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.
Yes, really. Ended in June of 2009, just about what the CBO predicted.
Yep, it ended, but it ended for fake reasons.
A true economic recovery is indicated when businesses grow, but because they count the growth and spending of government into their equation, its not real.
Thats what the liberals wont ever understand, they see things like growth in GDP and think its a recovery when all it is, is an artificial expenditure, which simply decreases future GDP.
The long-delayed economic upswing kicked in at a most fortuitous time for Reagan - else he would have been a one-term president.
And what would other presidents have done when interest rates were still going up, Inflation was still high and unemployment still high.
Would they:
A. Spend $1 trillion dollars trying to stimulate the economy
or
B. Sit back and let it work its own way out.
(I can assure you most presidents couldn't stand Laissze-Faire ideas and to just sit back and allow someone not elected by the people purposefully put on the austerity measures, hard. But, of course, that was Reagan's mantra.)
And what would other presidents have done when interest rates were still going up, Inflation was still high and unemployment still high.
Would they:
A. Spend $1 trillion dollars trying to stimulate the economy
or
B. Sit back and let it work its own way out.
(I can assure you most presidents couldn't stand Laissze-Faire ideas and to just sit back and allow someone not elected by the people purposefully put on the austerity measures, hard. But, of course, that was Reagan's mantra.)
Thats not even close to the only 2 options available.. But your A doesnt stimlate anything because it REMOVES MONEY from the economy first, in order to pump it back in resulting in a net ZERO effect.. Where on gods earth do you think the money comes from to be spent? it gets even worse because it increases the need for taxes, and thereby decreases future GDP growth.. Try reading the CBO reports on the subject.
Thats not even close to the only 2 options available..
When the Federal Reserve starts tinkering what else is there to do?
As president, you either step in, or you don't.
Umm.. I know exactly where money comes from. I also know why interests become higher and lower. I also happen to know that all the money you think you have (if you have any at all, none of my business) are just obligation to the investors in this country that you'll pay them back. The dollar is nothing more than a promissory note.
When the Federal Reserve starts tinkering what else is there to do?
As president, you either step in, or you don't.
The Chairman of the Federal Reserve answers to the president, to pretend the President reacts to actions by the Federal Reserve and not the other way around is just silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
Umm.. I know exactly where money comes from. I also know why interests become higher and lower. I also happen to know that all the money you think you have (if you have any at all, none of my business) are just obligation to the investors in this country that you'll pay them back. The dollar is nothing more than a promissory note.
The Chairman of the Federal Reserve answers to the president, to pretend the President reacts to actions by the Federal Reserve and not the other way around is just silly.
Quote:
MILTON FRIEDMAN: Enormously important. There is no other president in the postwar period who would have stood by without trying to interfere, to intervene with the Federal Reserve. The situation was this: The only way you could get the inflation down was by having monetary contraction. There was no way you could do that without having a temporary recession. The great error in the earlier period had been that whenever there was a little contraction there was a tendency to expand the money supply rapidly in order to avoid unemployment. That stop-and-go policy was really what bedeviled the Fed during the '60s and '70s. That was the situation in 1980, in '81 in particular. After Reagan came into office, the Fed did step on the money supply, did hold down its growth, and that did lead to a recession. At that point every other president would have immediately come in and tried to get the Federal Reserve to expand. Reagan knew what was happening. He understood very well that the only way he could get inflation down was by accepting a temporary recession, and he supported Volcker and did not try to intervene.
He then served as Chairman of President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers before President Bush appointed him to be Chairman of the United StatesFederal Bernanke was confirmed for a second term as Chairman on January 28, 2010, after being nominated by President Barack Obama.
Again, the Chariman for the Fed answers to the President.
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.
it gets even worse because it increases the need for taxes, and thereby decreases future GDP growth.. Try reading the CBO reports on the subject.
