Double Dip Recession looming

daenku32 said:
Actually it comes from idle funds. Tax rates haven't increased, in fact tax breaks have increased. And because it is borrowed, the consumer and businesses (actually the intermediate banks and financial institutions that handle investments for consumers and businesses) are voluntarily giving the money to the government. The government has to purchase these loans just like anyone else.


If that was true, then the interest rates on government bonds would have to be much higher, as they would have to compete with the private market for returns on investment.

You also try to make the point that government doesn't create wealth, as opposed to a private worker. Well, unless you are actually working on the assembly line or in the engineering office creating the next new thing, you aren't creating wealth. You are just shuffling it around, trying to lose as little of it as possible. A corporate executive is no more wealth creating than a government bureaucrat.


Consumers and industry actually do have a lot of wealth. They simply aren't using enough of it for consumption or investment.
Click to expand...

Hey, no fair using real economics to argue against political ideology.

Next you'll be telling me that real biology proves that Young Earth Creationism is false!
 
Not going to happen. The banking system continues to strengthen, we can see this in declining mortgage rates. With this underlying drag out of the way the US economy will continue to strengthen, even if it’s at a slower rate than it should.
The bigger threat is longer term. The US economy is bound to get stronger over the next few years unless some really disastrous policy is implemented. If Republicans successfully sell the idea that their bad policy ideas actually worked, they may end up trying them much earlier in the next crisis at which point it really could be catastrophic for the US economy.
dudalb said:
There will be budget cut, but not quite as drastic as a lot of people think. The GOP will discover that people cheer the idea of cutting government spending, but then yell when the cuts gets specific.
Click to expand...

Republicans already know people don’t want actual spending cuts, the teabaggers may be dumb enough to try it but I suspect they will be held in check.
The most likely scenario IMO is that revenue will recover as the economy strengthens which reduces the deficit. Even though the structural deficit continues to increase, Republicans will claim this short term drop in the deficit came from spending cuts that never actually occurred and the media won’t challenge them on the lie.
 
Just thinking said:
I get it from the fact that when President Clinton lost BOTH houses and some states went with Republican governors, there was no recession and no high unemployment.
Click to expand...

Not as long as there was a Democrat in the Whitehouse to keep them in check anyway...
 
Bob Blaylock said:
From where do you think the money comes to pay all these government workers? I'll tell you from where it comes. It comes out of the pockets of consumers and businesses. It's money that business would otherwise have to employ workers who (unlike most government workers) actually create wealth; and it's money that consumers would otherwise have to spend on goods and services that those businesses would be employing workers to produce.

Having government consume less wealth, leaving more wealth in the hands of consumers and industry, can only be a good thing.
Click to expand...

This presumes that wealth and the migration of wealth from the hands of the many to the hands of the few are over-riding priorities and desirous goals for society. What evidences and arguments do you have to present to support this presumption and contention?
 
Just thinking said:
I get it from the fact that when President Clinton lost BOTH houses and some states went with Republican governors, there was no recession and no high unemployment.
Click to expand...

No, in fact, with republican's controlling Congress, the economy boomed. Of course, Clinton was not as much of an ideologue as Obama. Obama is Stuck On Stupid. He is still pushing his triple the debt, socialist mantra despite all the evidence that it has hurt the economy and the country, and Americans don't want it. When Gingrich and republicans shut down the government in late 1995 over their call for a balanced budget, Clinton folded. I don't think Obama will. He'll double down on his failed big government, big debt, socialist policies. And the end result will be Obama trying to further his agenda by Executive Order (which even the NY Times identified was his plan: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/us/politics/13obama.html ). So sadly, it will take until 2012 to start getting the economy working again. I just hope enough people are smart enough not to be fooled by all the excuses democrats will then make. I just hope that some democrats will finally be coming out of the spell that "it's all Bush's fault" Obama put on them. :cool:
 
BeAChooser said:
No, in fact, with republican's controlling Congress, the economy boomed. Of course, Clinton was not as much of an ideologue as Obama. Obama is Stuck On Stupid. He is still pushing his triple the debt, socialist mantra despite all the evidence that it has hurt the economy and the country, and Americans don't want it. When Gingrich and republicans shut down the government in late 1995 over their call for a balanced budget, Clinton folded...
Click to expand...

With such a solid grounding in fantasy history, your distorted perceptions of reality take on such clarity!

Even solidly partisan (though rational) Republican authors and historians seem to offer a different perspective of history.

"Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream"

Tom Delay's "No Retreat, No Surrender: One American's Fight"

among many others, they rightfully call Gingrich's debacle what it was, a petty, egotistical debacle that hurt Gingrich, the party and fiscally conservative policy throughout the nineties and till the current day.
 
Just thinking said:
And that's what we now have at the present ... so why all the concern in the OP?
Click to expand...

The economic environment is different. In '94 the internet boom was about to start, leading to private investment boom.

If you know of a growth industry that is waiting for the government to get out of its way, go ahead and let me know. I'm certainly not seeing it.

EDIT: The double whammy is that the individual States are going to be implementing various types of austerity. They will be laying of thousands of public workers, canceling hundreds of contracts and projects, leading to more people seeking unemployment. Without a private sector that is able to pick these people up they will just end up adding to current unemployment figures and cause it to balloon.
 
Last edited:
BeAChooser said:
No, in fact, with republican's controlling Congress, the economy boomed. Of course, Clinton was not as much of an ideologue as Obama. Obama is Stuck On Stupid. He is still pushing his triple the debt, socialist mantra despite all the evidence that it has hurt the economy and the country, and Americans don't want it. When Gingrich and republicans shut down the government in late 1995 over their call for a balanced budget, Clinton folded. I don't think Obama will. He'll double down on his failed big government, big debt, socialist policies. And the end result will be Obama trying to further his agenda by Executive Order (which even the NY Times identified was his plan: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/us/politics/13obama.html ). So sadly, it will take until 2012 to start getting the economy working again. I just hope enough people are smart enough not to be fooled by all the excuses democrats will then make. I just hope that some democrats will finally be coming out of the spell that "it's all Bush's fault" Obama put on them. :cool:
Click to expand...

No... what? It seems you agree with my claim that just because a Democrat loses Congress (in whole or in part) to the Republicans that it doesn't default to disaster (as claimed in the OP). Yes, in Clinton's time we did prosper ... and now, for several reasons we are likely not to see the same, but it can't be blamed solely on the loss of Congress.
 
daenku32 said:
The economic environment is different. In '94 the internet boom was about to start, leading to private investment boom.

If you know of a growth industry that is waiting for the government to get out of its way, go ahead and let me know. I'm certainly not seeing it.
Click to expand...

Asleep at the wheel, are we? Link

Or ... perhaps try here.

... the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which held a jobs summit Wednesday and accused the Obama administration of dumping onerous regulations on businesses. That has created an environment of "uncertainty," which is causing firms to hold back on hiring as the unemployment rate has hovered near 10 percent ...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Just thinking said:
Asleep at the wheel, are we? Link
Click to expand...

There wasn't a mention where they are planning on spending $4 trillion in savings. You need more than confidence to get the money rolling.

The article also bemoans public consumption. Well hello, if the public isn't going to buy what the supply-side is producing, where will the supply-siders get confidence to invest in new machinery?

From your article:
To restore confidence, America needs "a nonpartisan, problem-solving, no-nonsense leader" who "grabs the country by the shoulders, shakes us and says, ‘We can get out of this mess, but it will take time, and sacrifice and imagination,'" he said.
Click to expand...
I think the forum rules prevent me from clearly expressing what I think about the usefulness of this statement.
 
daenku32 said:
... I think the forum rules prevent me from clearly expressing what I think about the usefulness of this statement.
Click to expand...

And the US Chamber of Commerce ... they too have it all wrong? I suppose they aren't looking for what will yield them more growth and spawn investment, including that from overseas?
 
Just thinking said:
It seems you agree with my claim that just because a Democrat loses Congress (in whole or in part) to the Republicans that it doesn't default to disaster (as claimed in the OP). Yes, in Clinton's time we did prosper ... and now, for several reasons we are likely not to see the same, but it can't be blamed solely on the loss of Congress.
Click to expand...

I do indeed agree although even failure to recover (unemployment still at 10% two years from now as predicted even by democrats) could be viewed as a disaster of sorts. I think that will be the fault of democrats because they insisted on interfering when and where they shouldn't have interfered. History shows, over and over, that in recessions/depressions where government didn't spend massive amounts to stimulate recovery, when government spending even went down, recovery happened faster than when they did interfere. The current malaise is mostly the fault of Obama and the democrats. :D
 
Just thinking said:
...
Or ... perhaps try here.
... the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which held a jobs summit Wednesday and accused the Obama administration of dumping onerous regulations on businesses. That has created an environment of "uncertainty," which is causing firms to hold back on hiring as the unemployment rate has hovered near 10 percent ...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The chamber of commerce lost all credibility on issues of economics when they became a politically activist branch of the Republican party.
 
TShaitanaku said:
The chamber of commerce lost all credibility on issues of economics when they became a politically activist branch of the Republican party.
Click to expand...

Perhaps to you ... Almost everyone is of some political persuasion, that does not default to being in error.
 
Just thinking said:
Perhaps to you ... Almost everyone is of some political persuasion, that does not default to being in error.
Click to expand...

No, but it does default to being unreliable with regards to accuracy, and with a demonstrated propensity to distort facts and evidences in the pursuit of political rather than true, objective, economic resolutions and positions, it goes beyond mere unreliability.
 
TShaitanaku said:
No, but it does default to being unreliable with regards to accuracy, and with a demonstrated propensity to distort facts and evidences in the pursuit of political rather than true, objective, economic resolutions and positions, it goes beyond mere unreliability.
Click to expand...

Evidence? ... specifically in this case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom