What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Clinton balanced the budget, best joke on this thread.

Did he do that with a Democrat Congress and long-term borrowing coupled with reasonable interest rates?

 

[koalabear]

Did he do that with a Democrat Congress and long-term borrowing coupled with reasonable interest rates?

Much easier than that, just steal all you can from SS and don't pay it back.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I hold Steyn as one of the most enjoyably witty observers of politics and current events (even if this latest piece doesn't totally showcase that).

But, here again is a writer who does a good job in pointing out what will cause our downfall, and assuring us the downfall is on its way.

Within his words is also the avenue of individual escape from the calamity ahead he portends...

...but Steyn, like so many others who claim to champion individual independence, seems totally stuck on the premise that the fall must be collective, that we're all going down on the same Titanic...as if no other option(s) exist. I surmise this might be because most folks can offer collective critique, but actually are preferably ingrained in the benefits of a bastardized economy, a thoroughly corrupt political arena, and a greatly demented cultural sphere they, on the other hand, lament upon while getting paid by the word to enjoy the ride as much as they can,

This Independence Day weekend I would urge every heart that yearns for individual liberty to spend these glorious hours seriously contemplating what you and your immediate family need to do to claim your independence from a ship you believe to be sinking.

If you don't truly believe it's sinking and will take everything you hold dear down with it, then quit whining and writing about it and admit you're just like every other passenger: simply attempting to gain your most personally advantageous deck chair for the journey.

If this is the USSA Titanic we're all on as so many seem to be pontificating these days, an individual has the choice of going down with the ship or start swimming to survive. It's not "easy" by "Titanic" standards, yet it's the most instinctively pleasant move a liberty-loving individual can make.

I reckon most would be too intimidated to jump ship and start swimming toward America again - and most of them from fright and the sense of helplessness in such a daunting task.

It seems today Liberty is, yeah, a good thing, but there's so much more to Life...

...but there lived a spirit in the founding days which bore the greatest political proof the world has ever known:

GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH​

Where have all the American patriots gone this Independence Day?


“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”

- Samuel Adams

If this thing starts to fall apart, because we are so polyglot and have insisted that diversity is more important than the traditional melting pot, the violence will be so much worse than say Greece, for here it's going to be us vs. them and there's a helluva lot of them to go around...

Steyn cracks me up.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Much easier than that, just steal all you can from SS and don't pay it back.

In his defense, I don't think that's a tradition he began...

It was balanced, like so many are, in the future, after he was gone and as he left, he left us with a recession, but it was not as long and deep as this one, neither was the 2001 recession, but by golly, you let the Democrats at a recession and it makes for a great crises to take on debt and promise more benefits...

 

[koalabear]

In his defense, I don't think that's a tradition he began...

It was balanced, like so many are, in the future, after he was gone and as he left, he left us with a recession, but it was not as long and deep as this one, neither was the 2001 recession, but by golly, you let the Democrats at a recession and it makes for a great crises to take on debt and promise more benefits...

It was actually never even close to being balanced if you count what was being borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund and more the result of America's economic expansion than anything done by the Republicans or Clinton.

Unfortunately the good economy and balanced budget created an excuse to increase spending dramatically.

Both parties suck as far as stealing from SS go.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Dot Com Bubble





Funny thing is, with all the stimulus, targeted funds and overwhelming popularity *snicker*...




... one would expect a GREEN tech bubble.

 

[mercury14]

Cash for clunkers did not work; it merely accelerated sales...

Anyone see anything wrong with this post?

Correct, it accelerated auto sales at a time when there was an enormous overstock of supply. It was a short-term fix but it wasn't expensive and it accomplished it's goal. It caused sales to jump, instantly and happened to coincide with the beginning of the rebound in automobile production and employment (as well as the rebound in the legion of associated parts and materials companies).

Sales naturally diminished right after the program ended, but have climbed ever since.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

i love obama math, spend $30 to save $.45

Anyone see anything wrong with this post?

Correct, it accelerated auto sales at a time when there was an enormous overstock of supply. It was a short-term fix but it wasn't expensive and it accomplished it's goal. It caused sales to jump, instantly and happened to coincide with the beginning of the rebound in automobile production and employment (as well as the rebound in the legion of associated parts and materials companies).

Sales naturally diminished right after the program ended, but have climbed ever since.

 

[koalabear]

Consider that of the 331,000 auto industry jobs lost during the recession, only 76,000 have returned.

 

[mercury14]

Good for you.

Great work accusing me of being a social worker or a "military wife" whatever that's supposed to mean. I have a wife. She's currently at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan, spending her days hopping from FOB to FOB (forward operating base) via helicopter, providing medical care to soldiers wounded by the Taliban. What does your wife do?

As for my brief stint as a social worker, I provided therapeutic intervention to mentally ill teenagers who couldn't live with their families because mom/dad were physically or sexually abusive (often both), had severe drug problems, were severely mentally ill, were missing, or even dead. My clients were kids who were in foster care, group homes, or even their own small apartments in the community. I worked for a private non-profit, though all the kids were in the care of the county. Our goal was to reunite families or when that's not possible, prepare the kids to be independent when they turned 18. We had life coaches that got kids as young as 16 set up in their own apartments, help them find jobs, teach them how to make a budget, and basically be responsible adults in the wake of absolutely no role models. It was a tall order but our methods were well-researched to produce dramatic results. Without intervention these kids typically end up in jail or prison, or are homeless soon after their 18th birthday. If you want, look at it like we helped shape as-risk teens into taxpayers instead of prisoners. I made all of $35k with a master's degree and two bachelor's degrees at this job.

Is this the kind of socialism you hate? Or is socialism sometimes good?

The cost of the wars at the time of the stimulus was less than the cost of the stimulus which was around $800 B.

Factually incorrect. You refuse to acknowledge that the cost of the war is more than just an appropriations bill. You have to add in the cost of record-shattering VA care, the damage to the economy, the raised cost of oil, and many other things. Like financing - The Republicans in power didn't think they should have to pay for the wars so now we have finance charges spanning over decades that add a ton of cost.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/much-wars-cost-report-says-4-trillion-130934180.html

That new study says the government has already paid (er, borrowed and paid) 2.3 trillion to 2.7 trillion and the total cost will be around 4 trillion. That's far greater than the $800 billion stimulus.

Please note that they originally talked about shovel ready jobs and creating (CREATING) new jobs and later retreated from that while the unemployment rate deterioriated and only then started talking about "saved" jobs, a metric without a firm defintion. calculation methodology and based on very subjective assessments making it excessively inclinded to political posturing (since the figures couldn't be "proved.")

This depends on how you want to spin it. In the deepest months of the recession we were losing -600,000 jobs per month. Factor in the stimulus that might have either created new jobs or prevented private or public sector layoffs and that figure might have been -800,000 jobs per month without it. Why does it matter?

Also remember, while Bush was President and he had a Republican Congress, they were recovering from 9/11, waging two wars and still managed to get out of the way of the economy enough to get the budget deficit down to $172B and 4.6% unemployment. The spending has only exploded as the Democrats took over Congress and then the Presidency. Medicare Part D, while I disagree with having put it in, is costing far less than estimated because of the market competition that was structured into the deal. Has Obama stopped or slowed spending on the wars like he said he would...and he had Democrat supermajorities in Congress? That would make it his spending then, wouldn't it?

No, Obama did not start the wars. And he would not have invaded Iraq had he been president. Those costs were handed to him. Just picking up and exiting both wars is not a militarily, politically, or ethically-possible option. Bush committed both America and future administrations to this cost.

And yes, spending "exploded" with Obama in control due to the one-time stimulus which worked according to all independent analysis, and because of increased social security and medicare spending which are mandatory expenditures that would be the exact same under a hypothetical president McCain.

Now you say "Praise to Clinton for controlling costs". lol. Typical democrat. You also forget that Bush had to deal with the aftermath of the attack on our country on 9/11 and had to implement massive investment in rebuilding our military and intelligence systems...things that had to be done.

No stop putting words in my mouth. I never credited Clinton with creating the surplus, ever. If you think I did then quote me.

Also, I love how under Republicans there was increased spending and government expansion that "had to be done". Then conservatives look at the numbers of federal employees under Obama and say there are too many despite practically all new hires being in defense and intelligence. How come Bush gets a pass for hiring intel guys and Obama doesn't?

By all objective measurement seen on this forum, the stimulus "had to be done" too. The Moody's report even demonstrates that the $800 billion cost of the stimulus was cheaper to the taxpayer than simply allowing unemployment to push 12%, pay for massive welfare benefits for the unemployed, pay for the damage to the economy, pay for the much higher deficits under 12% unemployment, pay for being in a recession - if not a real depression, etc. And TARP was cheap as hell compared to watching the American financial sector collapse.

How could you not "save" some jobs with spending around $800 Billion? First, it's almost impossible to measure "saved" jobs and that's why the range of estimates is so big....because there's no quantitative measure, it becomes a "political" answer rather than a precise answer and there are lots of democrats ready to stand up and give political answers.

Okay now you're backpedaling. But no, I'm not interested in Democrats giving political answers. You may listen to them but I don't. I'm only interested in professional, independent analysis. If you can show me some that backs your position I would sincerely take it into consideration.

Secondly, no more of this bullshit about how the entire concept economic analysis is useless since there's an inherent certainty level of less than 100%. It's just dumb.

[criticisms of how the stimulus was implemented]

I think there are some very valid criticisms of the implementation as well, and that if the administration had a do-over it would do things a bit differently. But in all the money reached the economy much faster and more efficiently than a Bush-esque tax rate deduction.

Obamawaiver.

When you demonstrate a factual, objective understanding of what the (temporary) health care waivers actually are, let's talk.

The claim by the administration was that unemployment would improve to 8% and, instead, their failed policies took us the other way, to over 10% and long-lingering unemployment that's still over 9% years later.

Correct, the administration underestimated how serious the recession was going to be. So did Republicans - few or none of them saw it coming either. But it's bullshit spin on your part to say that this administration's policies caused the 10% unemployment rate. Obama took over with 8% unemployment and he ate a -600,000 job January report ten days after he was sworn in. Nine months later the unemployment rate peaked at 10.1%. No administration could have done anything in nine months to stop that. Do you honestly think Bush or McCain could have?

The consensus of independent analysis (including non-Keynsian sources supported by AJ) say that without the stimulus unemployment would have been 1.5%-1.7% higher. So be glad you didn't have to bitch about 11.8% Obama unemployment.

Rates of taxation have been stable, revenue has fallen because the democrats have put so many people out of work with their irresponsible spending, excessive regulation, promises for the future (Obamacare) and demogogery against business and enterprise.

Yeah that's probably why the Dow climbed 4,500 points. Silly.

And please explain how "spending" put people out of work. I'll wait.

One good thing, Obama did reluctantly agree to keep tax rates stable for a couple more years (the evil Bush rates) instead of raising them like he said he would. Ironically, he said that we shouldn't have tax increases during a recession, though he's arguing for them now. I wonder what he really thinks, particularly since it would only raise $700B over 10 years and he's already raised our debt by $6 or 7 Trillion in far fewer years with many more trillions to go over the next 10 years.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You say Obama was right to extend the Bush tax cuts but then you turn around and blame him for the increased deficit caused by them.

Here's your homework:

1) Why do you give Bush a pass for his prediction that the Iraq war would cost a mere $80 billion dollars, which would be paid for with Iraqi oil money? We're looking at $4 trillion for both wars, which is a larger figure than $80 billion. Republicans never had any plans to pay for any of it and then slam Obama for spending 20% of that total on a stimulus which actually helped us.

2) Stop with your cognitive distortion where you dismiss independent economic analysis as meaningless due to the fact that it's inherently less than 100% accurate. Especially since you take such dubious pseudo-sources such as NRO blogs as meaningful.

 

[mercury14]

Consider that of the 331,000 auto industry jobs lost during the recession, only 76,000 have returned.

Consider that we still have an auto industry (and legions of associated parts, materials, and manufacturing industries) thanks to Obama.

 

[koalabear]

Consider that we still have an auto industry (and legions of associated parts, materials, and manufacturing industries) thanks to Obama.

GM is still laughing, it has it's Chinese market, the USA market is chicken feed.

And let’s face it; GM seems to be flirting with bankruptcy every couple of years. Chrysler was bought by a foreign company and in all honesty, taxpayers will never get all of their money back. So was it worth it in the end? How many jobs were actually saved by the auto bailouts? There’s no way to know. The companies were laying off workers at an alarming rate, then they got the bailout…could they have laid off any more employees and still been able to operate at that point? They still had to close dealerships even with the bailout, would they have come back to work sooner without the bailout?

If we look at Ford, the answer is yes.

http://heritageaction.com/2011/06/auto-bailout-short-changes-taxpayers/

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Consider that of the 331,000 auto industry jobs lost during the recession, only 76,000 have returned.

yep...and then obama spends $200 trillion Jaun (okay yuan) to hire 2,000 government workers.

 

[koalabear]

yep...and then obama spends $200 trillion Jaun (okay yuan) to hire 2,000 government workers.

$6 billion to GM to bailout GMAC which they only owned 49% of.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

$6 billion to GM to bailout GMAC which they only owned 49% of.

I love obama, he's the best thing ever...for my Chinese comrades



some day, obama will say....
"we borrow more money then we generate in revenue, but we make up for it in volume .... "

 

[mercury14]

GM is still laughing, it has it's Chinese market, the USA market is chicken feed.

Good. Our global mega-companies should do well globally.

And let’s face it; GM seems to be flirting with bankruptcy every couple of years. Chrysler was bought by a foreign company and in all honesty, taxpayers will never get all of their money back.

They'll just get most of it back. And Chrysler being bought is a great thing. Now they get to sell cars overseas and they get resources from a larger, stronger parent company. That means more jobs.

So was it worth it in the end? How many jobs were actually saved by the auto bailouts? There’s no way to know. The companies were laying off workers at an alarming rate, then they got the bailout…could they have laid off any more employees and still been able to operate at that point? They still had to close dealerships even with the bailout, would they have come back to work sooner without the bailout?

If we look at Ford, the answer is yes.

http://heritageaction.com/2011/06/auto-bailout-short-changes-taxpayers/

Ford was never in as bad of a situation as GM/Chrysler. In short, GM would have folded according to their then-CEO and plenty of analysts. They were in too deep of a hole to climb out of with their credit ruined by bankruptcy.

Regardless, we will never know how many jobs were saved because most of those saved jobs were in associated industries.

 

[koalabear]

but we do know this...

Consider that of the 331,000 auto industry jobs lost during the recession, only 76,000 have returned.

GM is building new plants in china, not the USA. The global economy looks great doesn't it. Moron.

 

[busybody..]

Are the NP's getting counseling yet?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Anyone see anything wrong with this post?

Correct, it accelerated auto sales at a time when there was an enormous overstock of supply. It was a short-term fix but it wasn't expensive and it accomplished it's goal. It caused sales to jump, instantly and happened to coincide with the beginning of the rebound in automobile production and employment (as well as the rebound in the legion of associated parts and materials companies).

Sales naturally diminished right after the program ended, but have climbed ever since.

Guess what.

Without cash for clunkers, you would have sold the same number of cars without punishing the poor...

That's what's wrong with your post. You admitted as much.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Consider that of the 331,000 auto industry jobs lost during the recession, only 76,000 have returned.

You forgot to count the green auto jobs in Scandinavia and the jobs in Mexico and China...

 

[mercury14]

Consider that of the 331,000 auto industry jobs lost during the recession, only 76,000 have returned.

Show link. You're a terrible source of information.

While you're at it show how many auto industry and associated industry jobs would have been lost had these companies gone under.

Then consider the economic impact in concentrated regions of the US these companies going under would have had. Northern Ohio could just switch to a fast-food economy I suppose?

GM is building new plants in china, not the USA. The global economy looks great doesn't it. Moron.

A 2-second Google says GM and Chrysler have been hiring in the US since restructing.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Consider that we still have an auto industry (and legions of associated parts, materials, and manufacturing industries) thanks to Obama.

We would have still had one without Obama.

It just would not have been the legacy union model that no longer works, but the right to work model in southern states making Japanese cars in America...

Now, of course, if GM wanted to leave the 20th Century, it would have not ever gotten into trouble.

 

[mercury14]

Guess what.

Without cash for clunkers, you would have sold the same number of cars without punishing the poor...

That's what's wrong with your post. You admitted as much.

Please show a non-terrible source proving the poor were significantly punished.

 

[mercury14]

We would have still had one without Obama.

It just would not have been the legacy union model that no longer works, but the right to work model in southern states making Japanese cars in America...

Now, of course, if GM wanted to leave the 20th Century, it would have not ever gotten into trouble.

How come these southern states you're referring to all have low per-capita incomes and flaccid economies?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

So what about it Merc?




What about that 90% dividends and capital gains tax on the idle rich and the Socialists attached to the Military teat who play the market?

Would you be WILLING to pay for your Socialism?

Would that not be fair and stimulative?