Stimulus Money

Re: The Economy (stupid)

pelhamhall said:
Two case studies - editorializing left out:

The Situation
Franklin Roosevelt took office as the economy was sliding into another major economic crisis - the three decades prior to this there were several bank panics and currency crisis.

The proposed solution:
FDR proposed higher taxes, protectionist trade, and big, big government programs.

***

The Situation
George Walker Bush took office also just as the economy was sliding into crisis. The Clinton recession was in solid effect, fueled by the "dot-com bust" and then on top of this, just months into office, the nation was rocked by the first act of war since Pearl Harbor. Markets froze, the already fragile stock market tanked even further, and the weak economy was further jolted into recession. Many people called the situation at the time, "the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression" - people like then-state rep. Barry Obama (direct quote).

The proposed solution:
George Bush proposed slashing taxes on all people (rich, middle class, poor - every tax bracket) corporations, capital gains and investments. He opened up trade to more markets, continuing a push for free-trade agreements. He attempted to cut government spending, but was hamstrung by the War waged against the United States on Sept 11.

In effect, he took the exact opposite approach that FDR took.

The Results:
For FDR, the recession turned into the Great Depression.
For GWB, the recession was kept at bay

(Obviously - OBVIOUSLY - an overly simplistic view whitewashing several factors, but the two case studies are illustrative)

I believe Barrack Hussein Obama is smart, not dumb.

This is why he is going to continue all the major Bush economic policies - the ones that he labeled the "failed economic policies of the past 8 years"

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

I for one am relieved.
Click to expand...

phew... i am glad you dont know what your talking about. otherwise i was going to change my vote away from obama. fortunately FDR never raised taxes, nor did he increase tariffs. both were hoover's undertakings.

as for bush. he did do a lot of what you said. but slashing taxes across the board didnt do anything, because it was a reaction to the recession that we are in RIGHT NOW, which started in 2007. it only got worse after he implemented his economic recovery package. it also only entrenched us further in this mindset of overcompensating individuals for being wealthy (this time through taxes) and then having those individuals invest their money stupidly and bringing the whole country down with it. under bush too much money accumulated under too few people and those tax cuts continued that trend. im glad Obama isn't following in his footsteps...
 
Re: The Economy (stupid)

eljusticiero67 said:
phew... i am glad you dont know what your talking about. otherwise i was going to change my vote away from obama. fortunately FDR never raised taxes, nor did he increase tariffs. both were hoover's undertakings.

as for bush. he did do a lot of what you said. but slashing taxes across the board didnt do anything, because it was a reaction to the recession that we are in RIGHT NOW, which started in 2007. it only got worse after he implemented his economic recovery package. it also only entrenched us further in this mindset of overcompensating individuals for being wealthy (this time through taxes) and then having those individuals invest their money stupidly and bringing the whole country down with it. under bush too much money accumulated under too few people and those tax cuts continued that trend. im glad Obama isn't following in his footsteps...
Click to expand...

Actually you both don't have a clue. After the gold standard: The reality of our economic state these days are controlled by the Federal Reserve. The Fed creates boom and bust economic cycles by inflating and deflating our currency. In those cycles new innovation and technology usually create more jobs that maintain society living. The Federal Reserve was suppose to create balance in the banking system.
Obama, Bush, Republicans, Democrats, None of these people have a clue and the real people that make things happen are really behind the scenes.

I really don't see anything good coming out of the Obama Admin. Our unemployment rates will be heading much higher and all the trillions in stimilus and bailouts have taken the money from the savers and productive people in this country. Bankers, Lawyers, Politicians, don't create anything they are like leeches on the people that actually work hard for this nation and create value.

Maybe Lurker can clean this email up for me.
 
Re: The Economy (stupid)

TheRifleman said:
Actually you both don't have a clue. After the gold standard: The reality of our economic state these days are controlled by the Federal Reserve. The Fed creates boom and bust economic cycles by inflating and deflating our currency. In those cycles new innovation and technology usually create more jobs that maintain society living. The Federal Reserve was suppose to create balance in the banking system.
Obama, Bush, Republicans, Democrats, None of these people have a clue and the real people that make things happen are really behind the scenes.

I really don't see anything good coming out of the Obama Admin. Our unemployment rates will be heading much higher and all the trillions in stimilus and bailouts have taken the money from the savers and productive people in this country. Bankers, Lawyers, Politicians, don't create anything they are like leeches on the people that actually work hard for this nation and create value.

Maybe Lurker can clean this email up for me.
Click to expand...

phew... im glad you dont know what youre talking about either. otherwise, id have to get a lobotomy cause nothing would make sense anymore. the fed does NOT "create boom and bust cycles." rather its job is to mitigate vacillation in the cycle so the booms are so booming and the busts aren't so busty. that can be evidenced by the fact that since the 50s there have been fewer recessions on average than any other 60 year period in america's history (see chart below-- its a CPI chart, but still shows the trend). similarly, when booms become too big the fed chairman often increases the interest rate or threatens do so to deflate the bubble-- how greenspan and bernake so colossally missed the housing bubble is still up to investigation.

likewise saying that people behind the scenes have more influence is borderline silly. though a lot of people can have their opinion the different methods on how it is done, injecting money into the economy is the most effective measure to reduce the impact of recession. this can be done either by
1) the Fed decreasing interest rates (which is done by printing money/ buying up bonds)
2) tax cuts
3) deficit spending

2 of those three methods are practically directly in the hands of the president. again you can disagree about which one is most effective. Bush used tax cuts-- which I believe accumulated too much money in the hands of the few which is why we got in this recession in the first place. Obama used deficit spending-- which is effective because it pays people to work rather than handing money to rich people. in the meantime the fed has reduced the interest rate, which results in the virtual printing of money and allowing money to flow more freely as people are more likely to borrow if interest rates are set low.

so you see, the fed's responsibility is mostly reactionary to the cycles... and dont in fact "create" them. they are not exactly active agents in the economy.

finally a lot of stupid people have spoke out against stimulus packages (both Bush and Obama). but these stupid people only know how to criticize. cause unfortunately if neither Bush nor Obama had done nothing they would have probably been criticized for not doing anything and that the unemployment rate was at 30%.

anyways, im glad i know how to think.

inflation-1872-present.gif
 
Last edited:
"Maybe Lurker can clean this email up for me."

?
​
 
Re: The Economy (stupid)

eljusticiero67 said:
phew... im glad you dont know what youre talking about either. otherwise, id have to get a lobotomy cause nothing would make sense anymore. the fed does NOT "create boom and bust cycles." rather its job is to mitigate vacillation in the cycle so the booms are so booming and the busts aren't so busty. that can be evidenced by the fact that since the 50s there have been fewer recessions on average than any other 60 year period in america's history (see chart below-- its a CPI chart, but still shows the trend). similarly, when booms become too big the fed chairman often increases the interest rate or threatens do so to deflate the bubble-- how greenspan and bernake so colossally missed the housing bubble is still up to investigation.

likewise saying that people behind the scenes have more influence is borderline silly. though a lot of people can have their opinion the different methods on how it is done, injecting money into the economy is the most effective measure to reduce the impact of recession. this can be done either by
1) the Fed decreasing interest rates (which is done by printing money/ buying up bonds)
2) tax cuts
3) deficit spending

2 of those three methods are practically directly in the hands of the president. again you can disagree about which one is most effective. Bush used tax cuts-- which I believe accumulated too much money in the hands of the few which is why we got in this recession in the first place. Obama used deficit spending-- which is effective because it pays people to work rather than handing money to rich people. in the meantime the fed has reduced the interest rate, which results in the virtual printing of money and allowing money to flow more freely as people are more likely to borrow if interest rates are set low.

so you see, the fed's responsibility is mostly reactionary to the cycles... and dont in fact "create" them. they are not exactly active agents in the economy.

finally a lot of stupid people have spoke out against stimulus packages (both Bush and Obama). but these stupid people only know how to criticize. cause unfortunately if neither Bush nor Obama had done nothing they would have probably been criticized for not doing anything and that the unemployment rate was at 30%.

anyways, im glad i know how to think.

inflation-1872-present.gif
Click to expand...


I never said they should do nothing. It doesn't make sense giving the same people the bailout money that got us into the current situation. Those people are Failures. Whatever happened to the Bankrupty laws? Who cares if Housing values decline? Who cares if the country faces deflation? How many cell phones does your family have? How many cars does your family have? How many computers does your family have? The reality of the United States is over consumption. We need to pay down the debts and consolidate.

What the govt should have done was let all the banks and investment houses file bankruptcy then issue the bailout money to the successful banks to buy those assets pennies on the dollar.

Instead of cleaning up the excess the govt just prolonged it by a couple of years unless new innovation creates a mass wave of jobs that creates demand for wages to rise.

Remember everything in economics is SUPPLY & DEMAND that creates price points. What the Govt & Federal Reserve are trying to do is control price.

The Inflate or die theory will not work this round.
 
I don't know when Pelhamhall posted that but wow - what a disappointment. Usually one of my favorite posters . . .

The US Real GDP began to rebound in 1933 (a year that is frequently sited as the beginning of the recovery from the Great Depression globally). This is the same year FDR took office. Hoover oversaw the first 4 years of the depression.

And Rifelman, the gold standard is a pipe dream. Every major currency was on the gold standard when the Great Depression hit and had abandoned the gold standard by 1935.

Year Real GDP
1927 $910.8
1928 $921.3
1929 $977.0
1930 $892.8
1931 $834.9
1932 $725.8
1933 $716.4
1934 $794.4
1935 $865.0
1936 $977.9
1937 $1,028.0
1938 $992.6
1939 $1,072.8
1940 $1,166.9
1941 $1,366.1
1942 $1,618.2
 
Just started reading the board again, and now I remember why I quit; the slow economy means no new development news and tons of dingbat Libertarians coming out of the closet.
 
Well... you were all right, and so was Barrack Obama.

The $800B stimulus bill saved us all. Just as Obama said, if we didn't pass the bill, unemployment might go up as high as 9.5% - by passing the bill, unemployment fell to 8.5% by the summer of 2009 and we are on strong footing right now.


And the most important quote of my diatribe:

"(Obviously - OBVIOUSLY - an overly simplistic view whitewashing several factors, but the two case studies are illustrative)"

So take it with piles of salt please.

Or not.
 
Thanks for your non-informative rhetorical response.

The question is not whether the unemployment rate is EXACTLY as Obama had predicted. The question is that what would have been the unemployment rate without the stimulus bill and TARP.

Okay class, so let?s review the points:

Bush enacted a stimulus bill in 2007, at the start of this recession. Since then, the economy tanked and unemployment jumped by 5%. That stimulus bill clearly did nothing. (Read my previous post in response to you, about 4 posts ago.)

Obama enacted a stimulus bill and 6 months later most economists are saying we are reaching the end of the recession and the unemployment rate has increased by 1%.

In anticipation of your follow-up: yes, your right, the unemployment rate has still increased. But in every recession since the beginning of time, unemployment is the slowest indicator to turn-around, usually taking 6-10 months to start getting better at the rate of the rest of the indicators. So most people predict that while we?ll see the economy turning around in the next months, unemployment won?t turn around for a while yet. So, that?s not cause of Obama?s specific policy. Not even your bum-buddy Ru Paul, or whatever his name is could change that.

So I recommend taking your comments to some tea-party to protest nothing in particular.
 
"The Fed Now Owns it All--It Took Less Than 100 Years 22-Sep-08 01:09 pm That's right. The private corporation known as the Federal Reserve Bank was created in 1913. It took less than 100 years to wipe out any source of money beyond their "oversight." The Rothchilds must be popping their bubbly--maybe they are even 4 years ahead of plan. With the demise of MS and GS into the Fed, all they need is to have no interference with our foolish idea of Separation of Powers. Oh, sorry, they are already seeking that in the bailout plan. No administrative or judicial appeal for anything they do. Today truly marks the end of capitalism, and if they so choose, democracy.

For those who still do not get the idea of the Fed, it is simple. If the US printed its own currency, we would not have to pay interest on the national debt. Jefferson knew this, then Lincoln issued his own notes as did JFK. You draw your own conclusions. Instead, the taxpayers now owe $11.2 trillion and have to pay whatever interest rate the Fed charges. GIven that it is now over $400 billion annually (when we collect only $1 trillion in individual income taxes--excluding FICA), imagine if rates go to 9%. Game Over.

God bless the Federal States of America. "

This is the reality to the situation. Bush and Obama with the help of Congress have destroyed America.
 
This is the reality to the situation. Bush and Obama with the help of Congress have destroyed America.

Right. I'll keep my eyes peeled for that impending doom Libertarian's keep predicting.
 
Tell that to the 10-16 Percent unemployed souls in America. Have you ever seen Middle America. The bailout package for 800 Billion to the bankers could have probably rebuilt the entire MidWest.
 
$800 Billion couldn't rebuild a third of Chicago, let alone the entire Mid-West. Furthermore, most countries would kill to have 10-16 percent unemployment. In fact, many high GDP, high productivity, high standard of living countries have carried 16% and higher unemployment for years. They're mostly in that horrible, fascist backwater, Europe! OH GOD THE HORRORS OF EUROPE!!!
 
In anticipation of your follow-up: yes, your right, the unemployment rate has still increased. But in every recession since the beginning of time, unemployment is the slowest indicator to turn-around, usually taking 6-10 months to start getting better at the rate of the rest of the indicators. So most people predict that while we?ll see the economy turning around in the next months, unemployment won?t turn around for a while yet. So, that?s not cause of Obama?s specific policy. Not even your bum-buddy Ru Paul, or whatever his name is could change that.
Click to expand...

Right. And no, this is hardly the first jobless recovery. It's been this way for nearly two decades.
 
Rifleman, not only have Bush, Obama and Congress destroyed America, but the MAYOR is a CROOK.
UNIONS SUCK.
OBAMA is a COMMUNIST.
The BIG DIG was a big FRAUD.
OBAMA will elect his WIFE to run GM.
The CITY is practically BANKRUPT.
The BRA couldn?t build a LEGO model.
Our politicians and developers are MORONS.
The Big Dig cost 25 BILLION.
The BIG DIG cost 15 BILLION.
The BIG DIG cost 20 BILLION.
The BRA is CORRUPT.
CONSUMERS are all lazy SHEEP.
The TAXPAYERS have been SCAMMED.
SOCIETY better start WAKING UP.
MASSPORT is a DISASTER in general.
MASSPORT is a CORRUPT political agency that hires MORONS to run this airport.
YOU need a SOUND currency to keep ORDER in Society
 
After all these years......








I won!

Decadent Western Capitalist Pig Fools!
 
^^ Congratulations!

Though you may have a little more work to do:

socialism-chart.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top