Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How about a permanent recovery instead of another ... quick fix?
Now you're showing what you're made of. Or rather, what you're lacking.
There's no such thing as a "permanent recovery." Economies run in cycles. There will always be ups and downs.
But, for the sake of argument, let's say that you're right. There can be a "permanent" recovery. What's your plan? The Democrats sure don't have one - they spent trillions of dollars and had full control of the government for the first two years of Obama's presidency, with virtually no measurable effect.
So what are you offering? What do you think we should do?
A mere recession or not, they ALWAYS RECIVER NATURALLY..
They always recover, even when governments do nothing. Its called an economic business cycle.
If your point was to let the economy hit bottom naturally and then let it upticks naturally; today you'd be looking at a world where GE, Goldman, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, and at least over hundreds of big businesses and millions of mid to small business eased to exist.
There would be no business lending.... at all. No one to finance home loans. Credit would dry up. every businesses that uses credit on as its business operation would close down. This would become a cash only society.
In other words, the United States economy, as you know it, would collapse. And with it, the European economy as well.
Economy usually recovers naturally... when it wasn't destroyed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Um, it was Bush that created TARP that saved GM, to banks and private equities businesses.
Um.... Obama injected GM with capital and even ousted the mediocore CEO. How could you possibly have missed that headline?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Um, all of that money injected, must FIRST be removed from the economy.. Where the hell do you think they get it?
Which economist said all the injected capital must first be removed from the economy? Certainly Keynesian never said that. Who did? I'm baffled.
.
If your point was to let the economy hit bottom naturally and then let it upticks naturally; today you'd be looking at a world where GE, Goldman, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, and at least over hundreds of big businesses and millions of mid to small business eased to exist.
Do you always have to just make things up? Typical Democrat
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p
There would be no business lending.... at all. No one to finance home loans. Credit would dry up. every businesses that uses credit on as its business operation would close down. This would become a cash only society.
Credit HAS dried up, there is no business lending taking place either. When government borrows it all, then there isnt money being lent in the private sector. You cant loan the same money twice
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p
In other words, the United States economy, as you know it, would collapse. And with it, the European economy as well.
.
Bull ****.. Allowing trillions to stay in the economy would boost the economy. By taking it out, which is what the government did, you delaying any recovery because people cant spend money they dont have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p
Economy usually recovers naturally... when it wasn't destroyed.
Destroyed by the very same government you expect to fix it. Sounds pretty stupid to me..
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p
Um.... Obama injected GM with capital and even ousted the mediocore CEO. How could you possibly have missed that headline?.
You really dont have a clue, do you? Bush injected GM with capital, Obama just changed the form of collateral from a loan, to equity, and that equity screwed any small invesor in america who held GM stock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p
Which economist said all the injected capital must first be removed from the economy? Certainly Keynesian never said that. Who did? I'm baffled.
Where the hell do you think the money came from for the government to inject?
Now you're showing what you're made of. Or rather, what you're lacking.
There's no such thing as a "permanent recovery." Economies run in cycles. There will always be ups and downs.
But, for the sake of argument, let's say that you're right. There can be a "permanent" recovery. What's your plan? The Democrats sure don't have one - they spent trillions of dollars and had full control of the government for the first two years of Obama's presidency, with virtually no measurable effect.
So what are you offering? What do you think we should do?
Of course economy runs in cycle. "Permanent" probably wasn't a good word choice but you know what I mean, don't you? How about a recovery that has substance?
I'm fed up with the conservative's definition of "recovery." Jobless recovery. Short recovery. Even Job Loss recovery. The conservatives jump in joy over any so called "recovery."
A real recovery takes time. It always takes longer to rebuild something than to tear down something. It takes at most a month to tear down a house that took a year to build. And rebuilding that house always takes longer than the time it took to tear it down. The economy works the same way. It took the conservatives eight years to destroy this economy, so of course it's going to take long than eight years to build it back up. It's just how it works.
The Democrats' plan - enrich the middle class, fix healthcare, stricter bank regulation, invest in infrastructure, etc. Is basically the only plan that can bail us out - short of there being a WWIII to jump start the economy like last time.
.
Shows how dumb Romney is about the economy. We are in a deep depression and he's saying we are coming out of a recession?????? What planet does he live on?
The purchasing power of the dollar has never been worse; unemployment is at all time highs; morale is at all time lows. Where is the bright side?
Just because Romney can run a business doesn't mean he knows squat about the economy. He knows about the businesses he runs and that is it.
Of course economy runs in cycle. "Permanent" probably wasn't a good word choice but you know what I mean, don't you? How about a recovery that has substance?
I'm fed up with the conservative's definition of "recovery." Jobless recovery. Short recovery. Even Job Loss recovery. The conservatives jump in joy over any so called "recovery."
A real recovery takes time. It always takes longer to rebuild something than to tear down something. It takes at most a month to tear down a house that took a year to build. And rebuilding that house always takes longer than the time it took to tear it down. The economy works the same way. It took the conservatives eight years to destroy this economy, so of course it's going to take long than eight years to build it back up. It's just how it works.
The Democrats' plan - enrich the middle class, fix healthcare, stricter bank regulation, invest in infrastructure, etc. Is basically the only plan that can bail us out - short of there being a WWIII to jump start the economy like last time.
.
Tell me how old are you? Let me guess, about 23, probably a college kid, ha? There is so much of what you said that doesnt come close to making sense in the real world, that its not even funny to think a supposed adult, cold make them.
If your point was to let the economy hit bottom naturally and then let it upticks naturally; today you'd be looking at a world where GE, Goldman, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, and at least over hundreds of big businesses and millions of mid to small business eased to exist.
There would be no business lending.... at all. No one to finance home loans. Credit would dry up. every businesses that uses credit on as its business operation would close down. This would become a cash only society.
In other words, the United States economy, as you know it, would collapse. And with it, the European economy as well.
Economy usually recovers naturally... when it wasn't destroyed.
Um.... Obama injected GM with capital and even ousted the mediocore CEO. How could you possibly have missed that headline?
Which economist said all the injected capital must first be removed from the economy? Certainly Keynesian never said that. Who did? I'm baffled.
.
The Government doesn't create revenue, its gets it's money from the taxpayers, that's what he was saying.
So in essense, the Govt. took money from the taxpayers, then put it back into the economy so it could pass through and be taxed again. Kind of like a snake eating itself if you think about it. What a great plan.
Do you always have to just make things up? Typical Democrat
Ok. Stop right there. This statement tells me you have NO IDEA of the state of the economy and the events that took place in 2008. EVERY investor knows about this - that GS, MS, and GE were the next to go bankrupt after Lehman. JPM would follow them. Then the domino would start following.
“But the thing no one talks about was the view that if Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs filed for bankruptcy, the next in line was General Electric,” Sorkin said.
During that September 2008 week, some in the Treasury thought Morgan Stanley would file for bankruptcy the following week, prompting Goldman Sachs to follow suit.
“But the thing no one talks about was the view that if Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs filed for bankruptcy, the next in line was General Electric,” Sorkin said. “Start thinking about the ramifications of that. We had a huge discussion as a country about the ramification of not saving General Motors and the effect on this country, our economy and the global economy. Now magnify that by 10 times, and we’re talking about GE.”
The ignorance and stupidity regarding the rest of the post can be excused if you follow thru on my advice to study up on the events that took place in 2008 and the consequences that would follow if nothing had been done.
.
Ok. Stop right there. This statement tells me you have NO IDEA of the state of the economy and the events that took place in 2008. EVERY investor knows about this - that GS, MS, and GE were the next to go bankrupt after Lehman. JPM would follow them. Then the domino would start following.
“But the thing no one talks about was the view that if Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs filed for bankruptcy, the next in line was General Electric,” Sorkin said.
During that September 2008 week, some in the Treasury thought Morgan Stanley would file for bankruptcy the following week, prompting Goldman Sachs to follow suit. “But the thing no one talks about was the view that if Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs filed for bankruptcy, the next in line was General Electric,” Sorkin said. “Start thinking about the ramifications of that. We had a huge discussion as a country about the ramification of not saving General Motors and the effect on this country, our economy and the global economy. Now magnify that by 10 times, and we’re talking about GE.”
The ignorance and stupidity regarding the rest of the post can be excused if you follow thru on my advice to study up on the events that took place in 2008 and the consequences that would follow if nothing had been done.
.
None of the companies you listed were saved by Obamas stimulus, they received an influx of cash from TARP, passed by BUSH..
Furthermore, they would have gone bankrupt, but bankruptcy does NOT mean you go out of business
US Air, KMart, Sears, Walt Disney, Hershey, And even GM itself went bankrupt.
Tell me how old are you? Let me guess, about 23, probably a college kid, ha? There is so much of what you said that doesnt come close to making sense in the real world, that its not even funny to think a supposed adult, cold make them.
I hate it when people use this line of attack, this how old are you stuff; because this line of attack happens when the attacker has ran out of rebuttals and is just aiming to savage something.
My age is of no importance to our discussion. What's important is that I came from a rich family - I have uncles, aunts, and cousins who don't work; they live off dividends which range anywhere from mid $200k to over $1 millions annually. I went to a prestigious prep schools and have many rich friends, some of them also don't work, at least not nine to five jobs. But myself, I choose a different path, I started near the bottom and worked my way up. Now I'm making almost as much money as my rich friends. I have working class friends, hedge fund babies friends and many in between. My point is that I have particular insights into how the rich works, how the working class survives, and how the system works from top to bottom. That "trickle down system" thing that conservatives love, I witnessed it and see that it doesn't work.
.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
