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.
Listen, Mircea, I gain nothing from responding to you.
In other words, you don't have a response to the facts I slammed you with. Just man-up and say so. It's not the end of the world.
I didn't just start doing this yesterday. I've been doing this for years and years, and before that, I was presenting papers at symposiums. If you want to see some of my handiwork, just search. When I say the GDP for a particular Quarter will be 1.7%-1.8%, that is exactly what I mean, and you bet your life on it. So three revisions later, guess what number the "you-Harvards" in government come up with -- 1.8% exactly like I said it would be.
I don't work. All I do is pull numbers from the government and crunch them all day. So if you're going to talk Economics, then you'd best know what you're talking about, because I don't put up with any nonsense. There's way too much crap on the internet filling people's heads with stupidity, like Infowars.
Would you like some more facts?
Between 1933 and 1940, the government spent $131.3 Billion, and GDP increased $45 Billion.
It cost the government $2.92 to increase GDP by $1, but then note that is total government spending, not total deficit spending.
The present administration is deficit spending $29 to get a measly $1 increase in GDP. If I counted total government spending, then the government is spending a helluva lot more than $29 to move GDP $1.
You might want to spend more time crunching numbers, because very obviously, you don't see a difference.
As I feared and noted, my response didn't matter. It seems you are steadfastly conservative (personally, I'm a moderate), and that I never had an actual chance to convince you of anything other than the position you hold.
Your response did not present information that convinced me that spending and taxing is the solution. President Obama has tried massive government spending to stimulate the economy, and today we’re seeing the results. Deficit in the trillions, millions are still unemployed, and "pitiful" job growth.
Old news right, yes it is, after all he has been in office for over 3 years, and it is the same ole, same ole.
If you run any household, run a business and yes run the government by spending when you are already flat broke, you go bankrupt.
So you agree with Obama and say print more money. Well, that is exactly what people did when they used credit card debt and borrowed against their homes, by using debt they essentially printed more money and you see what happens??? Foreclosures, defaulting on their credit card debt, LOSING IT ALL after printing too much money (debt) and you think the government is different.
Yes, the government is different, they can just demand that people pay higher taxes!
It doesn't matter that inflation isn't a concern right now, especially in relative terms as compared to the weak economy. You're so worried about inflation that you'd damn the economy (and everyone from every economic strata who participates in it) to keep it low.
You craft a response in defense of Obama and his economic policies and you believe that inflation is not an issue. I am not talking about inflation due to increase demand and the economy overheating. That is usually happens when people have jobs, and people have money and that is certainly not the case here. The cost of everything has already gone up by the way. Put those tax increases in place, these taxes will hurt small business and they will react by raising prices, rents will go up. And you say its not an issue.
Americans are already flat broke and can not afford more, this country is in debt beyond comprehension and we can not afford more of Obamas printing and spending sprees.
The point is the economy and, namely, unemployment.
So Obama thinks its ok to slide a tax increase in on Americans reducing their income? That will not create demand and will not create jobs?
Obama tax increase will hurt small business owners so they can not hire. That is not job creation
And now with Obamacare, businesses will hire as few fulltime employees as possible
If raising taxes in a recession would be “the last thing you want to do,” wouldn’t raising taxes in a struggling economy teetering on a double-dip be the second last thing you’d want to do?
The actions of this president indicate that he wants people to depend on the government.
Higher Taxation:
And, even though Obama promised that the middle class will not pay another dime more in taxes, he vowed to let the Bush tax cuts expire because he believes it only helps the rich. WRONG!, the Bush tax cuts also help the working poor and middle class through reducing child care credit, reinstating the marriage penalty, tax brackets are lowered to mention a few. By letting the Bush cuts expire Obama is effectively RAISING TAXES on the middle class.
You did not respond to higher taxation. Well good news everyone, Obama knows he has been found out. He knows that you understand that YES your taxes will go up so he is back peddling and saying he wants to extend the Bush tax cuts for $250k and below FOR ONE YEAR ONLY.
So if you vote him into office your taxes will will go higher after the year ends. Its a gimmick to get re-elected.
Zero unemployment in a few months with a stable economy. Here's how:
The government borrows $15 billion from China, and pays $3,000 as a monthly wage to $5-million unemployed workers. On payday, they all go out and spend that $15 billion. Employers hire workers to produce the goods and services those recipients buy, and pay them wages. For each one that gets hired, the government doesn't have to borrow their paycheck next month from China, so that $15 billion keeps going down. After a few months, everyone is hired, there is full employment, the companies that made the goods and services gain the profits from that increased business, and pay tax on the profits, which is used to pay back the loan from China. If we don't attack any other countries during those few months, we can borrow the money from the Defense Department, instead of from China.
Here's Plan B:
The government builds factories that make things people want or need to buy, and hires 5-million workers. No unemployment. But that sounds like socialism, so there is a standing offer. Any private entity can buy any one of those factories, at any time, for exactly the amount of money the government spent so far in developing and operating the plant. Now, they are all privately owned operations. That's not socialist. Unless, of course, private capital refuses to buy them, then it's their fault that it not private enterprise, and they have no right to whine.
Those are just rough outlines in principle, subject to adjustments of details. The point is, the USA has the wealth to boldly stimulate employment in this way, while most other countries don't, so we can use that wealth to work for us in furthering this advantage. Why are we afraid to just do it? Fifteen billion a month is less than we spend in the Iraq war during the first couple of years.
Here are the reasons we don't. In case A, it goes against our principles to see somebody get paid who is not working. In case B, it goes against our principles to see a market share not going to private enterprise, even if both of them are just briefly and temporarily entertained. Those are not economic reasons, they are spiteful reasons based on philosophical comfort zones that have been embedded within us.
I don't mean to sound pompous but what are your credentials?
We're ****ed...we keep trying to polish a turd into a bar of gold. We needed to default a few years ago when we were only mid thigh deep in crap. Now we are up to our eyeballs in crap. There is nothing we can do without very serious consequences.
We're ****ed...we keep trying to polish a turd into a bar of gold. We needed to default a few years ago when we were only mid thigh deep in crap. Now we are up to our eyeballs in crap. There is nothing we can do without very serious consequences.
Zero unemployment in a few months with a stable economy. Here's how:
The government borrows $15 billion from China, and pays $3,000 as a monthly wage to $5-million unemployed workers. On payday, they all go out and spend that $15 billion. Employers hire workers to produce the goods and services those recipients buy, and pay them wages. For each one that gets hired, the government doesn't have to borrow their paycheck next month from China, so that $15 billion keeps going down. After a few months, everyone is hired, there is full employment, the companies that made the goods and services gain the profits from that increased business, and pay tax on the profits, which is used to pay back the loan from China. If we don't attack any other countries during those few months, we can borrow the money from the Defense Department, instead of from China.
But do you really think China will agree to an interest free loan of $15 billion?
unlikely somehow, unless there is something in it for them.
and how can the govt. control what the workers spend their money on?
This is a nonsense idea.
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.
