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 many times do I have to answer the same question?
We are still in slow economic times with GDP less than potential GDP. As such, there are lots of people unemployed, not paying taxes but absorbing money from income security programs. It's really that simple.
Much of that GDP growth you mentioned earlier has been deficit spending and growth strictly based on debt...
From the Market Ticker....
Quote:
There has been no net-on-net growth. None -- since 1980.
Got that folks? Zero. It has all been debt accumulation. The reason we hit the wall in 2008 was that we had run a Ponzi scheme for 30 years of greater and greater debt accumulation being used to "goose" GDP -- that is, economic output. This never works because it can't work. It is inherently a fraud. When the borrower stumbles and the debt he has on his shoulders crushes him the entire market that has been operating on the premise of false demand fueled by more and more debt collapses. That is the truth of the 2008 crisis, just as it was in 1929 and 1873 in America along with myriad economic collapses around the world going back to Tulip Mania.
Rather than address this and accept it in 2008 the Federal Government, led by George Bush and John McCain, larded up even more debt, this time on the Federal balance sheet, to rescue those who had run Ponzi schemes -- schemes that, in the general sense are (and should be) unlawfulyet remain unprosecuted to this day. This unlawful conduct, including but not limited to lying about asset valuations, selling worthless trash under false pretense and more was not only "given a pass" it was enhanced and amped up further in 2009 with Kanjorski's hearing at which FASB was (legally) extorted to allow banks to keep "assets" on their books at mythical values. This is still going on today, as evidenced by Regions Financial that recently filed required reports showing that under market pricing their "assets" had a shortfall against their booked "values" sufficient to entirely erase their common equity. In blunt terms under Prompt Corrective Action, 12 USC 1831o, market pricing would render them bankrupt.
Much of that GDP growth you mentioned earlier has been deficit spending and growth strictly based on debt...
So?
Your implication is that purchases based upon debt are somehow illegitimate. GDP in those years wasn't a figment of our imagination.
When I bought my last car, I bought it via a loan. The car purchased put money in the dealer's pocket; it was paid a real auto worker's salary; bought real raw material. All of that was real.
Whether paid by cash or debt, we really did produce all the goods and services counted in GDP; we were able to do that because we had willing workers, a sufficient capital stock, the right technology, and so on.
What is true is that some of the spending that created demand for those goods and services was debt-financed, and those debtors can’t continue to spend the way they did. But that doesn’t say that the capacity has somehow ceased to exist; it only says that if we want to keep the capacity in use, someone else has to spend instead. In other words, past growth wasn’t an illusion, or a fraud; but we need policies to sustain aggregate demand.
Oh, and your graph is a fraud. It shows GDP line hovering close to zero -- implying that GDP didn't grow since 1980. But the Y-axis is quarter-to-quarter change. That means if GDP grows 1% per quarter from 1980 until now, the red line would be at 1 through the whole period, which would be and annual growth of about 5%, which is pretty healthy GDP growth but look insignificant on your chart.
But, if you are referring to Ryan's spending cuts, he cuts essentially everything except defense, which is unrealistic.
Lower revenues? Only a progressive that thinks income belongs to the federal government, who allows us to keep some, would think that spending ISN'T the problem.
How many times do I have to answer the same question?
We are still in slow economic times with GDP less than potential GDP. As such, there are lots of people unemployed, not paying taxes but absorbing money from income security programs. It's really that simple.
What's simple is if we continue down this path, we'll be underwater shortly. Why is "living within our means" such an impossible concept for the left?
Your implication is that purchases based upon debt are somehow illegitimate. GDP in those years wasn't a figment of our imagination.
When I bought my last car, I bought it via a loan. The car purchased put money in the dealer's pocket; it was paid a real auto worker's salary; bought real raw material. All of that was real.
Whether paid by cash or debt, we really did produce all the goods and services counted in GDP; we were able to do that because we had willing workers, a sufficient capital stock, the right technology, and so on.
What is true is that some of the spending that created demand for those goods and services was debt-financed, and those debtors can’t continue to spend the way they did. But that doesn’t say that the capacity has somehow ceased to exist; it only says that if we want to keep the capacity in use, someone else has to spend instead. In other words, past growth wasn’t an illusion, or a fraud; but we need policies to sustain aggregate demand.
Oh, and your graph is a fraud. It shows GDP line hovering close to zero -- implying that GDP didn't grow since 1980. But the Y-axis is quarter-to-quarter change. That means if GDP grows 1% per quarter from 1980 until now, the red line would be at 1 through the whole period, which would be and annual growth of about 5%, which is pretty healthy GDP growth but look insignificant on your chart.
Your car analogy just proves the folly of government. People bought cars, using govt credit. So the dealer got paid with money taken from the taxpayer. That autoworker's salary? Again, paid with money taken from the taxpayer. Raw material? Most likely paid with a government bailout, like the useless Volt.
That scenario did nothing more than rob Peter to pay Paul.
Your car analogy just proves the folly of government. People bought cars, using govt credit. So the dealer got paid with money taken from the taxpayer. That autoworker's salary? Again, paid with money taken from the taxpayer. Raw material? Most likely paid with a government bailout, like the useless Volt.
That scenario did nothing more than rob Peter to pay Paul.
That's absurd, even by right-wing standards.
People have been taking out auto loans since there were autos. My money came from the bank. The bank got it from depositors, just as they have for like... forever.
Besides, even if it came from the government it came from savings, as investors loan money to the government via T-bills and other government securities.
Mr. Ryan's answer's to questions were loaded with spin and non-answers. He has defered to committee the loop holes which he wouldnt comment on. Give me a break at least the Pres. has put out a starting budget, it may not pass but it gives you 2 different views. I think the Repub. budget will pass the house but not the senate.
It is Repub. economic polices that didnt work and that are still hurting our country and creating the debt that is being created now.
I want to see what happens when the Bush taxes end and the cost saving occurs in 2013
I know that my income taxes will take a sudden rise when the Bush cuts die. If you don't know about that you are operating with blind vision. If you are a taxpayer then your taxes will go up also. However, if you are in that half of our population that gets that earned income tax refund then you wouldn't have to see your taxes go up.
The Gop has 30 job growth bills that they passed and sent to harry reid. The bills have not been even looked at by the democrats.
Reid has a very large table to keep those bills tabled on. Of course, that is his right according to Senate rules and he is not at all sure he can keep some of them from passing if he lets the Senate vote on them.
If Obama was half the competent adult Ryan is, we'd be out of this recession with 5% unemployment and Obama would be sailing into reelection in November.
If he allows us to vote this fall that would be true. I am not sure he won't stop us from voting, though.
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.
