If you scare enough people, you can change the economic mood (and political leanings) - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ASU2003 · 08-02-2010, 06:44 PM

'Double Dippers' could enable what they fear - Politics - msnbc.com

Do you think there is an effort to purposely keep the economy down by scaring people and companies from spending money or hiring more people? Maybe this should go in the paranoia forum, but I wouldn't be surprised if a group says if you buy gold, oil, and other commodities it will stall the economic recovery and help the opposition party in the next election...

Or is the media correct in reporting the current economic status with 80% employment, and quite a few people getting unemployment is that the economy might be at 2002 levels instead of an over hyped 2007 level? And will this keep people depressed about future economic development?

Ripleys: Soak-the-Richers are Upset that the Rich Aren’t Spending More
And no, I'm not complaining that the rich should spend more to improve the economy, I'm thinking that certain people in the media are shaping the news in order to make people feel like things aren't improving. (Although I know my Aunt is not buying a new or used car during Obama's term)

robot_parade · 08-02-2010, 07:29 PM

I can't see any kind of scheme or conspiracy of not spending money...sounds a little too much like a randian fantasy.

OTOH, I haven't seen any of these headlines 'attacking the rich' for not spending enough. Maybe I don't read enough left-wing propaganda.

Baraka_Guru · 08-02-2010, 07:35 PM

First, I don't know if anyone is actively trying to keep the economy down. The issue with the media, as it has always been, is that "if it bleeds, it leads." The media reports bad news, and to compete with ratings they do it with at least some spectacle, if not a lot.

While the employment numbers are still dismal, it's important to remember that these numbers are lagging indicators of the economy. They only reflect what has happened in the past (which is, not enough people were required to produce goods and services). It's a useful number as one of many for gauging the economy; but it isn't a very promising number to look at if you're unemployed or are hoping the economy gets better so you can keep your job. Basically, the unemployment numbers are the numbers calculated after the economy has already changed.

But employment figures are popular in the media because the idea of being unemployed is frightening to us all. I'm not surprised it gets a lot of coverage. But, remember, all the numbers are saying is, "This is what happened" (i.e. businesses laid people off in anticipation of not doing enough business).

If you want to look at indicators of what's currently happening or what might forecast economic activity, then there are two other categories: coincident and leading indicators, respectively.

Coincident indicators reveal what's happening in the economy right now. If you want know what the current state of the economy is, then stop looking at employment numbers and look at such things as income levels, GDP, industrial production, and retail sales. And I think it's rather popular to view GDP growth/loss as "the economy." But that's an oversimplification.

Leading indicators reveal what's likely to happen in the economy down the road. This includes such things as housing starts (which will require construction) and manufacturers' receiving new orders, especially for such things as consumer goods like cars and appliances. Another leading indicator is changes in stock prices, as these reflect on profit potential in the markets.

That said, I think that employment numbers receive too much attention in the media and the mindset of the public. It's a painful indicator, I know, but look at it for what it is: a reflection of the past.

If you consider the GDP (2.4% growth for the second quarter), you will note that economists are disappointed. The revised estimate was 3.7%. However, the GDP has been growing for the past several months. What this means is that the U.S. economy is recovering, but it's recovering much slower than anticipated. BUT, it's recovering.

If you consider retail sales, analysts are predicting a 3.1% increase for July, which is compared to a 5.1% drop over the same period last year. However, this increase, like the GDP, is lower than what people would like. What can we say? Consumers are still nervous about spending money, and many are unemployed. However, these figures reflect what's going on right now. We know shortly after each month just what retail was doing. An interesting measure of the current state of the economy: a direct indicator of consumer confidence, and an indicator that is tied into manufacturing and inventories.

As for leading indicators (what's coming up), it's a mixed bag: housing starts are flat-lining (prices have only started to recover this year) but auto sales are up by 15 to 20% compared to the same period last year, and stock index levels have recovered a good chunk of what they lost in '08 and '09, but recent months have shown ups and downs, as there is still a lot of uncertainty.

So there you have it. Pick your indicator depending on what view of the economy you want. Do you want to look ahead, look back, or look at what's going on right now?

If you've read this far (actually, even if you haven't), I've proven my point: not everyone wants to spend the time to learn what's going on and would just rather read headlines or watch news summaries on their favourite TV shows.

If you want to be spooked by employment numbers, then go right ahead and be spooked. But if you want a more level-headed view of how the economy works, then try looking at a few other things.

If more people did, maybe the recovery wouldn't be so modest.

ASU2003 · 08-02-2010, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robot_parade

I can't see any kind of scheme or conspiracy of not spending money...sounds a little too much like a randian fantasy.

OTOH, I haven't seen any of these headlines 'attacking the rich' for not spending enough. Maybe I don't read enough left-wing propaganda.

The movie is coming out next year, and it will introduce more people to the idea that if you put the powerful in charge, you lives will be decent. If you go against their will, they will take their toys and play elsewhere seemingly leaving you with less. In reality, you would probably get more small businesses starting up to fill the void from the powerful monopolies if it was easy to get into that market.

And it's not just the rich, people are saving move in general, and getting out of debt. These are good things.
the new normal americans cutting back even if they don't have to: Tech Ticker, Yahoo! Finance

I guess my real issue with the media is that all they know how to do is ask questions of supposedly 'smart' people that study these things (and hopefully aren't paid off or bribed to sway one way or another). But they don't really educate anybody on what these stats mean, or how a policy will impact different people.

Willravel · 08-02-2010, 08:43 PM

BOO!

Sorry.

roachboy · 08-02-2010, 08:58 PM

this is stupid. there are real structural problems with the american economy. conservative economic policies have played a significant role in shaping and enabling those problems. now those same people have nothing to say, but they sure as fuck don't want to be held to account for their own history, for their own policies. so they make stuff up. and you'd have to be a chump to fall for it. but maybe you are one.

roachboy · 08-03-2010, 05:14 AM

added later: this op-ed piece is by david stockman, who was reagan's head of the office of management and budget (and who wrote a book in the late 80s outlining the reagan period penchant for budgetary and ideological smoke and mirrors). he speaks conservative, but has a problem with the way things have gone. normally i'd put it in another thread, but i think it helps to open up space around the op.

asu: if you'd rather i move it, let me know please.

Quote:

Four Deformations of the Apocalypse
By DAVID STOCKMAN

IF there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation’s public debt — if honestly reckoned to include municipal bonds and the $7 trillion of new deficits baked into the cake through 2015 — will soon reach $18 trillion. That’s a Greece-scale 120 percent of gross domestic product, and fairly screams out for austerity and sacrifice. It is therefore unseemly for the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, to insist that the nation’s wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase.

More fundamentally, Mr. McConnell’s stand puts the lie to the Republican pretense that its new monetarist and supply-side doctrines are rooted in its traditional financial philosophy. Republicans used to believe that prosperity depended upon the regular balancing of accounts — in government, in international trade, on the ledgers of central banks and in the financial affairs of private households and businesses, too. But the new catechism, as practiced by Republican policymakers for decades now, has amounted to little more than money printing and deficit finance — vulgar Keynesianism robed in the ideological vestments of the prosperous classes.

This approach has not simply made a mockery of traditional party ideals. It has also led to the serial financial bubbles and Wall Street depredations that have crippled our economy. More specifically, the new policy doctrines have caused four great deformations of the national economy, and modern Republicans have turned a blind eye to each one.

The first of these started when the Nixon administration defaulted on American obligations under the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement to balance our accounts with the world. Now, since we have lived beyond our means as a nation for nearly 40 years, our cumulative current-account deficit — the combined shortfall on our trade in goods, services and income — has reached nearly $8 trillion. That’s borrowed prosperity on an epic scale.

It is also an outcome that Milton Friedman said could never happen when, in 1971, he persuaded President Nixon to unleash on the world paper dollars no longer redeemable in gold or other fixed monetary reserves. Just let the free market set currency exchange rates, he said, and trade deficits will self-correct.

It may be true that governments, because they intervene in foreign exchange markets, have never completely allowed their currencies to float freely. But that does not absolve Friedman’s $8 trillion error. Once relieved of the discipline of defending a fixed value for their currencies, politicians the world over were free to cheapen their money and disregard their neighbors.

In fact, since chronic current-account deficits result from a nation spending more than it earns, stringent domestic belt-tightening is the only cure. When the dollar was tied to fixed exchange rates, politicians were willing to administer the needed castor oil, because the alternative was to make up for the trade shortfall by paying out reserves, and this would cause immediate economic pain — from high interest rates, for example. But now there is no discipline, only global monetary chaos as foreign central banks run their own printing presses at ever faster speeds to sop up the tidal wave of dollars coming from the Federal Reserve.

The second unhappy change in the American economy has been the extraordinary growth of our public debt. In 1970 it was just 40 percent of gross domestic product, or about $425 billion. When it reaches $18 trillion, it will be 40 times greater than in 1970. This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.

In 1981, traditional Republicans supported tax cuts, matched by spending cuts, to offset the way inflation was pushing many taxpayers into higher brackets and to spur investment. The Reagan administration’s hastily prepared fiscal blueprint, however, was no match for the primordial forces — the welfare state and the warfare state — that drive the federal spending machine.

Soon, the neocons were pushing the military budget skyward. And the Republicans on Capitol Hill who were supposed to cut spending exempted from the knife most of the domestic budget — entitlements, farm subsidies, education, water projects. But in the end it was a new cadre of ideological tax-cutters who killed the Republicans’ fiscal religion.

Through the 1984 election, the old guard earnestly tried to control the deficit, rolling back about 40 percent of the original Reagan tax cuts. But when, in the following years, the Federal Reserve chairman, Paul Volcker, finally crushed inflation, enabling a solid economic rebound, the new tax-cutters not only claimed victory for their supply-side strategy but hooked Republicans for good on the delusion that the economy will outgrow the deficit if plied with enough tax cuts.

By fiscal year 2009, the tax-cutters had reduced federal revenues to 15 percent of gross domestic product, lower than they had been since the 1940s. Then, after rarely vetoing a budget bill and engaging in two unfinanced foreign military adventures, George W. Bush surrendered on domestic spending cuts, too — signing into law $420 billion in non-defense appropriations, a 65 percent gain from the $260 billion he had inherited eight years earlier. Republicans thus joined the Democrats in a shameless embrace of a free-lunch fiscal policy.

The third ominous change in the American economy has been the vast, unproductive expansion of our financial sector. Here, Republicans have been oblivious to the grave danger of flooding financial markets with freely printed money and, at the same time, removing traditional restrictions on leverage and speculation. As a result, the combined assets of conventional banks and the so-called shadow banking system (including investment banks and finance companies) grew from a mere $500 billion in 1970 to $30 trillion by September 2008.

But the trillion-dollar conglomerates that inhabit this new financial world are not free enterprises. They are rather wards of the state, extracting billions from the economy with a lot of pointless speculation in stocks, bonds, commodities and derivatives. They could never have survived, much less thrived, if their deposits had not been government-guaranteed and if they hadn’t been able to obtain virtually free money from the Fed’s discount window to cover their bad bets.

The fourth destructive change has been the hollowing out of the larger American economy. Having lived beyond our means for decades by borrowing heavily from abroad, we have steadily sent jobs and production offshore. In the past decade, the number of high-value jobs in goods production and in service categories like trade, transportation, information technology and the professions has shrunk by 12 percent, to 68 million from 77 million. The only reason we have not experienced a severe reduction in nonfarm payrolls since 2000 is that there has been a gain in low-paying, often part-time positions in places like bars, hotels and nursing homes.

It is not surprising, then, that during the last bubble (from 2002 to 2006) the top 1 percent of Americans — paid mainly from the Wall Street casino — received two-thirds of the gain in national income, while the bottom 90 percent — mainly dependent on Main Street’s shrinking economy — got only 12 percent. This growing wealth gap is not the market’s fault. It’s the decaying fruit of bad economic policy.

The day of national reckoning has arrived. We will not have a conventional business recovery now, but rather a long hangover of debt liquidation and downsizing — as suggested by last week’s news that the national economy grew at an anemic annual rate of 2.4 percent in the second quarter. Under these circumstances, it’s a pity that the modern Republican Party offers the American people an irrelevant platform of recycled Keynesianism when the old approach — balanced budgets, sound money and financial discipline — is needed more than ever.

David Stockman, a director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan, is working on a book about the financial crisis

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/op...e&ref=homepage

dogzilla · 08-03-2010, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

If you've read this far (actually, even if you haven't), I've proven my point: not everyone wants to spend the time to learn what's going on and would just rather read headlines or watch news summaries on their favourite TV shows.

If you want to be spooked by employment numbers, then go right ahead and be spooked. But if you want a more level-headed view of how the economy works, then try looking at a few other things.

If more people did, maybe the recovery wouldn't be so modest.

There's more than unemployment stats that are not looking so good. I've been reading about foreclosures being up. There's headlines on msnbc this morning about existing home sales down in June, consumer spending stalled, mixed reports on corporate profits and Geithner saying unemployment could increase again. I've also read reports that credit is still difficult for businesses to get.

Maybe this adds up to a double dip rescession, maybe not. But it's not a very good return on the hundreds of billions of dollars Obama wasted on his so called stimulus programs.

Tully Mars · 08-03-2010, 02:38 PM

Hmm, didn't Bush start the Stimulus? And TARP?

I wish he would have spent the money the Iraq war cost in the US. We blew up and then rebuilt schools there while ones in the US couldn't fund basic programs like "Head Start." Hell if he just dropped the Billions in US $100 notes he shipped to Iraq (and handed out without accounting) into several economically strapped areas of the US it would have probably been a better use for the money.

dogzilla · 08-03-2010, 03:14 PM

I don't really agree with Bush's bailouts either. But it's been a year and a half since Bush left and it's way past time for Obama to stop blaming Bush.

I've read that significant amounts of the money in Bush's programs was repaid. Obama's programs gave away money with no expectation of getting it back. Cash for Clunkers anyone? $8000 credit for buying a house anyone? Maybe I should have been a less than honorable borrower too so Obama could bail out my mortgage. Obama's $750 billion stimulus supposedly saving 3 million jobs at a mere $250,000 in taxpayer money for each job 'saved'? What a bargain.

As far as Iraq, in hindsight maybe we shouldn't have gone there. However, the *bipartisan* screaming to do something about Saddam in 2002 and 2003 was pretty loud and clear.

Tully Mars · 08-03-2010, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

I don't really agree with Bush's bailouts either. But it's been a year and a half since Bush left and it's way past time for Obama to stop blaming Bush.

I've read that significant amounts of the money in Bush's programs was repaid. Obama's programs gave away money with no expectation of getting it back. Cash for Clunkers anyone? $8000 credit for buying a house anyone? Maybe I should have been a less than honorable borrower too so Obama could bail out my mortgage. Obama's $750 billion stimulus supposedly saving 3 million jobs at a mere $250,000 in taxpayer money for each job 'saved'? What a bargain.

As far as Iraq, in hindsight maybe we shouldn't have gone there. However, the *bipartisan* screaming to do something about Saddam in 2002 and 2003 was pretty loud and clear.

I don't hear Obama blaming Bush. I hear people like me doing that. The Bush policies lead to a complete freaking free fall in my opinion. Spend, spend and spend some more. Regulations? We don't need no stinking regulations! We may never recover. As for Bush's programs being paid for I'd need a link or a source to verify that, honestly I just don't believe that. The guy never saw a dollar he didn't want to borrow... and spend. I know he sure heck didn't pay for the "war of terror." Didn't even include the cost in his budgets. You can't keep increasing spending, borrowing and cutting taxes forever. Crap like that got the US in the quagmire it's in now. And unless you're cartoon character of Bangkok transvestite on the "Family Guy" being in a quagmire is not where you want to be.

I'm not thrilled with everything Obama does but compared to the GOP and Bush/ (deficits don't matter)Cheney he looks pretty damn good to me. Which, of course, is kind of like saying he's the best looking turd in the sewer.

roachboy · 08-03-2010, 03:50 PM

so wait--the economic crash was triggered by phenomena that became pure expressions of conservative economic thinking, "regulated" by folk who had puffed the same pipe as greenspan....the real estate bubble, the derivatives trade, the decision to do nothing--at all--to generate transparency about either the devices or the market or the values----because growth is a steady state....that combined with two illegitimate wars that exist in some accounting alternate reality....not to mention the grotesque amounts of money plowed into "security" and other elements of the new secret america---all that *caused* the near-implosion of the entire global capitalist arrangement and triggered a recession that we're *still* in the middle of...and the right---which is responsible for almost all of this mess---would have us believe that "it is time to stop blaming bush"---whose administration was a Debacle

now why would they say that?

well in part because the only race the conservatives are running harder than the one that's against everything obama says or does is the one that sees them running away from their own record.

because if they have to answer for their own record, they haven't a prayer.

dogzilla · 08-03-2010, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

I don't hear Obama blaming Bush. I hear people like me doing that. The Bush policies lead to a complete freaking free fall in my opinion. Spend, spend and spend some more. Regulations? We don't need no stinking regulations! We may never recover. As for Bush's programs being paid for I'd need a link or a source to verify that, honestly I just don't believe that. The guy never saw a dollar he didn't want to borrow... and spend. I know he sure heck didn't pay for the "war of terror." Didn't even include the cost in his budgets. You can't keep increasing spending, borrowing and cutting taxes forever. Crap like that got the US in the quagmire it's in now. And unless you're cartoon character of Bangkok transvestite on the "Family Guy" being in a quagmire is not where you want to be.

I'm not thrilled with everything Obama does but compared to the GOP and Bush/ (deficits don't matter)Cheney he looks pretty damn good to me. Which, of course, is kind of like saying he's the best looking turd in the sewer.

As recently as last February, Obama was still in 'blame Bush' modeObama Won't Abandon Blame Bush Strategy - US News and World Report

Quote:

The White House has no plans to give up on its blame-Bush strategy. A White House adviser says that George W. Bush and his policies created "the hole we're in," and President Obama will keep reminding the country of the economic "mess" he inherited. Obama takes frequent jabs at his predecessor for leaving him an economy that was teetering on the brink of collapse, and White House aides say he won't stop anytime soon. At a meeting Wednesday with Senate Democrats, for example, Obama rejected Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln's call for him to move to the center. Obama said, "If the price of certainty is essentially for us to adopt the exact same proposals that were in place for eight years leading up to the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression ... the result is going to be the same. I don't know why we would expect a different outcome pursuing the exact same policy that got us into this fix in the first place." Last week, Obama also issued a blame-Bush statement with his budget request: "On the day my administration took office," he said, "we faced an additional $7.5 trillion in national debt by the end of this decade as a result of the failure to pay for two large tax cuts, primarily for the wealthiest Americans, and a new entitlement program. We also inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression—which, even before we took any action, added an additional $3 trillion to the national debt.

Wikipedia, for what it's worth has an article about the TARP with repayments

Troubled Asset Relief Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The first few articles in this google search seem to tell a generally positive repayment story

how much tarp repaid - Google Search

Sorry for not posting full text but there's lot of text and I don't want to create a huge post.

As far as deficits, Bush's deficits were pretty much in the $400 billion range except for 2008, and Obama's have been well over $1 trillion for the last couple years and not projected to decline below $1 trillion for a few years. Obama's going to end up well past the $7.5 trillion addition to the debt he was worried about.

Causes for the economic problems? I've seen a lot of debate on that with explanations of too many people taking out home equity loans, second mortgages and signing for questionable loans. All of that activity pushed up demand for real estate and put a lot of money into the economy that would be 'paid back later'. So I'm not convinced the crash is entirely due to corporate greed. Individual borrower greed and stupidity had a lot to do with it too. I think the crash has affected people's willingness to live on money they don't have and that we will have a fundamentally smaller economy for years to come. Artificially spiking the economy with government giveaway programs like Obama did aren't going to do much long term.

As far as an individual being able to spook investors, Obama has managed to do that twice now. First, when he took office, the DJIA was in the 8200 range. Obama was making negative statements about the economy and by the beginning of March the DJIA was around 6200. He did it again, back in the early days of the BP oil spill, where he made comments about punishing BP, causing the share price to tank and causing a minor international incident.

Tully Mars · 08-03-2010, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

As recently as last February, Obama was still in 'blame Bush' modeObama Won't Abandon Blame Bush Strategy - US News and World Report

So if he stated "The Iraq War started under the Bush Admin" would he be blaming Bush or merely stating fact?

And...

Wait, you're loosing me. a few short posts ago it was...

Quote:

But it's not a very good return on the hundreds of billions of dollars Obama wasted on his so called stimulus programs.

And now it's...

Quote:

Wikipedia, for what it's worth has an article about the TARP with repayments

The first few articles in this google search seem to tell a generally positive repayment story

So do this think TARP was not a very good return or do you think it's being repaid nicely?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

As far as deficits, Bush's deficits were pretty much in the $400 billion range except for 2008, and Obama's have been well over $1 trillion for the last couple years and not projected to decline below $1 trillion for a few years. Obama's going to end up well past the $7.5 trillion addition to the debt he was worried about. Causes for the economic problems? I've seen a lot of debate on that with explanations of too many people taking out home equity loans, second mortgages and signing for questionable loans. All of that activity pushed up demand for real estate and put a lot of money into the economy that would be 'paid back later'. So I'm not convinced the crash is entirely due to corporate greed. Individual borrower greed and stupidity had a lot to do with it too. I think the crash has affected people's willingness to live on money they don't have and that we will have a fundamentally smaller economy for years to come. Artificially spiking the economy with government giveaway programs like Obama did aren't going to do much long term.

And even though Bush/Cheney started the bail outs you think they would have stopped before diving in full bore? Doesn't sound like the Bush Admin I knew. The guy never admitted a mistake and, to my knowledge, never changed course.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

As far as an individual being able to spook investors, Obama has managed to do that twice now. First, when he took office, the DJIA was in the 8200 range. Obama was making negative statements about the economy and by the beginning of March the DJIA was around 6200. He did it again, back in the early days of the BP oil spill, where he made comments about punishing BP, causing the share price to tank and causing a minor international incident.

And when the Dow was over 14K what did Bush do to make it drop nearly in half to the 8200 Obama inherited? I mean if Obama managed to 'spook" it down 2000pts Bush must of scared the living shit out if it to make it drop over 6,000pts, right?

BTW- I can't find it now but in trying to quote you and respond I fell like a butchered your post somewhere and now can not find it. If it is or it appears I've edited you somewhere so as to take you out of context, feel free to call me on it. I'm tried.

dogzilla · 08-03-2010, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

So do this think TARP was not a very good return or do you think it's being repaid nicely?

The money loaned to the banks has had significant repayments. Compare that to cash for clunkers, new home credits, 'job creation' giveaways, etc that will likely never be repaid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

And when the Dow was over 14K what did Bush do to make it drop nearly in half to the 8200 Obama inherited? I mean if Obama managed to 'spook" it down 2000pts Bush must of scared the living shit out if it to make it drop over 6,000pts, right?

I don't remember Bush making any statements talking down the economy. That I think had more to do with the panic in Sept 2008 and again the disappearance of a surplus of cash that was spiking the housing market as well as the stock market.

Tully Mars · 08-03-2010, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

The money loaned to the banks has had significant repayments. Compare that to cash for clunkers, new home credits, 'job creation' giveaways, etc that will likely never be repaid.

Cash for cars and new home credits didn't keep people building and selling houses and cars?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

I don't remember Bush making any statements talking down the economy. That I think had more to do with the panic in Sept 2008 and again the disappearance of a surplus of cash that was spiking the housing market as well as the stock market.

So when it dropped nearly in half, over 6,000pts under Bush it wasn't the POTUS fault but when it goes down 2000pts under Obama it is the POTUS's fault?

dogzilla · 08-04-2010, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Cash for cars and new home credits didn't keep people building and selling house and cars?

People are going to replace cars anyway in most cases. So cash for clunkers just borrowed against future car sales to spike the market for a few months. The $8000 credit for houses spiked the sales in housing for a while. Once that ended, sales went down again and the housing market is still not in good shape.

In those cases, as well as other Obama programs, that money is not going to be paid back.

The government should not have spent my (taxpayer) money on these giveaways. Let the market work itself out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

So when it dropped nearly in half, over 6,000pts under Bush it wasn't the POTUS fault but when it goes now 2000pts under Obama it is the POTUS's fault?

When the president makes specific statements talking down the economy? Yes.

Tully Mars · 08-04-2010, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

People are going to replace cars anyway in most cases. So cash for clunkers just borrowed against future car sales to spike the market for a few months. The $8000 credit for houses spiked the sales in housing for a while. Once that ended, sales went down again and the housing market is still not in good shape.

In those cases, as well as other Obama programs, that money is not going to be paid back.

The government should not have spent my (taxpayer) money on these giveaways. Let the market work itself out.

Ok, what do you think will help the economy? Bush did the tax cut thing, how'd that work out in the long run? Didn't end up so well in my opinion.

Really I read your posts and it appears you can't help but blame Obama for everything. At some point will he be the second gun man on the grassy knoll?

A couple posts back you stated-

Quote:

As far as deficits, Bush's deficits were pretty much in the $400 billion range except for 2008, and Obama's have been well over $1 trillion for the last couple years and not projected to decline below $1 trillion for a few years. Obama's going to end up well past the $7.5 trillion addition to the debt he was worried about.

First Bush spent Future Money instead of paying as he went. He didn't even include in his budgets the cost of the wars. Bush took the Dem policy of tax and spend and turned it into "borrow and spend." I no fan of tax and spend but borrow and spend bothers me much more.

Second you're claiming "Obama's have been well over $1 trillion for the last couple years" Exactly how many years do you think he's been in office?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

When the president makes specific statements talking down the economy? Yes.

Maybe being honest about the situation had less of a negative effect then repeatedly telling everyone "the economy is strong" while it was really tanking. Bush was always in "rah, rah, rah!" mode. He did that with the economy and it eventually dropped over 6,000pts. He also did that with the Iraq war. Hell according to him we "turned the corner" so many freaking times anyone with a touch of logic would have to conclude we were going in circles.

This culture of "rah, rah, rah... we're number one!" Didn't get us anywhere in my opinion.

dogzilla · 08-04-2010, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Ok, what do you think will help the economy? Bush did the tax cut thing, how'd that work out in the long run? Didn't end up so well in my opinion.

I'd cut taxes and I'd also cut spending significantly. That means military and entitlement programs as well as discretionary spending. It's not the government's role to decide what businesses and causes are the favored ones that they will help out with my money. Let the market decide what businesses succeed and which will fail.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Really I read your posts and it appears you can't help but blame Obama for everything. At some point will he be the second gun man on the grassy knoll?

If it's something the federal government has a role in and it's during Obama's presidency, then it's Obama's fault.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

A couple posts back you stated-

First Bush spent Future Money instead of paying as he went. He didn't even include in his budgets the cost of the wars. Bush took the Dem policy of tax and spend and turned it into "borrow and spend." I no fan of tax and spend but borrow and spend bothers me much more.

Second you're claiming "Obama's have been well over $1 trillion for the last couple years" Exactly how many years do you think he's been in office?

If borrow and spend worries you, then multiple trillion $ deficits should really worry you. Obama's 2010 budget had a deficit over $1 trillion. His proposed 2011 budget has a deficit over $1 trillion. I've read claims that we don't get back below $1 trillion deficits until 2014 and I think that was after optimistic assumptions about the recovery were made.

snowy · 08-04-2010, 07:16 AM

I am seeing a lot of sideways information in this thread about what's being spent and where, as well as who's responsible. I thought I would step in and offer up some links I used extensively in my political science class this last spring to analyze the federal budget over the last 60 years.

I suggest you go to this webpage and spend some time perusing these Excel files: Historical Tables | The White House

You can also find more historical budgets here: Budget of the United States Government: Browse

I have a sneaking suspicion that the gentleman who wrote the op-ed piece roachboy posted has also spent a great deal of time looking at these sites.

Tully Mars · 08-04-2010, 08:24 AM

Cut taxes, Cut taxes, Cut taxes... conservatives are like a guy strumming a one string banjo on this issue. I really, really don't see how that's going to get us out of this mess. At some point we have to start paying down the debt. Taxes are currently at level not seen since Truman was in office Link Cutting them more isn't going to help pay down the debt.

Obama was handed a $1.3 trillion deficit and $8 trillion worth of debt over the next decade Link. Money already spent. That's before he even stepped into the oval office or picked up a pen. To blame him for the current situation is like handing a guy a turd and then run away yelling "Hey! That guy's holding a turd!"

---------- Post added at 11:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:15 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by snowy

I am seeing a lot of sideways information in this thread about what's being spent and where, as well as who's responsible. I thought I would step in and offer up some links I used extensively in my political science class this last spring to analyze the federal budget over the last 60 years.

I suggest you go to this webpage and spend some time perusing these Excel files: Historical Tables | The White House

You can also find more historical budgets here: Budget of the United States Government: Browse

I have a sneaking suspicion that the gentleman who wrote the op-ed piece roachboy posted has also spent a great deal of time looking at these sites.

A lot of the info you site is here.

I think this graph shows a lot regarding who spent what and when...

Baraka_Guru · 08-14-2010, 06:05 AM

So, wait...the mode of operations for the Republicans has been to cut taxes (or promise cuts) and to spend America's future away via questionable military operations?

So what's the hard sell? More money in your pocket and the obliteration of your enemies?

Hm....sounds like it's preying on greed and fear. What a wonderful way to get votes.

Tully Mars · 08-14-2010, 06:22 AM

Yeah throw in some religious right wing social agendas and you have enough votes to do whatever you want. The US has a lot one issue voters. Abortion? Hate it and will vote for any politician who states he will work to outlaw it. Gay marriage, same thing. Gun ownership? It's my God given right guaranteed by the US Conts. and I'll vote for any politician who claims he'll defend that right. If politicians agree to these three things alone they can expand the debt and deficit all they want. These voters don't care if the US is mortgaging their grand children's future as along as you don't take my guns and keep my neighbors engaging in gay marriage or have an abortion.

This article speaks to some of how the US has been sold down the river

Link

But when it opens with...

Quote:

We've arrived at a historic turning point as a nation that no longer needs outside enemies to destroy us, we are committing suicide. Democracy. Capitalism. The American dream. All dying. Why? Because of the economic decisions of the GOP the past 40 years, says this leading Reagan Republican.

Please listen with an open mind, no matter your party affiliation: This makes for a powerful history lesson, because it exposes how both parties are responsible for destroying the U.S. economy.

About 50% of people will not read further and simply call it BS.

Baraka_Guru · 08-14-2010, 07:28 AM

Yeah, that article has been floating around here. (I think Willravel started a thread based on it.) It has a lot of validity. Your graph above is a simple demonstration of who was spending how much. While it's more sensational to look at the $trillion amounts, it's more important to consider the % of GDP because spending in proportion to the wealth you generate is more important than a set amount.

It makes sense, right? If I make $35,000 and spend $20,000 on a car vs making $100,000 and spending $40,000 on a car, what seems more financially sound? The $20,000 car might seem like "reduced spending," but perhaps I should have used public transit instead. If I make $100,000 and buy myself a $40,000 car, depending on the circumstances, it might be a sound decision (quality car, high resale, good mileage, etc.), despite it costing twice as much as a $20,000 car. It's about keeping things relative to wealth.

If you look at the % of GDP spending, you'll notice that since the '50s, Democrats have consistently reduced the ratio. This means one and/or two things: GDP increased and/or spending was reduced. Either way, while they were in power, they managed to balance the two. The Republicans?

They did all right for a while, but then Regan came along with his political game-changers.

Tully Mars · 08-14-2010, 07:50 AM

Yeah Reagan really changed how the US looked at deficit spending and debt. Really it boiled down to as long as you cut taxes then deficit spending was fine. I think Bush Sr. tried to turn that around but really got his ass handed to him by his own party. During the Clinton years things certainly turned around, but I honestly don't think it's entirely fair to credit just him. Much of the fiscal responsibility that emerged from his time in office was the result of having the opposition party in control of both houses. They GOP forced him to do a lot of things he clearly did not want to do. Too bad they forgot all about the fiscal responsibility when Bush Jr. took office. It was amazing to listen to their arguments for cutting taxes. First it was we have all this surplus, cut tax. Then the econ. is going that great so... cut taxes. Then it was were in a deficit... so cut taxes. When regardless of the question the answer is "tax cuts" then I don't think they were seriously interested in solving any problems, just paying less taxes. I mean seriously they took the country to war, which isn't cheap. And the answer to that was "cut some more taxes."

Baraka_Guru · 08-14-2010, 08:43 AM

The view seems to be that cutting taxes, regardless of their current and historical levels, is a panacea for economic challenges.

roachboy · 08-14-2010, 09:13 AM

there's alot of problems with monetarism, not least of which is that its central rhetorical categories don't refer to anything. "fiscal responsibility"---what the hell is that? how is it that a state, which is a kind of governor that directs or shapes a multiplicity of social processes, can come to be evaluated along the lines of an individual check-book? why isn't it just as important to think about what the policy choices are, the politics of state action, to ask whether those ends are socially desirable and whether the actions or institutions that follow from policy are advancing the system toward those ends?

"fiscal responsibility" is one of the more powerful conservative memes, but it's nothing more than that.

it's curious: i think the basic proposition that we, collectively, really need to reconsider how capitalism operates as a mode of production so as a form of life (so here as a social type and not a specific system of ownership and organization of production). but i don't think it's going to happen. a significant explanation for that seems to me to be the ways in which political language and infotainment delivery has changed since the vietnam period in reaction (and this in every sense of the term) against that period: political language has been made into a consumer object and political action into a type of consumption. politics is a matter of opinion management. there's no space for recursion, so no space for critical thinking. the meta-discussions that happen on television and which arguably (chomsky--manufacturing consent) set the limits of legitimate debate are in the main shabby sad-to-idiotic affairs in which memes are circulated rather than discussed. all this---i think---as a function of a fear of deliberation, and a fear of critique so a fear of genuine dissent which, from a reactionary viewpoint, got "out of hand" during the 1960-early 70s. this is what gave the hooverites space to crawl out from under their rock--that and the groundwork laid by the nixon administration. and the organizational work done by the christian coalition to get the petit bourgeois rightwing vote out.

i think that conservative domination has incapacitated debate itself. it has wrecked the self-regulating mechanisms inside of american pseudo-democracy. and i think we're seeing some of the consequences of that in a kind of amazing ideological paralysis. it's not absolute, because there are people who see it and talk or write about it at lots of levels---but in the main, it's like deer in front of the headlamps of an oncoming truck.

FuglyStick · 08-14-2010, 09:21 AM

i.e., "fiscal responsibility" is only responsible when it means my taxes go down; otherwise, it's irresponsible.

Baraka_Guru · 08-14-2010, 10:01 AM

Let's be realistic.

Fiscal responsibility to what I would deem "mainstream conservatives" in the U.S. means, "Lower my taxes somehow; just make sure you balance the budget without touching the military."

roachboy · 08-14-2010, 10:22 AM

i know what it refers to. it's also the case that that referring presupposes a particular economic framework. it repeats the logic of the frame. it's a successful meme like that. you use it and you're already moving into the logic it entails. and it's got that fake-ethical twinge that we all know and love from those lovely folk on the right, for whom ethical language is all important when they're talking about people who aren't themselves.

Baraka_Guru · 08-14-2010, 10:27 AM

When you talk about conservative ethics, are you referring to the ethics as disseminated through the werks of the fillosofer Ayn Rand?

roachboy · 08-14-2010, 10:29 AM

that and milton friedman. a shame they never teamed up to do some road movies.

Baraka_Guru · 08-14-2010, 10:34 AM

Ayn & Milty's Big Adventure

Tully Mars · 08-14-2010, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Let's be realistic.

Fiscal responsibility to what I would deem "mainstream conservatives" in the U.S. means, "Lower my taxes somehow; just make sure you balance the budget without touching the military."

You left out "pour obscene amounts of money in the war on drugs and increased border patrols."

Really it's spend, spend, and spend more... on the things I agree with and BTW don't expect me to pay for that spending just add it to the tab we're leaving our children.

hunnychile · 08-14-2010, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robot_parade

I can't see any kind of scheme or conspiracy of not spending money...sounds a little too much like a randian fantasy.

OTOH, I haven't seen any of these headlines 'attacking the rich' for not spending enough. Maybe I don't read enough left-wing propaganda.

Apparently Michelle Obama has spent $500,000. lately on clothes, etc. for herself and her girls. That seems extremely obsessive, uncaring and yet still a little propagandish to me.

So much for the J. Crew route.

Tully Mars · 08-14-2010, 11:31 AM

That does sound like a lot. Where did you read/hear that?

Was it her money or tax payer money?

hunnychile · 08-14-2010, 12:04 PM

Just saw it online somewhere....I'll try to find it for you/us!

(Yes it DOES sound excessive, huh?)

Tully Mars · 08-14-2010, 12:17 PM

Well yes and no. I mean Nancy Reagan spent 25K on her inaugural wardrobe and that was in 1981... for one night. 30 yrs later having a fist lady spend 500K on clothing for herself and her children might not be bad thing. I think it might be bad to have our first family meet foreign dignitaries in jeans and t-shirts from J crew.

I'd still like to know how much tax payers are paying for and how much, if any, she is.

08-02-2010, 06:44 PM	#1 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	If you scare enough people, you can change the economic mood (and political leanings) 'Double Dippers' could enable what they fear - Politics - msnbc.com Do you think there is an effort to purposely keep the economy down by scaring people and companies from spending money or hiring more people? Maybe this should go in the paranoia forum, but I wouldn't be surprised if a group says if you buy gold, oil, and other commodities it will stall the economic recovery and help the opposition party in the next election... Or is the media correct in reporting the current economic status with 80% employment, and quite a few people getting unemployment is that the economy might be at 2002 levels instead of an over hyped 2007 level? And will this keep people depressed about future economic development? Ripleys: Soak-the-Richers are Upset that the Rich Aren’t Spending More And no, I'm not complaining that the rich should spend more to improve the economy, I'm thinking that certain people in the media are shaping the news in order to make people feel like things aren't improving. (Although I know my Aunt is not buying a new or used car during Obama's term)

08-02-2010, 07:35 PM	#3 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	First, I don't know if anyone is actively trying to keep the economy down. The issue with the media, as it has always been, is that "if it bleeds, it leads." The media reports bad news, and to compete with ratings they do it with at least some spectacle, if not a lot. While the employment numbers are still dismal, it's important to remember that these numbers are lagging indicators of the economy. They only reflect what has happened in the past (which is, not enough people were required to produce goods and services). It's a useful number as one of many for gauging the economy; but it isn't a very promising number to look at if you're unemployed or are hoping the economy gets better so you can keep your job. Basically, the unemployment numbers are the numbers calculated after the economy has already changed. But employment figures are popular in the media because the idea of being unemployed is frightening to us all. I'm not surprised it gets a lot of coverage. But, remember, all the numbers are saying is, "This is what happened" (i.e. businesses laid people off in anticipation of not doing enough business). If you want to look at indicators of what's currently happening or what might forecast economic activity, then there are two other categories: coincident and leading indicators, respectively. Coincident indicators reveal what's happening in the economy right now. If you want know what the current state of the economy is, then stop looking at employment numbers and look at such things as income levels, GDP, industrial production, and retail sales. And I think it's rather popular to view GDP growth/loss as "the economy." But that's an oversimplification. Leading indicators reveal what's likely to happen in the economy down the road. This includes such things as housing starts (which will require construction) and manufacturers' receiving new orders, especially for such things as consumer goods like cars and appliances. Another leading indicator is changes in stock prices, as these reflect on profit potential in the markets. That said, I think that employment numbers receive too much attention in the media and the mindset of the public. It's a painful indicator, I know, but look at it for what it is: a reflection of the past. If you consider the GDP (2.4% growth for the second quarter), you will note that economists are disappointed. The revised estimate was 3.7%. However, the GDP has been growing for the past several months. What this means is that the U.S. economy is recovering, but it's recovering much slower than anticipated. BUT, it's recovering. If you consider retail sales, analysts are predicting a 3.1% increase for July, which is compared to a 5.1% drop over the same period last year. However, this increase, like the GDP, is lower than what people would like. What can we say? Consumers are still nervous about spending money, and many are unemployed. However, these figures reflect what's going on right now. We know shortly after each month just what retail was doing. An interesting measure of the current state of the economy: a direct indicator of consumer confidence, and an indicator that is tied into manufacturing and inventories. As for leading indicators (what's coming up), it's a mixed bag: housing starts are flat-lining (prices have only started to recover this year) but auto sales are up by 15 to 20% compared to the same period last year, and stock index levels have recovered a good chunk of what they lost in '08 and '09, but recent months have shown ups and downs, as there is still a lot of uncertainty. So there you have it. Pick your indicator depending on what view of the economy you want. Do you want to look ahead, look back, or look at what's going on right now? If you've read this far (actually, even if you haven't), I've proven my point: not everyone wants to spend the time to learn what's going on and would just rather read headlines or watch news summaries on their favourite TV shows. If you want to be spooked by employment numbers, then go right ahead and be spooked. But if you want a more level-headed view of how the economy works, then try looking at a few other things. If more people did, maybe the recovery wouldn't be so modest. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 08-02-2010 at 07:41 PM..

08-02-2010, 08:58 PM	#6 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	this is stupid. there are real structural problems with the american economy. conservative economic policies have played a significant role in shaping and enabling those problems. now those same people have nothing to say, but they sure as fuck don't want to be held to account for their own history, for their own policies. so they make stuff up. and you'd have to be a chump to fall for it. but maybe you are one. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-03-2010, 02:38 PM	#9 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	Hmm, didn't Bush start the Stimulus? And TARP? I wish he would have spent the money the Iraq war cost in the US. We blew up and then rebuilt schools there while ones in the US couldn't fund basic programs like "Head Start." Hell if he just dropped the Billions in US $100 notes he shipped to Iraq (and handed out without accounting) into several economically strapped areas of the US it would have probably been a better use for the money. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

08-03-2010, 03:50 PM	#12 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	so wait--the economic crash was triggered by phenomena that became pure expressions of conservative economic thinking, "regulated" by folk who had puffed the same pipe as greenspan....the real estate bubble, the derivatives trade, the decision to do nothing--at all--to generate transparency about either the devices or the market or the values----because growth is a steady state....that combined with two illegitimate wars that exist in some accounting alternate reality....not to mention the grotesque amounts of money plowed into "security" and other elements of the new secret america---all that caused the near-implosion of the entire global capitalist arrangement and triggered a recession that we're still in the middle of...and the right---which is responsible for almost all of this mess---would have us believe that "it is time to stop blaming bush"---whose administration was a Debacle now why would they say that? well in part because the only race the conservatives are running harder than the one that's against everything obama says or does is the one that sees them running away from their own record. because if they have to answer for their own record, they haven't a prayer. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-02-2010, 07:29 PM	#2 (permalink)
robot_parade Junkie Location: San Antonio, TX	I can't see any kind of scheme or conspiracy of not spending money...sounds a little too much like a randian fantasy. OTOH, I haven't seen any of these headlines 'attacking the rich' for not spending enough. Maybe I don't read enough left-wing propaganda.

08-02-2010, 08:43 PM	#5 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	BOO! Sorry.

08-03-2010, 03:14 PM	#10 (permalink)
dogzilla Junkie Location: New York	I don't really agree with Bush's bailouts either. But it's been a year and a half since Bush left and it's way past time for Obama to stop blaming Bush. I've read that significant amounts of the money in Bush's programs was repaid. Obama's programs gave away money with no expectation of getting it back. Cash for Clunkers anyone? $8000 credit for buying a house anyone? Maybe I should have been a less than honorable borrower too so Obama could bail out my mortgage. Obama's $750 billion stimulus supposedly saving 3 million jobs at a mere $250,000 in taxpayer money for each job 'saved'? What a bargain. As far as Iraq, in hindsight maybe we shouldn't have gone there. However, the bipartisan screaming to do something about Saddam in 2002 and 2003 was pretty loud and clear.

08-04-2010, 07:16 AM	#20 (permalink)
snowy Kick Ass Kunoichi Location: Oregon	I am seeing a lot of sideways information in this thread about what's being spent and where, as well as who's responsible. I thought I would step in and offer up some links I used extensively in my political science class this last spring to analyze the federal budget over the last 60 years. I suggest you go to this webpage and spend some time perusing these Excel files: Historical Tables \| The White House You can also find more historical budgets here: Budget of the United States Government: Browse I have a sneaking suspicion that the gentleman who wrote the op-ed piece roachboy posted has also spent a great deal of time looking at these sites. __________________ If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

08-14-2010, 06:05 AM	#22 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	So, wait...the mode of operations for the Republicans has been to cut taxes (or promise cuts) and to spend America's future away via questionable military operations? So what's the hard sell? More money in your pocket and the obliteration of your enemies? Hm....sounds like it's preying on greed and fear. What a wonderful way to get votes. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

08-14-2010, 07:28 AM	#24 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Yeah, that article has been floating around here. (I think Willravel started a thread based on it.) It has a lot of validity. Your graph above is a simple demonstration of who was spending how much. While it's more sensational to look at the $trillion amounts, it's more important to consider the % of GDP because spending in proportion to the wealth you generate is more important than a set amount. It makes sense, right? If I make $35,000 and spend $20,000 on a car vs making $100,000 and spending $40,000 on a car, what seems more financially sound? The $20,000 car might seem like "reduced spending," but perhaps I should have used public transit instead. If I make $100,000 and buy myself a $40,000 car, depending on the circumstances, it might be a sound decision (quality car, high resale, good mileage, etc.), despite it costing twice as much as a $20,000 car. It's about keeping things relative to wealth. If you look at the % of GDP spending, you'll notice that since the '50s, Democrats have consistently reduced the ratio. This means one and/or two things: GDP increased and/or spending was reduced. Either way, while they were in power, they managed to balance the two. The Republicans? They did all right for a while, but then Regan came along with his political game-changers. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

08-14-2010, 07:50 AM	#25 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	Yeah Reagan really changed how the US looked at deficit spending and debt. Really it boiled down to as long as you cut taxes then deficit spending was fine. I think Bush Sr. tried to turn that around but really got his ass handed to him by his own party. During the Clinton years things certainly turned around, but I honestly don't think it's entirely fair to credit just him. Much of the fiscal responsibility that emerged from his time in office was the result of having the opposition party in control of both houses. They GOP forced him to do a lot of things he clearly did not want to do. Too bad they forgot all about the fiscal responsibility when Bush Jr. took office. It was amazing to listen to their arguments for cutting taxes. First it was we have all this surplus, cut tax. Then the econ. is going that great so... cut taxes. Then it was were in a deficit... so cut taxes. When regardless of the question the answer is "tax cuts" then I don't think they were seriously interested in solving any problems, just paying less taxes. I mean seriously they took the country to war, which isn't cheap. And the answer to that was "cut some more taxes." __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

08-14-2010, 08:43 AM	#26 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	The view seems to be that cutting taxes, regardless of their current and historical levels, is a panacea for economic challenges. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

08-14-2010, 09:13 AM	#27 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	there's alot of problems with monetarism, not least of which is that its central rhetorical categories don't refer to anything. "fiscal responsibility"---what the hell is that? how is it that a state, which is a kind of governor that directs or shapes a multiplicity of social processes, can come to be evaluated along the lines of an individual check-book? why isn't it just as important to think about what the policy choices are, the politics of state action, to ask whether those ends are socially desirable and whether the actions or institutions that follow from policy are advancing the system toward those ends? "fiscal responsibility" is one of the more powerful conservative memes, but it's nothing more than that. it's curious: i think the basic proposition that we, collectively, really need to reconsider how capitalism operates as a mode of production so as a form of life (so here as a social type and not a specific system of ownership and organization of production). but i don't think it's going to happen. a significant explanation for that seems to me to be the ways in which political language and infotainment delivery has changed since the vietnam period in reaction (and this in every sense of the term) against that period: political language has been made into a consumer object and political action into a type of consumption. politics is a matter of opinion management. there's no space for recursion, so no space for critical thinking. the meta-discussions that happen on television and which arguably (chomsky--manufacturing consent) set the limits of legitimate debate are in the main shabby sad-to-idiotic affairs in which memes are circulated rather than discussed. all this---i think---as a function of a fear of deliberation, and a fear of critique so a fear of genuine dissent which, from a reactionary viewpoint, got "out of hand" during the 1960-early 70s. this is what gave the hooverites space to crawl out from under their rock--that and the groundwork laid by the nixon administration. and the organizational work done by the christian coalition to get the petit bourgeois rightwing vote out. i think that conservative domination has incapacitated debate itself. it has wrecked the self-regulating mechanisms inside of american pseudo-democracy. and i think we're seeing some of the consequences of that in a kind of amazing ideological paralysis. it's not absolute, because there are people who see it and talk or write about it at lots of levels---but in the main, it's like deer in front of the headlamps of an oncoming truck. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-14-2010, 09:21 AM	#28 (permalink)
FuglyStick WHEEEE! Whee! Whee! WHEEEE! Location: Southern Illinois	i.e., "fiscal responsibility" is only responsible when it means my taxes go down; otherwise, it's irresponsible. __________________ AZIZ! LIGHT!

08-14-2010, 10:01 AM	#29 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Let's be realistic. Fiscal responsibility to what I would deem "mainstream conservatives" in the U.S. means, "Lower my taxes somehow; just make sure you balance the budget without touching the military." __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

08-14-2010, 10:22 AM	#30 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i know what it refers to. it's also the case that that referring presupposes a particular economic framework. it repeats the logic of the frame. it's a successful meme like that. you use it and you're already moving into the logic it entails. and it's got that fake-ethical twinge that we all know and love from those lovely folk on the right, for whom ethical language is all important when they're talking about people who aren't themselves. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-14-2010, 10:27 AM	#31 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	When you talk about conservative ethics, are you referring to the ethics as disseminated through the werks of the fillosofer Ayn Rand? __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

08-14-2010, 10:29 AM	#32 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	that and milton friedman. a shame they never teamed up to do some road movies. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-14-2010, 10:34 AM	#33 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Ayn & Milty's Big Adventure __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

08-14-2010, 11:31 AM	#36 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	That does sound like a lot. Where did you read/hear that? Was it her money or tax payer money? __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

08-14-2010, 12:04 PM	#37 (permalink)
hunnychile Alien Anthropologist Location: Between Boredom and Nirvana	Just saw it online somewhere....I'll try to find it for you/us! (Yes it DOES sound excessive, huh?) __________________ "I need compassion, understanding and chocolate." - NJB

08-14-2010, 12:17 PM	#38 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	Well yes and no. I mean Nancy Reagan spent 25K on her inaugural wardrobe and that was in 1981... for one night. 30 yrs later having a fist lady spend 500K on clothing for herself and her children might not be bad thing. I think it might be bad to have our first family meet foreign dignitaries in jeans and t-shirts from J crew. I'd still like to know how much tax payers are paying for and how much, if any, she is. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club