie. This downturn was absolutely and without question the worst thing that's happened in America since the early 30's. I'm surprised even a hard Right prick would assert such horse shit.

Compare the numbers little sheep.

In 81 the unemployment rate was higher, nearly 11% therefore the recession was worse.

In 82 when we came out of the recession unemployment was in the mid 7% range and GDP was 12% over pre-recession numbers.

Currently even with all the so called stimulus we are still over 8% unemployment and GDP is a pathetic .04% over pre-recession numbers.

So to recap 1981 had higher unemployment but we came out of the recession faster and with more momentum than this current recession despite your claims that government spending improved our recovery.

Where'd you get that load of shit....Fox News


United States Unemployment Rate
Here's a look at the U.S. unemployment rate for selected years from 1920 to 2010.

Year Rate
1920 5.2 %
1928 4.2
1930 8.7
1932 23.6
1934 21.7
1936 16.9
1938 19.0
1940 14.6
1942 4.7%
1944 1.2
1946 3.9
1948 3.8
1950 5.3
1952 3.0
1954 5.5
1956 4.1
1958 6.8%
1960 5.5
1962 5.5
1964 5.2
1966 3.8
1968 3.6
1970 4.9
1972 5.6
1974 5.6%
1976 7.7
1978 6.1
1980 7.1
1982 9.7
1984 7.5
1986 7.0
1987 6.2
1988 5.5
1989 5.3
1990 5.6%
1991 6.8
1992 7.5
1993 6.9
1994 6.1
1995 5.6
1996 5.4
1997 4.9
1998 4.5
1999 4.2
2000 4.0
2001 4.7
2002 5.8
2003 6.0%
2004 5.5
2005 5.1
2006 4.6
2007 4.6
2008 5.8
2009 9.3
2010 9.6



Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Web: stats.bls.gov .

 

[munnu444]

true

 

[hortysir]

2008 5.8
2009 9.3
2010 9.6