The 'stimulus' isn't going to work, and why.

[unregistered]

 

[TurdFergeson]

Not one word about this when SHRUB looted the Treasury.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BOGNONBR

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/BOGNONBR_Max_630_378.png

HOW IS IT that Obama is FILLING the Reserves , while doing all these "bailouts"?

Oh, his rescue package is doled out over a long time period, not an "instant GIVEAWAY" that Bush gave corporations in a "trickle down" attempt which FAILED because the Corporate management WASTED all the funds on PARTIES!

Bumpedity bump.

The graph don't lie.

 

[Ishmael]

Not one word about this when SHRUB looted the Treasury.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BOGNONBR

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/BOGNONBR_Max_630_378.png

HOW IS IT that Obama is FILLING the Reserves , while doing all these "bailouts"?

Oh, his rescue package is doled out over a long time period, not an "instant GIVEAWAY" that Bush gave corporations in a "trickle down" attempt which FAILED because the Corporate management WASTED all the funds on PARTIES!

You keep posting that piece of shit as if it's a good thing. LMAO.

Ishmael

 

[TurdFergeson]

You keep posting that piece of shit as if it's a good thing. LMAO.

Ishmael

It's not good that Obama has reversed the Bush trend of DRAINING the non- borrowed Treasury reserves?

Look at what got us out of the last recession, a slight uptick in the BOGNONBR.

 

[Ishmael]

It's not good that Obama has reversed the Bush trend of DRAINING the non- borrowed Treasury reserves?

Look at what got us out of the last recession, a slight uptick in the BOGNONBR.

LMAO No, it's not good turd. That's money that is NOT at work in the economy. It's bad turd, real bad.

Ishmael

 

[TurdFergeson]

LMAO No, it's not good turd. That's money that is NOT at work in the economy. It's bad turd, real bad.

Ishmael

Yet the current recession started right after it went over the cliff.

And the last recession ended right after a slight uptick.

 

[Ishmael]

Yet the current recession started right after it went over the cliff.

And the last recession ended right after a slight uptick.

Turd, if there were any good news in that graph both Obama and his tax cheat Sec. Treas. would be out showing that graph to the press.

But we now know what your economic/financial acumen is, in spades.

Ishmael

 

[TurdFergeson]

Turd, if there were any good news in that graph both Obama and his tax cheat Sec. Treas. would be out showing that graph to the press.

But we now know what your economic/financial acumen is, in spades.

Ishmael

So, in your bass-ackwards world, Bush DRAINING the reserves was good, and Obama filling it is bad?

Even though Bush slightly raised the Reserves to get us out of the last recession.

Some kind of flawed logic you have there.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ishmael]

So, in your bass-ackwards world, Bush DRAINING the reserves was good, and Obama filling it is bad?

Even though Bush slightly raised the Reserves to get us out of the last recession.

Some kind of flawed logic you have there.

When are you going to get it through your pea brain that the Federal Reserve is an independent organization that does what it does without the need for any authorization from the president. Nor can any president stop the Fed. from doing anything it feels needs to be done.

In other words pea brain, Bush didn't have a damn thing to do with it. Further turd, that graph is upside down from what you seem to think is proper display of data. The negative numbers represent monies injected into the economy. Is your notion that Bush, even if he could, should have dried up the money supply and shut down all liquidity?

Further turd, you're looking at the wrong table/graph. Which makes your posting this one all the more delicious. I can only surmise that you pulled this one out of your ass because it showed those two opposing spikes and in your itty-bitty brain you concluded that down was bad, and it was, and up is good, which it isn't. Right around the baseline of 0 is where you want to see that graph. Maybe that's why they put the 0 in the center of the graph? Ya think? ROFLMAO

Ishmael

 

[Sharon_]

Turd, if there were any good news in that graph both Obama and his tax cheat Sec. Treas. would be out showing that graph to the press.

<grin>
http://www.blinkx.com/video/mark-cuban-parodies-bernarke-paulson-the-bailout/MYCgfD7sQHziBHnyaZTOUg

 

[TurdFergeson]

Turd, are you an American?

Yes, and how is it GOOD that Bush drained the Reserves in a corporate give-away, and Obama filling the reserves is bad, even while his plan calls for a slow trickle-up bailout?

Are you and Busybody Americans or Israeli citizens? Because whenever Obama spends money domestically you rant and scream, but whenever money goes to Iraq or the Middle East you are happy.

Seems to be a definite pattern , here.

Hmmmmm....

 

[TurdFergeson]

When are you going to get it through your pea brain that the Federal Reserve is an independent organization that does what it does without the need for any authorization from the president. Nor can any president stop the Fed. from doing anything it feels needs to be done.

In other words pea brain, Bush didn't have a damn thing to do with it. Further turd, that graph is upside down from what you seem to think is proper display of data. The negative numbers represent monies injected into the economy. Is your notion that Bush, even if he could, should have dried up the money supply and shut down all liquidity?

Further turd, you're looking at the wrong table/graph. Which makes your posting this one all the more delicious. I can only surmise that you pulled this one out of your ass because it showed those two opposing spikes and in your itty-bitty brain you concluded that down was bad, and it was, and up is good, which it isn't. Right around the baseline of 0 is where you want to see that graph. Maybe that's why they put the 0 in the center of the graph? Ya think? ROFLMAO

Ishmael

Ah..as usual deflection and outright lies. You are a liar and have some kind of anti-American agenda.

You lie about the Fed not consulting with the President, and you lie about the graph.

The Fed (no doubt with the full consent of Bush) created a slight UPTICK in the BOGNONBR which direstly resulted in the END of the last recession.

The Fed (once again with the full approval of Bush) DRAINED it's reserves for the BUSH TRICKLE DOWN BAILOUTS (instant giveaway to corporations), which failed.

HOW IS IT that you can blame OBAMA for "the bailout" when all the bailout money comes from the FED, which YOU SAY is TOTALLY INDEPENDENT from the President? You contradict yourself, as usual.

Obviously Obama is reversing the trend ..something you refuse to accept..probably because it means less money going overseas to your handlers?

 

[TurdFergeson]

"As of right now, January 2009 they stand at $653.565 billion, a reduction of $45.225 billion or 6.47%. This is the first reduction in demand for loans by banks from the Federal Reserve since the crisis started.

Since these are funds borrowed by member banks from a Federal Reserve Bank for the purpose of maintaining the required reserve ratios a reduction could be a good thing. This could be the very first glimmer of hope…

Depository Institutions with insufficient reserves will borrow from the Federal Reserve to meet their legal Reserve Requirements. Normally, an increase in borrowed reserves signals tighter Federal Reserve credit policy and potentially higher interest rates for bank borrowers. When the Federal Reserve provides less credit to the banking system, banks must borrow to maintain the required reserves. These loans, in the form of an Advance or Discount by a Federal Reserve Bank, are normally collateralized by Treasury securities."

"CONCLUSION:

The combination of a parabolic increase in Total Reserves and the stagnation of Borrowed Reserves had the effect of catapulting Non-Borrowed reserves back into positive territory.
The jump in Total Reserves has manifested itself as giant pile of Excess Reserves at the banks.

The liquidity provided by the Federal Reserve through its policy of Quantitative Easing is stuck in the financial system. The refusal of banks to lend is the bottle neck and the only thing preventing inflation. Since there is no economic incentive to lend the financial system will continue to de-leverage and destroy bad debt. The banks have been reduced to hoarding. Therefore, despite a massive increase in money, expect DEFLATION in 2009."

http://benbittrolff.blogspot.com/2009/01/really-scary-fed-charts-fun-with.html

Seems all the disinformation and propaganda parroted by your wingnuts is utter baloney...instead of "massive inflation", we should expect deflation. The FED hoarding cash is now a good thing, instead of giving it away. Everything you wingnuts say is a lie and based on an agenda.

 

[Luk]

Oh please FL Mike who doth posteth on a PORN BOARD, please enlighten us ignorant masses with the truth that only you can see.

ROTFLMAO.

Why have this idiot enlighten us? We already had the head idiot make the thread along with him pontificating on his prognostication.

 

[unregistered]

 

[TurdFergeson]

What reserves? The money doesn't belong to government, when they collect less they need to spend less.

Seems to me you bend the truth a lot...are you a Democrat?

Bush gave approval to the FED to raise the reserves to get us out of the last recession...the graph clearly shows it after the year 2000.

Obama gave his consent for the Fed to reverse the trend under Bush of draining the reserves to unprecedented low levels for his corporate instant give-away.

Funny how you guys say "The FED is totally independent!", but blame Obama for a "bailout" using FED funds? OK?

How can Obama be accused of "the biggest bailout ever", when in reality the Treasury reserves are currently growing, an abrubt reversal of what started right before the current recession began?

People like Ishmael are asking the American people to trust him, and not their own eyes.

How is that bending the truth?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Go to anyone of the big retirement towns and come back and give us a report on their thriving economies.

Ishmael

We have countless retirement communities in the Tampa Bay area, and our local economy is doing as well as anywhere in America, thank you very much.

 

[off2bed]

What reserves? The money doesn't belong to government, when they collect less they need to spend less.

Seems to me you bend the truth a lot...are you a Democrat?

The truth bends him. You see how he changed from "Bush drained the treasury" to "The Federal Reserve, with Bush's consent" did it? Soon he'll come around to figuring out Bush's consent was either irrelevant or non-existent. Baby steps.

 

[TurdFergeson]

The truth bends him. You see how he changed from "Bush drained the treasury" to "The Federal Reserve, with Bush's consent" did it? Soon he'll come around to figuring out Bush's consent was either irrelevant or non-existent. Baby steps.

Oh, but in your fucked up head it's OBAMA's FAULT that his bailout uses FED money?

Hypocritical much, miles?

I see...when Bush did it...it was ALL on the FED , Bush had NOTHING to do with the bailouts under his administration!!! ...but when Obama does it...the FED is being controlled by OBAMA!

Interesting...also interesting that the President appoints members of the FED board of directors. Keep telling us the President has no influence over the FED.

 

[Acanthus]

And your solution is what?

Cutting taxes for the rich?

Trickle down economics in its current bastardiszed form wasnt even what was proposed back in the day. Now its cut taxes for the rich under any dubious circiumstance. Not the the specific circiumstances pointed out by the economists that coined the phrase.

Reducing taxes on the rich does not get a full return via economic boom. You increase deficits and wind up paying obscene amounts of interest on the added deficits.

Creating jobs while getting shit the country needs done anyway completed is the way to go. You have less people in the welfare system, more productivity, and more money flowing through the economy.

Cutting taxes on the highest tax bracket has little bearing on GDP if at all.

Some of the strongest growth in US history was during the 60s when the highest tax bracket was paying 89% effective tax rates.

 

[KingOrfeo]

DOES it work?

Indeed, and better than what we've got here. From "The American Paradox," by Ted Halstead, published in The Atlantic Monthly, January/February 2003:

Nothing illustrates America's profound contradictions more starkly than a comparison with other advanced democracies: among these the United States is either the very best or the very worst performer on a wide range of social and economic criteria. We are simultaneously the leader and the laggard among our peers—almost always exceptional, almost never in the middle.

Without question we are the richest, most powerful, and most creative nation on the planet. Our economic and military might stems from our embrace of a particularly high-octane brand of capitalism, supported by financial markets that are deeper and broader than any others, labor markets that are more flexible, and a culture of entrepreneurialism that is unparalleled. These attributes have turned America into the world's unrivaled engine of innovation and wealth creation. We boast more patent applications than the entire European Union; almost three times as many Nobel laureates as Britain, our closest competitor; and more business start-ups per capita than almost every other advanced democracy. One in twelve Americans will start his or her own business, evincing another outstanding American trait—our great tolerance for risk. And our export of movies, television shows, music, and fast-food chains makes us, for better or worse, the dominant cultural force on the globe.

But like the Roman god Janus, America has two faces. Despite being the richest nation on the planet, we suffer from higher rates of poverty, infant mortality, homicide, and HIV infection, and from greater economic inequality, than other advanced democracies. We have far more uninsured citizens, and a lower life expectancy. On a per capita basis the United States emits considerably more greenhouse gases and produces more solid waste. We spend more per student on K-12 education than almost all other modern democracies, yet our students perform near the bottom on international tests. We have the highest rates of teen pregnancy and among the highest proportions of single parents, and American parents have the least amount of free time to spend with their children; indeed, the average American works nine weeks more each year than the average European. Our performance on many social indicators is so poor, in fact, that an outsider looking at these numbers alone might conclude that we were a developing nation.

How do we reconcile these two faces of America? To a remarkable degree the United States seems to have exchanged social cohesion and a broad-based middle class for economic dynamism and personal freedom. Have we abandoned what used to be referred to as the common good?

<snip>

THE TWO FACES OF AMERICA

This list of "bests" and "worsts" is based on a variety of sources—including statistics from the United Nations, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and a number of other groups and experts—but the basic criteria are consistent. Among advanced democracies, America had to rank in the top three for a category to be listed under "bests" and in the bottom three for a category to be listed under "worsts." (Where applicable, all rankings were determined on a rate basis or as a percentage of population.)

Bests-------------------------------------------------Worsts

Gross domestic product------------------------------Poverty
Productivity---------------------------------------------Economic inequality
Business start-ups------------------------------------Carbon-dioxide emissions
Long-term unemployment---------------------------Life expectancy
Expenditure on education---------------------------Infant mortality
University graduates----------------------------------Homicide
R&D expenditure---------------------------------------Health-care coverage
High-tech exports--------------------------------------HIV infection
Movies exported---------------------------------------Teen pregnancy
Breadth of stock ownership--------------------------Personal savings
Volunteerism--------------------------------------------Voter participation
Charitable giving---------------------------------------Obesity

Each approach to the social contract has its pluses and minuses, of course, but on balance America has made a very bad bargain for itself and should learn from the examples of others.[/quote]

Can it stand alone when the last bastion of capitalism takes a plunge?

What on Earth are you talking about? Europe's economy no more depends on America's than vice-versa.

Judging by the headlines, I think not. Ayn Rand saw its full force and effect as a young girl and gave us a glimpse into our future in "We, the Living."

She was writing about Soviet Communism. Social democracy does not tend in that direction.

A "Social Democracy" is just the jumping off point, all Democracies devolve into tyranny, a VERY well-intentioned tyranny.

That is not historically true. Some democracies have devolved into tyrannies but never "well-intentioned" ones; some have not. Switzerland has been a democracy and nothing else for centuries. N.B.: Allende's democratically elected Marxist government in Chile was well-intentioned but not a tyranny; Pinochet's, which replaced it by U.S.-sponsored coup d'etat, was a tyranny and not well-intentioned. Chavez' Venezuela is not a tyranny either, though it is marred by widespread corruption.

And democracies, BTW, do not self-destruct through the people voting themselves largesse from the public treasury. There is an Internet meme to that effect, falsely attributed to Alexander Tytler, but the process described has never happened in all of recorded history -- not in Athens, not in Rome, not in any republic from the Renaissance onward.

* You haven't read much on Obama, now HAVE YOU?

Enough to know he is no more a social democrat than Clinton was. Pity.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Obama IS going to lower OUR taxes. Whether or not it offsets the inflation (two kinds: freshly printed money and the rich passing on their taxes imbedded in the goods and services they provide) is another question...

Get your head out of the 1970s. At this juncture, the great threatening danger is not inflation but deflation.

 

[KingOrfeo]

There is no ammount of spending on the part of the government that can change the economy. Primarily because ALL government dollars come out of the economy to begin with. Government spending actually shrinks the economy.

Government dollars do not "come out of the economy." Government itself -- being a major employer and major consumer and major spender -- is as much a part of the economy as is the private sector. It is not directly economically productive the way the private sector is, but the relationship between the two is symbiotic, not parasitic. You can't have a thriving economy in a failed state, after all, and you will never live to see a thriving economy in a radically libertarian state, no more than in a Communist state; government makes the private sector possible.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The US's collapse will be an eerie echo of the collapse of the Soviet Union, and for some of the same reasons, among them excessive central control, gross imbalance of foreign trade, the inherent extreme inefficiency of the Socialist system, and a prolonged and unpopular war in Afghanistan.

But, we do not have excessive central control or a Socialist system, nor are we likely to.

And it seems to me that the only reason conservatives are against the U.S. staying on in Afghanistan is because Obama is for it; I recall no RW protests of the 2001 invasion.