Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: How Long Until Recession Is Over?
Within The Next 6 Months 4 6.78%
6 Months to 1 Year 8 13.56%
1 Year to 2 Years 8 13.56%
2 Years to 5 Years 16 27.12%
Never. The Recession Is a Permanent Thing 11 18.64%
Other 12 20.34%
Voters: 59. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-14-2009, 08:13 AM
 
Location: The Planet Mars
2,159 posts, read 2,583,692 times
Reputation: 523

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ViewFromThePeak View Post
The recovery will be part of the normal business cycle. Obama and the Krugmanite Keynesian Klan are going to prolong the recovery with more debt and spending, but the free market is always more powerful and influential than the government could ever hope to be.
Yup - the free market sure was powerful over the past 8 years...

It led to unlimited greed and risk-taking, and the near total collapse of the financial sector - which would surely have resulted in another Great Depression...

Yeah - the free market knows and and solves all...

What a bunch of Reaganite/Bushie/Dubya crap...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-14-2009, 08:19 AM
 
31,683 posts, read 41,045,989 times
Reputation: 14434
Quote:
Originally Posted by LNTT_Vacationer View Post
The booming, republican congress led economy, continued until pelosi. . . . and the fact drives you guys crazy with envy.
Was Bush's 'ownership society' cause of world economic meltdown? | Countdown to Crawford | Los Angeles Times (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/10/blame-bush.html - broken link)
When he was testifying before Congress the other day about the world's economic crisis, former Bush Treasury Secretary John W. Snow said that too many unqualified people got loans. He suggested that one of the culprits might have been George W. Bush's "ownership society."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2009, 08:44 AM
 
3,644 posts, read 10,941,622 times
Reputation: 5514
The economy would've recovered on it's own. The passing of the stimulus will delay it.

All "benefits" from the stimulus are set to hit the economy on different time periods... right before the 2010 elections and again right before the 2012 elections. It won't be what some are expecting though... oh the irony! It will be painful to watch this all unfold, unfortunately for so many right now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2009, 10:31 AM
 
Location: West, Southwest, East & Northeast
3,463 posts, read 7,307,014 times
Reputation: 871
The recovery would have started without the so-called stimulus package sometime late this year or 2010. The stimulus package is not needed, and will do TERRIBLE HARM to the economy in the long-term.

We will move our debt load vs. GDP from about 20% to over 30% for the first time ever...and it will move toward 40% in a few years. This is the percentage that Socialist countries have! We will see years of high inflation (probably hyperinflation) because of this stimulus package. The money needed for the stimulus package will be borrowed from China and Japan who are not having good economies, and by the U.S. printing more money that devalues the dollar and causes everyone to have reduced purchasing power.

And all the entitlements, handouts and projects in this stimulus package will NOT be temporary, but instead will become PERMANENT that the government must maintain FOREVER, which means taxpayers will have to support those programs from now on.

The stimulus package is not only BAD for now...and will do very little for the recovery (which will take place anyway without any help), but the stimulus package will be TERRIBLE for the future of our economy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2009, 10:36 AM
 
7,359 posts, read 10,279,481 times
Reputation: 1893
Quote:
Originally Posted by ViewFromThePeak View Post
The question is biased. When will the "Obama recovery" start?

So, let me get this straight. If the economy suffers further, the administration retards can make up excuses as to why the stimulus won't work (not taking the blame), but if it works by some miracle, we can refer to it as the "obama recovery"? Gotcha.
So, basically, in your small worldview, Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Brilliant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2009, 10:38 AM
 
7,359 posts, read 10,279,481 times
Reputation: 1893
Quote:
Originally Posted by sskkc View Post
The economy would've recovered on it's own. The passing of the stimulus will delay it.

All "benefits" from the stimulus are set to hit the economy on different time periods... right before the 2010 elections and again right before the 2012 elections. It won't be what some are expecting though... oh the irony! It will be painful to watch this all unfold, unfortunately for so many right now.
The economy would've recovered on its own?

Interesting. Perhaps you have information that most economists--across the political spectrum--do not have? Because every economist I've read says that the stimulus is desperately needed. They debate only how much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2009, 10:46 AM
 
Location: West, Southwest, East & Northeast
3,463 posts, read 7,307,014 times
Reputation: 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovingForward View Post
The economy would've recovered on its own?

Interesting. Perhaps you have information that most economists--across the political spectrum--do not have? Because every economist I've read says that the stimulus is desperately needed. They debate only how much.
Here ya go:

200 Top Economists Say "Stimulus" Bill Won't Work » Propeller (http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/01/31/200-top-economists-say-quotstimulusquot-bill-won39t-work/ - broken link)

McClatchy Washington Bureau | 02/12/2009 | Will the stimulus actually stimulate? Economists say no

Will the stimulus actually stimulate? Some analysts say no - Kansas City Star (http://www.kansascity.com/444/story/1031940.html - broken link)

Will the stimulus actually stimulate? Economists say no
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2009, 11:15 AM
 
47,525 posts, read 69,707,823 times
Reputation: 22474
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovingForward View Post
The economy would've recovered on its own?

Interesting. Perhaps you have information that most economists--across the political spectrum--do not have? Because every economist I've read says that the stimulus is desperately needed. They debate only how much.
It would have. The housing bubble burst - that's what set this off. There were some very foolish people who took subprime loans and were in danger of foreclosure but they should obviously have realized that was the risk when they took those stupid loans.

The lenders that made those irresponsible loans could have collapsed, we don't need the bankers that offered stupid loans.

The housing bubble was built on ultra cheap illegal labor, illegals were brought in by the truck loads to build crappy houses for builders who were selling them at ridiculously high prices. The builders should have been allowed to go bankrupt because they've seriously overbuilt -- all for a quick easy profit.

If things were left to go on their own, if greedy bankers lost their banks and we accepted that some of the wealth wasn't real, by now we'd be in recovery. The bailouts and trillions of dollars being added to keep it all going is only going to prolong the inevitable, will only make things worse. Soon we as a nation will be unable to pay even the interest on our quickly rising debt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2009, 11:21 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,495,743 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
It would have. The housing bubble burst - that's what set this off. There were some very foolish people who took subprime loans and were in danger of foreclosure but they should obviously have realized that was the risk when they took those stupid loans.

The lenders that made those irresponsible loans could have collapsed, we don't need the bankers that offered stupid loans.

The housing bubble was built on ultra cheap illegal labor, illegals were brought in by the truck loads to build crappy houses for builders who were selling them at ridiculously high prices. The builders should have been allowed to go bankrupt because they've seriously overbuilt -- all for a quick easy profit.

If things were left to go on their own, if greedy bankers lost their banks and we accepted that some of the wealth wasn't real, by now we'd be in recovery. The bailouts and trillions of dollars being added to keep it all going is only going to prolong the inevitable, will only make things worse. Soon we as a nation will be unable to pay even the interest on our quickly rising debt.
If it were only American dollars that vaporized that might have worked..but we depend on other countries buying our Treasuries and keeping us living in the entitled style we demand so the US Government had no choice but to bail out the banks.

We don't own our country..the US is mortgaged to the hilt to other countries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2009, 11:49 AM
 
7,359 posts, read 10,279,481 times
Reputation: 1893
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
It would have. The housing bubble burst - that's what set this off. There were some very foolish people who took subprime loans and were in danger of foreclosure but they should obviously have realized that was the risk when they took those stupid loans.

The lenders that made those irresponsible loans could have collapsed, we don't need the bankers that offered stupid loans.

The housing bubble was built on ultra cheap illegal labor, illegals were brought in by the truck loads to build crappy houses for builders who were selling them at ridiculously high prices. The builders should have been allowed to go bankrupt because they've seriously overbuilt -- all for a quick easy profit.

If things were left to go on their own, if greedy bankers lost their banks and we accepted that some of the wealth wasn't real, by now we'd be in recovery. The bailouts and trillions of dollars being added to keep it all going is only going to prolong the inevitable, will only make things worse. Soon we as a nation will be unable to pay even the interest on our quickly rising debt.
Can't let the banks fail because it's not just irreponsible homeowners and illegal workers who pay the price.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:30 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top