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

[RightField]

You want me to provide a link that shows that democrats want to increase the rate of taxation on people/families that make over $250,000. Really? Don't believe it's true? lol.

 

[cebalrai]

Excuses excuses.

He beat you with facts and this is all you have? You're not even going to try to address what he said?

Bush signed on to democrat spending priorities (faced with both houses controlled by democrats) so it's his fault we had rapidly growing deficits...but now that Obama is President and he had democratic Congresses for his first two years...and even now when they control the Senate and the Presidency and they don't bother to make budgets anymore....it's still Bush's fault. I get it.

Yes if Bush or any president signs off on something they bear a lot of responsibility for whatever it is, period. Not sole responsibility, but they own a whole lot of it. All these horrible things you accuse the dems of doing during the Bush years? Yeah, Bush owns them too.

 

[cebalrai]

You want me to provide a link that shows that democrats want to increase the rate of taxation on people/families that make over $250,000. Really? Don't believe it's true? lol.

I don't see anyone denying this - why post? But it's not like any Dems are saying this is the only thing that needs to be done to address the debt. Unless you can link them saying that?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The thing that has not been sufficiently understood, I think, is this: The United States is not on a downgrade watch because the markets fear we won’t raise the debt ceiling in time to avoid a default; the United States is on a downgrade watch because the markets believe the debt-ceiling debate presents the last real opportunity for the government to enact a meaningful fiscal-reform program before it is well and truly too late to avoid a national crisis. The credit agencies, wisely or not, aren’t worried about the short-term political fight leading to an immediate default, but about the near- to medium-term fiscal situation, which is plainly unsustainable.

Kevin D. Williamson
NRO

The debt ceiling they will raise, fundamental reform will not come; the Democrats will play the party of no cuts and begin the endless parade of the hapless victims of Republican cruelty...

 

[cjh]

Obama put up superficial reductions that didn't start till many years out in the future....nothing really....and you know it. Maybe this latest round is a little better....though I haven't had a chance to read about it yet so I can't tell you what's in it.

Tax rates have been steady for years....it's spending that's gone up...isn't that where the attention should be?

Wasn't Obama the first one to bring up the possibility of default? He used it as a threat...saying "Do it my way or we'll default and it will be your fault". Most people see through that sort of thing, we're not as stupid or as silly as you think we are.

here is what judge posner has to say about that.

On August 2, even if the ceiling on federal debt is not raised the government will not yet be in default in a technical sense. It will not be able to borrow, but it has enough money coming in each month from collection of federal taxes to service its debts. Without borrowing, however, it will not have enough money to pay noncontractual obligations in full, such as government salaries, and entitlements such as social security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and a host of subsidies. No doubt before the political and economic damage becomes too severe, the Republican radicals in the House of Representatives will relent and the ceiling on borrowing will be raised. Before that happens interest rates may rise, and stay higher, because of doubts about the basic competence of American government. Those doubts, plus the higher interest rates they engender, may deepen the current economic downturn, which in turn will reduce tax collections, increase transfer payments, and in both respects increase the federal deficit.

Why Republicans prefer flirting with failing to raise the debt ceiling by the August 2 deadline to accepting the deal tentatively worked out between President Obama and Speaker Bohner to cut federal spending over the next decade by $3 trillion and increase tax revenues (by reducing or eliminating various deductions and credits) by $1 trillion over the same period (a total reduction of the budget of $400 billion a year--roughly 10 percent) is a deep mystery. No doubt much of the proposed spending decrease and tax-revenue increase would prove to be fictitious, or at least speculative, because based on predictions. But it could put in motion a serious movement to reduce the deficit. It would show that spending was not sacrosanct or increased tax revenues anathema.

The opposition to increasing revenues seems based on concern that higher government revenues reduce pressure for reducing spending; and that is true. Yet what is happening in the states undermines that concern. The deficit states are in the approximate position that the federal government will be on after August 2 if the debt ceiling isn’t raised. The states can’t borrow their way out of insolvency, yet their response has not been just to raise taxes; it has been a combination of raising taxes and cutting spending. If the Democratic Administration agreed to increase tax revenues by one dollar for every three dollars in spending reductions, that would seem to be a good outcome from the Republican standpoint.

One problem is attributable to Obama, though it is not a fault of Obama. Obama resembles such Presidents as Nixon and Clinton in the following respect. They are what the political scientist Stephen Skowronek calls practitioners of “third way” politics (Tony Blair was another), who undermine the opposition by borrowing policies from it in an effort to seize the middle and with it to achieve political dominance. Think of Nixon’s economic policies, which were a continuation of Johnson’s “Great Society”; Clinton’s welfare reform and support of capital punishment; and Obama’s pragmatic centrism, reflected in his embrace, albeit very recent, of entitlements reform. The resemblance between Nixon and Obama is, surprising as this may seem, particularly close. Nixon was a bête noir of the Left and Obama is a bête noir of the Right, in both cases based on their activities before they became President (Nixon’s red-baiting, Obama’s community organizing). But Nixon as President was, and Obama is (or is willing to be, under political pressure), a centrist President. That infuriates the opposition by stealing its thunder, and so provokes a powerful reaction. For the Republicans to have acceded to the Obama-Bohner plan of heavy spending cuts and light tax increases would have conceded the political middle to Obama.

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/

here are posner's credentials:

a
Richard Posner

Posner speaking at the Harvard Federalist Society, 2009.
Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Incumbent
Assumed office
December 1, 1981
Nominated by Ronald Reagan
Preceded by Philip Tone
Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
In office
1993–2000
Preceded by William Bauer
Succeeded by Joel Flaum
Personal details
Born January 11, 1939 (age 72)
New York City, New York, U.S.
Spouse(s) Charlene Posner
Alma mater Yale University
Harvard University

Richard Allen Posner (born January 11, 1939) is an American jurist and legal theorist who is currently a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago and a Senior Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School. He is an influential figure in the law and economics school of thought.

Posner has been called "the world’s most distinguished legal scholar."[1] He is the author of nearly 40 books on jurisprudence, legal philosophy, and several other topics, including The Problems of Jurisprudence, Sex and Reason, Overcoming Law, Law, Pragmatism and Democracy, and The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory. The Journal of Legal Studies has identified Posner as the most cited legal scholar of the 20th century,[2] and a 1999 New York Times article identified Posner as one of the most respected judges in the United States.[3]

***

In Posner's youth and in the 1960s as law clerk to William J. Brennan he was generally counted as a liberal. However, in reaction to some of the perceived excesses of the late 1960s, Posner developed a strongly conservative bent. He encountered Chicago School economists Aaron Director and George Stigler while a professor at Stanford.[4] Posner summarized his views on law and economics in his 1973 book The Economic Analysis of Law.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Posner

 

[NeverEndingMe]

You want me to provide a link that shows that democrats want to increase the rate of taxation on people/families that make over $250,000. Really? Don't believe it's true? lol.

has anyone ever address the real issue...as to why Corporate America is sitting on a pile of cash, unwilling to spend?

I would love to hear the flamers like Celeb, Merk, UD, Richard Dailey, Sean and the other ones explain this one.

after all, if "Corporations" are so evil and only think about making money, wouldn't a corporation make more money by spending all that cash?

there is a bigger problem, issue with obama

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Barack Obama is not triangulating.

He is a prisoner of nothing more than his own dogma...



The Chicago School of Economics is simply a modern branch of the Socialists of the Chair as translated by Keynes.

__________________
“There is one good thing about Marx: he was not a Keynesian.”
Murray N. Rothbard

 

[busybody..]

Barack Obama is not triangulating.

He is a prisoner of nothing more than his own dogma...



The Chicago School of Economics is simply a modern branch of the Socialists of the Chair as translated by Keynes.

__________________
“There is one good thing about Marx: he was not a Keynesian.”
Murray N. Rothbard

KENYA

you mean KENYA!

 

[cjh]

Barack Obama is not triangulating.

He is a prisoner of nothing more than his own dogma...



The Chicago School of Economics is simply a modern branch of the Socialists of the Chair as translated by Keynes.

__________________
“There is one good thing about Marx: he was not a Keynesian.”
Murray N. Rothbard

if you say so.

The Chicago school, which advocates for unfettered free markets and little government intervention (albeit within a strict, government-defined monetary regime), came under attack in the wake of the financial crisis of 2007–2010.[18] The school has been blamed for growing income inequality in the United States.[19] Economist Brad DeLong of the University of California, Berkeley says the Chicago School has experienced an "intellectual collapse", while Nobel laureate Paul Krugman of Princeton University, says that recent comments from Chicago school economists are "the product of a Dark Age of macroeconomics in which hard-won knowledge has been forgotten." [20] Critics have also charged that the school's belief in human rationality contributed to bubbles such as the recent financial crisis, and that the school's trust in markets to self-regulate has offered no aid to the economy in the wake of the crisis.[21]

Free market intellectuals argue that the 2007-09 economic collapse was due to government mismanagement and over regulation of the mortgage loan sector.[22][23] Thomas Sowell in his book "The Housing Boom and Bust" makes the case for excessive government misbehavior which he contends led to the economic crisis, offering the Community Reinvestment Act and the existence of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as examples of government intervention in the mortgage sector.

In response to this, critics point out that a bulk of residential mortgage lending during the peak bubble years (2004–06) was through commercial entities such as Countrywide Financial that weren't subject to provisions of the CRA, and that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac actually lost market share during the housing bubble, as evidence that these government programs/entities did not cause the crisis. They also point out that assigning a key role in the crisis to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac doesn't explain why other countries also had a similar real estate bubbles at the same time.[24]
[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_school_of_economics

maybe that is why posner sees eye-to-eye with bork on antitrust theory.

Along with Robert Bork, Posner helped shape the antitrust policy changes of the 1970s through his idea that 1960s antitrust laws were in fact making prices higher for the consumer rather than lower, while he viewed lower prices as the essential end goal of any antitrust policy.[4] Posner and Bork's theories on antitrust evolved into the prevailing view in academia and at the Justice Department of the George H.W. Bush Administration.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Posner

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

*chuckle*


Kenyanian Economics - getting reparations for colonialism even as he bombs Colonel Momar...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

You just keep going to Wikipedia for your information and I'll stay over here in the corner reading actual economics books and stuff...







They are certainly no bastion of Bastiat...

 

[cjh]

You just keep going to Wikipedia for your information and I'll stay over here in the corner reading actual economics books and stuff...







They are certainly no bastion of Bastiat...

you're obviously not comprehending what you read if you consider the chicago school of economics to be "a modern branch of the Socialists of the Chair as translated by Keynes."

either that, or you're intellectually dishonest.

go to your books and find me a quote to back up your statement.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

you're obviously not comprehending what you read if you consider the chicago school of economics to be "a modern branch of the Socialists of the Chair as translated by Keynes."

either that, or you're intellectually dishonest.

go to your books and find me a quote to back up your statement.

CJ conveniently left out one item in the Wiki review of Posner:

"He has shifted his previous Chicago School focus and taken a Keynesian economic viewpoint since 2009."

He just does not understand how much economics I've been reading the last two years...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

He does not know that with Hayek gone, he was rejected, much the same as Mises was by the new wave of economists who thought they had found all the answers in computer modeling instead of Liberalism (classic) and Praxeology...

 

[MeeMie]

Paul Ryan discussed the “Cut, Cap & Balance the Budget” plan passed in the House.

It is the Republican bill to Grow the Economy and Save this Country.

This was excellent:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NddO5yMxicw

 

[NeverEndingMe]

I love how that little obama II become mayor of Chicago and how he's demanding cuts by the union! what a wake up call but I'm sure that obama hit the snooze button

Barack Obama is not triangulating.

He is a prisoner of nothing more than his own dogma...



The Chicago School of Economics is simply a modern branch of the Socialists of the Chair as translated by Keynes.

__________________
“There is one good thing about Marx: he was not a Keynesian.”
Murray N. Rothbard

 

[busybody..]

you're obviously not comprehending what you read if you consider the chicago school of economics to be "a modern branch of the Socialists of the Chair as translated by Keynes."

.

No DUMMY

By KENYANS

You know, those BACKWARD TURD WORLD COLORED FOLKS IN HO'S BIIRF PLACE!

 

[cjh]

CJ conveniently left out one item in the Wiki review of Posner:

"He has shifted his previous Chicago School focus and taken a Keynesian economic viewpoint since 2009."

i didn't see it. that's a fair point, though.

i'd say a number of economists have shifted their beliefs since the economic meltdown. greenspan for example.

 

[cjh]

He just does not understand how much economics I've been reading the last two years...

great. where's a quote describing the chicago school of economics in that manner.

 

[busybody..]

greenspan for example.

the JEW fucked things up

he is now pandering for HISTORY!

 

[busybody..]

No DUMMY

By KENYANS

You know, those BACKWARD TURD WORLD COLORED FOLKS IN HO'S BIIRF PLACE!

you MUSTA missed my SIG LINE, Dishonest Juan(ita)

 

[unregistered]

 

[cjh]

Many of the smarter ones have come to realize the fallacy of Keynes premise that it's ok to borrow to expand the economy because "we only owe it to ourselves." The whole problem today is that it's becoming glaringly apparent that we don't just "owe it to ourselves."

If you want to learn more about economics pick up something by Murray Rothbard, Hans F. Sennholz, Mises, or Hayek.

i generally have a problem with absolutes. i believe that people who espouse absolutes are important--they help us see and, knock on wood, identify potential pitfalls. they can help us chart a course; if we follow them blindly, though, they can lead us over a cliff.

i think both greenspan and, as you pointed out, posner came to the decision that completely unfettered free market capitalism poses risks, just like a completely regulated economy poses risks.

i doubt keynes would have agreed with the principal that you can borrow yourself out of an economic downturn indefinitely. anything is excess is, well, excessive. that does not mean, though, that his theory is irrelevant. balance is important. evidently even hayek recognized that.

However, the complete picture is not black and white. Hayek did write that the state has a role to play in the economy, and specifically, in creating a "safety net." He wrote: "There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision."[63]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek

obama has proposed a compromise addressing spending and revenue to avoid a needless catastrophe. he's recognized a reasonable middle ground. maybe it merits meddling with down the road. but at least it preserves the status quo and affords you the time to meddle.

ideologues are willing to risk sacrificing the economy, though, as a matter of principle. that makes no sense to me.

 

[busybody..]

ideologues are willing to risk sacrificing the economy, though, as a matter of principle. that makes no sense to me.

like your NIGGER?

who when he extended Bush tax cuts said ITS BAD POLICY TO INCREASE TAXES IN A BAD ECONOMY and now wants to INCREASE TAXES?


but YOU

being an idle log will not say YUP, MY NIGGER IS EXACTLY WHAT I JUST BASHED