There was no continuous economic boom between 1982 and 2007, Joe. Quit making things up.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What should be done to get the economy out of recession?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
There was no continuous economic boom between 1982 and 2007, Joe. Quit making things up.
Joe_Stocks
Back from the Dead
Hi Sunstone,
What's the matter, can't talk about Obama's failed stimulus (by his own standards). Looks like you are the ideologue.
And the economic growth between 1982 to 2007 was like nothing we had ever seen. The recessions were shorter and periods of really robust economic growth were longer. And this wasn't all just Republicans, Bill Clinton deserves some credit (by correctly sticking his finger in the air to catch the tide of the political winds).
What's the matter, can't talk about Obama's failed stimulus (by his own standards). Looks like you are the ideologue.
And the economic growth between 1982 to 2007 was like nothing we had ever seen. The recessions were shorter and periods of really robust economic growth were longer. And this wasn't all just Republicans, Bill Clinton deserves some credit (by correctly sticking his finger in the air to catch the tide of the political winds).
Obama's stimulus preserved some jobs and created some others. It, more than anything else, turned around job loss in this country so that we were at least headed in the right direction. But it did not do enough because it was too small to create robust job growth. And if Obama thinks any differently than that about it, then Obama is wrong.
By the way, Joe, I'm not nearly as ideologically driven as you. You are for all intents and purposes the single most ideologically driven commentator on this board. Anyone can see that -- except perhaps you yourself.
Cut the nonsense, Joe. The period 1982 to 2007 is not a single period of economic growth to anyone -- except you.
Joe_Stocks
Back from the Dead
Hi Sunstone,
So the Obama administration is wrong about their own stimulus? Promising that unemployment wouldn't go above 8% and then watching approach almost 10% is heading in the right direction?
And, yes a bigger stimulus would've worked, sure. Just ask Europe how well government spending has helped their economies.
Next time read what I posted. Between 1982 and 2007 the recessions were shorter and the periods of economic growth were more robust. I am not arguing it was one continuous period of economic growth.
And thinking back to 1982, how exactly did this boom start? Oh yeah, it was supply-side economics.
The hilarious thing is to here you yammer on about how Republicans aren't serious about governing and yet you never talk about the trillions in unfunded liabilities of social security (wasn't there a president that tried to reform that mess?), Medicare and Medicaid. They are all going bankrupt and only solution you guys have is to add another trillion dollar entitlement into our laps. That is why I mentioned Paul Ryan and is roadmap to some sort of fiscal sanity.
You keep advocating for more spending and more spending and then wonder why you are going to get your ***** handed to you in November.
Keep it up sir.
So the Obama administration is wrong about their own stimulus? Promising that unemployment wouldn't go above 8% and then watching approach almost 10% is heading in the right direction?
And, yes a bigger stimulus would've worked, sure. Just ask Europe how well government spending has helped their economies.
Next time read what I posted. Between 1982 and 2007 the recessions were shorter and the periods of economic growth were more robust. I am not arguing it was one continuous period of economic growth.
And thinking back to 1982, how exactly did this boom start? Oh yeah, it was supply-side economics.
The hilarious thing is to here you yammer on about how Republicans aren't serious about governing and yet you never talk about the trillions in unfunded liabilities of social security (wasn't there a president that tried to reform that mess?), Medicare and Medicaid. They are all going bankrupt and only solution you guys have is to add another trillion dollar entitlement into our laps. That is why I mentioned Paul Ryan and is roadmap to some sort of fiscal sanity.
You keep advocating for more spending and more spending and then wonder why you are going to get your ***** handed to you in November.
Keep it up sir.
No, headed in the right direction is seeing positive job growth. We are seeing that now. It's just not robust enough to lift us out of this recession. Do you really not understand that, Joe, or are you just playing dumb? That's a serious question.
Didn't you read the second article linked to in the OP? Government spending is why Germany is recovering before the other European economies.
I call BS. Either prove that it was voodoo economics or shut up about it.
No the hilarious thing is you are trying to change the subject. At issue, Joe, is how to get out of the recession. Unless you are seriously proposing the ridiculous claim that reforming entitlements will get us out of the recession, you are off topic. And I suspect you want to go off topic because you, as a Republican, have no solution to the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Great way to show the country you know how to govern!
Mathematician
Reason, and reason again
The recession started in late 2007 and was predicted by economists of all political affiliations to develop into one of the harshest downturns in a century. Arguing that Obama's stimulus package disrupted a favorable period of growth (pockmarked with fewer recessions) is illogical at best. Perhaps it made the situation worse, but I doubt we would have been out of it by now.
I personally favor tax reductions across the board, but we'll have to increase the national debt for that to happen. The debt problem can only be tackled in boom periods.
I personally favor tax reductions across the board, but we'll have to increase the national debt for that to happen. The debt problem can only be tackled in boom periods.
Joe_Stocks
Back from the Dead
Hi Sunstone,
I see you still have your ideological blinders on. You can't admit that Obama's stimulus failed by his own standards. He promised that his stimulus would prevent unemployment from going above 8%., why can't you address this?
And the anemic growth we are experiencing now is precisely because of Obama and the Democrats in Congress, businesses don't know if and when taxes are going to go up and what new regulations are going to be put in place. Business wants consistency and they are not getting that from Obama and the Democrats in Congress.
Did you miss the latest G20 meeting where the Europeans said they can't spend like Obama wants them to spend? Their debt bombs have exploded and they know they can spend themselves into prosperity. The spending European countries are doing is nothing compared to the austerity measures that are potentially being put in place if they are going to ever get their economic footing again.
Hey smart guy, it wasn't trillion dollar stimulus packages, it was across the board tax cuts along with not artificially tinkering with interest rates at the Federal Reserve.
If you think that trillion dollar entitlements don't have an effect on the economy then you are more economically illiterate than I thought (but being a liberal that is par for the course).
I see you still have your ideological blinders on. You can't admit that Obama's stimulus failed by his own standards. He promised that his stimulus would prevent unemployment from going above 8%., why can't you address this?
And the anemic growth we are experiencing now is precisely because of Obama and the Democrats in Congress, businesses don't know if and when taxes are going to go up and what new regulations are going to be put in place. Business wants consistency and they are not getting that from Obama and the Democrats in Congress.
Did you miss the latest G20 meeting where the Europeans said they can't spend like Obama wants them to spend? Their debt bombs have exploded and they know they can spend themselves into prosperity. The spending European countries are doing is nothing compared to the austerity measures that are potentially being put in place if they are going to ever get their economic footing again.
Hey smart guy, it wasn't trillion dollar stimulus packages, it was across the board tax cuts along with not artificially tinkering with interest rates at the Federal Reserve.
If you think that trillion dollar entitlements don't have an effect on the economy then you are more economically illiterate than I thought (but being a liberal that is par for the course).
Where is your evidence that reducing entitlements will get us out of this recession ?
Joe, take a good look at your responses. They are all style and no substance. No reasoning. No evidence. Just assertions. So, I'll tell you what. You redo them. You give me some substance here. Then we'll go on. But not until you response to my points with substance.
Last edited:
DallasApple
Depends Upon My Mood..
justbehappy
Active Member
The economy has a natural cycle of inflation and deflation. Unless the problem becomes major (another Great Depression or something) the economy can work itself out without government interference. Plus, if we were giving less to the gov, wouldn't we have more in our pockets? Hmm?
justbehappy
Active Member
whatttt?!?!?!?!?!
Joe_Stocks
Back from the Dead
Hi Sunstone,
Zakaria: Obama's CEO Problem - Newsweek
Zakaria interviews business leaders who say that Washington is the reason why the economy isn't growing like it should.
G-20 nations pledge to cut deficits despite Obama's push for stimulus - TheHill.com
And
America's economic boom turns 25 - MSN Money
Zakaria: Obama's CEO Problem - Newsweek
Zakaria interviews business leaders who say that Washington is the reason why the economy isn't growing like it should.
G-20 nations pledge to cut deficits despite Obama's push for stimulus - TheHill.com
And
America's economic boom turns 25 - MSN Money
Joe_Stocks
Back from the Dead
Also Sunstone, if you don't believe the baby boomers retiring which requires us to spend trillions of dollars (we don't have) on entitlements doesn't threaten a robust economic recovery, then we'll just have to agree to disagree because I believe it is self-evident.
If we would have saved and invested all that surplus we had, (when Clinton balanced the budget with it) The boomers would be able to retire on easy street now.
Troublemane
Well-Known Member
You cannot create jobs through spending on credit. Its like paying your rent with a credit card. If your tax base is disappearing, forclosures continuing, then you have no new money coming in to pay for the debt you are generating.
Lets say the government decides to take out a trillion dollar loan in order to stimulate the economy...who gets the money? They could give it to teachers unions to pay their salaries for the next year, so they are guaranteed to vote democrat (they would anyway, so you dont have to give em much....)
You could give it to every single taxpayer in america, and tell them to go out and buy stuff! Lets see, divide 1 trillion by 300 million,....should be enough to give every single person at least 3 grand. Well, then what? They pay their bills this month, what about next month?
..It doesnt matter how much the government goes into debt in order to 'stimulate' the economy. the only people being stimulated are the banks who loan the money.
Oh, BTW, the reason the banks have got to loan money to the government in order to 'simulate' an economy, ...IS BECAUSE THERE AINT NOBODY ELSE THEY CAN LEND TO RIGHT NOW!!!!! The stimulus was just another bank bailout, with a different name. Thats all.
Troublemane
Well-Known Member
Oh hey, you dont think they engineered this disaster to prevent the baby boomers from all cashing in their 401k's at the same time, ......do you????
Mercy Not Sacrifice
Well-Known Member
Mercy Not Sacrifice
Well-Known Member
I think one of the major drains on economic recovery is the sagging housing market. Even as other portions of the economy slowly recover, foreclosures are increasing with no end in sight:
When less common, as they were during the healthy economy of the 1990s, the economy could easily absorb the blows that foreclosures dealt it. But when the economy is shaky, foreclosures produce several nasty effects:
(1) Loss of value on the home, and to a lesser extent nearby homes;
(2) Loss of net worth for the ex-homeowner, both in terms of the lost asset and destroyed credit rating;
(3) Loss for the bank financing the mortgage.
And, because of those damn hedge funds that are tied to those "toxic assets," we also get:
(4) Loss of assets for companies investing in the hedge funds;
(5) Scaling back of spending and employment by those companies.
So it seems that the major goal of this portion of economic recovery--remember, we're strictly talking about the housing market--needs to be to reduce the number of foreclosures, and to get the hedge-betting away from the housing market. Financial reform and the Volcker Rule will hopefully take care of some of the hedge betting. So, then, how to get the number of foreclosures down, both in the short-term and the long-term?
First of all, there is an alternative to the foreclosure. It's called the short sale: Selling a home for a loss, i.e., while the loan is still "underwater." It's not a great option, because both the homeowner and the bank still take a hit, not to mention it's a nightmare for realtors to deal with. But it is by far the lesser of two evils. So open a program that channels some of these foreclosures into short sales, possibly by making it much harder for banks to foreclose on people who simply cannot pay the mortgage. I'm wide open to suggestions as to how such a program would work.
Second, ARMs--adjustable-rate mortgages--should be banned. Burninate and destroy them. Had homeowners been given fixed-rate mortgages throughout the 2000s, it is very likely that we wouldn't even be having this discussion in the first place.
Also, it appears the financial reform bill installed some regulations that prevent mortgage brokers from just dishing out mortgages to just whomever--a serious problem that was brought to light by the housing bubble. But we cannot assume that just because reform passed that this has been completely taken care of. If Congress or the new Consumer Financial Protection bureau needs to, then they should promptly and without hesitation create more explicit and/or tougher regulations. A healthy economy cannot allow for giving out home loans to just anybody.
Finally, this housing bubble has a direct negative impact on the home construction industry. I would like to open the possibility of giving temporary subsidies to building companies to NOT build, just like farmers are paid not to grow more than a certain number of crops. Why? Because doing so would plummet the number of available homes, which is hovering around record highs, thus getting home prices back up again. Unless I am missing something critical, I do not know why this idea hasn't been seriously tossed around. Oh, and subsidies avoid potentially forcing construction companies not to build, which IMO would be utterly draconian.
Reich is absolutely correct to blast the deficit hawks as being completely out-of-touch with reality: They trumpet the long-run issue of the deficit while completely ignoring the reality of the present. As Keynes said, "In the long run, we are all dead." I could give a flying **** if we need to spend another half a trillion bucks or so on round 2 of the stimulus. There's a reason it's called the STIMULUS, and there's a reason why it's economic suicide to cut government spending during a recession, particularly one as great as this one.
Holy crap. If that isn't game-set-match for the Keynesians, I don't know what is.
Is that something you just made up? I think that as a rule it has a flaw. That flaw is that jobs have been created on borrowed funds.