bobbob1313 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 But the problem is, there is no sure fire temporary or long term fix. The way I see it, one side is looking out for the bottom of the economic order, i.e. making sure everyone at least has a job, even if that limits potential long term growth, while one side thinks top side growth is more important than anything else and that long term top side growth will eventually help the entire economic strata. Of course, there is plenty of evidence to show that neither side is better for the entire country or economy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 I liked McCain's plan. Obstruct and flip flop? I'm not against spending money. I just want the money spent in a responsible manner. Our country is lagging seriously in education for the sciences, engineering, mathmatics etc... yet we churn out accountants and marketers by the score. If some of the money were to go towards developing home grown scientists and engineers, then I have no problem wiith that. If it goes to pay wall street bonuses and stock dividedns I have aproblem with that. If contracts are bid openly and fairly great, no bid cost plus contracts' with no review? F&*K no. If we need infrastructure. if we need things or programs are developed thhat will aid the future. We should do them. But to just shout the whole thing down as wasteful etc... is plaiin wrong. I'll tell you something, where I work we have reaped the benfits of the tax cuts of the last few years and to be honest with you, not one single job has been created at my company (a fortune 50 company) because of the tax cuts, zero, zip, nadda, none. Most, if not all of you should know that i work in tax and the business people do not call here ever when tax packages are passed. We are going to do what we do regardless of the tax implications, unless they are so onerous that it is prohibative. We create jobs when market conditions dictate period. The fallacy that tax cuts pay for themselves was disproved by the Bush admin in published reports. It's never happend except in the punditry and politicians. The cuts are in there to placate a party and for political beenfits, tax cuts sound better than no tax cuts. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 I'm not blaming you, but trying to show you the bigger picture instead of just a temporary fix. Have you really convinced yourself that you understand the bigger picture better than everyone else? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ZenLunatic Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Have you really convinced yourself that you understand the bigger picture better than everyone else? Not you again.... I was on a row. I really believe in my opinions. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ZenLunatic Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 But the problem is, there is no sure fire temporary or long term fix. The way I see it, one side is looking out for the bottom of the economic order, i.e. making sure everyone at least has a job, even if that limits potential long term growth, while one side thinks top side growth is more important than anything else and that long term top side growth will eventually help the entire economic strata. Of course, there is plenty of evidence to show that neither side is better for the entire country or economy. Yeah nothing is for sure. But a temp fix doesnt address the long term problem. We need to address the long term problem. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Not you again.... I was on a row. I really believe in my opinions. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 He's on a row now! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Yeah nothing is for sure. But a temp fix doesnt address the long term problem. We need to address the long term problem. But there is no guarantee they are mutually exclusive. The long term problem only becomes a problem if every country stops lending, but there is no evidence anyone would. I asked earlier, don't most of the world's economies work off credit too? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Yeah nothing is for sure. But a temp fix doesnt address the long term problem. We need to address the long term problem. Does anyone agree on the long term problem? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ZenLunatic Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 But there is no guarantee they are mutually exclusive. The long term problem only becomes a problem if every country stops lending, but there is no evidence anyone would. I asked earlier, don't most of the world's economies work off credit too? No, other countries dont. Some do. China which is our biggest creditor has a trillion US$ in surplus. All countries cant work off credit because the money has to come from somewhere. Eventually, we will ask for more money that they can give us. What then? The other countries stop lending is a possibility right now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 No one knows anything, and anyone who pretends that they have the answers is deluding themselves, but they ain't deluding me. In a global economy? With an unprecedented slowdown? Slogans like deficits are good or deficits are bad do not apply anymore. You can make a car in Detroit and it affects rice prices in China ferchrissakes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ZenLunatic Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Does anyone agree on the long term problem? Our national debt plus other govt programs in major trouble like social security. I think we all know of it and accept it as a problem, some just push it away and ignore it because they dont want to deal with it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 also, its funny to me how many closet economists I have as friends and acquiantances. Everyone who took econ 101 in college knows the way out. Even if they can't spell CDO. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 I just always have had trouble wrapping my mind around an economy based on something that doesn't actually exist. I should probably step out about now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Edie Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 He's on a row now! Row or roll? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Our national debt plus other govt programs in major trouble like social security. I think we all know of it and accept it as a problem, some just push it away and ignore it because they dont want to deal with it. I agree on the debt as an immediate issue as debt sevice eats up more and more of the budget. It's my number one issue. Unfortuantely when times were not as bad we grew the debt rather than retired debt, it was piss poor fiscal management. Management of our debt has to be done in a fiscally responsible manner. Sadly though the politico's have convinced the country that banks need a trillion (tough apparently not as badly as we thought since some are considering giving the cash back so they can give out their bonuses), that projects need a trillion in order to stave off a depression. The "experts" also say action is needed, so I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. I mor einclined to think "do something" rather than say sit back and see what fails. I just want it managed well and handled in a fiscally responsible manner. Social security on the other hand still has a fairly decent window of opportunity to work with. The punditry and politicians of a certain stripe (those who want to end SS) would have us believ that we are at the edge staring into oblivion, we are not. But we know where the horizon is. I say one more problem is that our military spending is out of control. We do not need 1500 bases around the world. We also need better managment of the military budgets. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 My understanding of economics is very, very basic, but I've been wanting to read The Forgotten Man. The basic thesis is that the New Deal did much more harm than good. I've always believed that WWII ended the Great Depression more than the New Deal, but I am curious to see what the author says about the extent of the harm the New Deal did. Seems like a very timely subject... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Didn't the GDP increase substantially every year from '33 -'41? The lone exception being '37, when it leveled off - precisely the same year FDR started listening to the Republicans in Congress who were bitching about government spending. Hmmm. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 My understanding of economics is very, very basic, but I've been wanting to read The Forgotten Man. The basic thesis is that the New Deal did much more harm than good. I've always believed that WWII ended the Great Depression more than the New Deal, but I am curious to see what the author says about the extent of the harm the New Deal did. Seems like a very timely subject... That is the narrative that they, the right are trying to sell (everything Roosevelt did was bad) but the GD was ending until people like me, the deficit hawks started to make noise. Ultimately WWII, the largest public works project in history, did end the GD in the States. Read a little about the author of that particular book and determine if you think she has an agenda? She's described as a conservative journalist. I know nothing about her, but what does her daily writing say and does she stand up to scrutiny? The whole Rosevelt made things worse is a relativey new phenomena that has been pushed for the past few years, it is a political ax being ground and being bought that flies in the face of reality. But in the long run if a story is sold long enough and hard enough people believe it to be true even when it is not. Heck look at the story of the Alamo what you know then read some serious work on it and you'll see that the Alamo was defended by Mexicans and foreign insurgents filtering in from the US. Yes even the white guys in the Alamo were mexican citizens generally, while Crocket and others came frm a foreign country, the US. But that is not the narative people want to remember and it is why only the white defenders are listed on the monument. Reality is nto always what is sold when politics are at play. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Reality is nto always what is sold when politics are at play. I think those claiming that FDR prolonged the Great Depression would agree. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 How can someone this stupid serve in Congress? Wait. Don't answer that. "When (President Franklin) Roosevelt did this, he put our country into a Great Depression," Austria said. "He tried to borrow and spend, he tried to use the Keynesian approach, and our country ended up in a Great Depression. That's just history." Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JUDE Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Didn't the GDP increase substantially every year from '33 -'41? The lone exception being '37, when it leveled off - precisely the same year FDR started listening to the Republicans in Congress who were bitching about government spending. Hmmm. If you are advocating returning government spending as a percentage of GDP to '33-'41 levels I'm totally with you. Spending by the federal government grew from approximately 3 percent of GDP in 1925 to 15.6 percent in 1950. Following the Depression, World War II abruptly boosted federal spending to approximately 42 percent of GDP, but afterward it dropped and resumed a less volatile trend Congessional Budget Office Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 My understanding of economics is very, very basic, but I've been wanting to read The Forgotten Man. The basic thesis is that the New Deal did much more harm than good. I've always believed that WWII ended the Great Depression more than the New Deal, but I am curious to see what the author says about the extent of the harm the New Deal did. Seems like a very timely subject...What a fucker that FDR was, making it so old people and orphans don't starve to death. I have half a mind to go down to his grave, dig him up and kick his ass. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 What a fucker that FDR was, making it so old people and orphans don't starve to death. I have half a mind to go down to his grave, dig him up and kick his ass. One more time...I guess FDR was great unless you were one of the countless Japanese-Americans in the country in the '40s. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ZenLunatic Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I agree on the debt as an immediate issue as debt sevice eats up more and more of the budget. It's my number one issue. Unfortuantely when times were not as bad we grew the debt rather than retired debt, it was piss poor fiscal management. Management of our debt has to be done in a fiscally responsible manner. Sadly though the politico's have convinced the country that banks need a trillion (tough apparently not as badly as we thought since some are considering giving the cash back so they can give out their bonuses), that projects need a trillion in order to stave off a depression. The "experts" also say action is needed, so I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. I mor einclined to think "do something" rather than say sit back and see what fails. I just want it managed well and handled in a fiscally responsible manner. Social security on the other hand still has a fairly decent window of opportunity to work with. The punditry and politicians of a certain stripe (those who want to end SS) would have us believ that we are at the edge staring into oblivion, we are not. But we know where the horizon is. I say one more problem is that our military spending is out of control. We do not need 1500 bases around the world. We also need better managment of the military budgets. We dont have to do nothing. We can budget with the money we have better. Cut spending, cut government. Like you said, we dont need to spend billions to send military all over this world. Get rid of most of those bases. We have trouble at home, lets work on ourselves. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.