if you only imported goods that were manufactured with the U.S. standards of labor regulations......well, you wouldn't import anything anymore

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

Not if EVERY country is self reliant. Granted that is impossible, but every country can make their own cars, roads, infrastructures. Some may need food, some oil, whatever... that is what you trade for. IT is possible. IT is extremely possible for EVERY country to be primarily self reliant and advanced. The only people who would not want this are people who want to keep other countries down.

You don't send jobs to countries with little to no human rights, sweatshops, dictatorships, etc and expect those conditions to change when you are part of the problem.

You work to educate, you have humanitarian missions to make sure those people are fed and medically cared for but YOU GIVE NOTHING to reward those governments until they change.

Your argument is one that does not take into account the self sovereignty and reliance of a nation. If Nigeria starts building an infrastructure and creates jobs, then Nigerians will stay in Nigeria and the country will begin to prosper. If the US became more self reliant, stopped importing and started making things again, the wages would go up. There would not have to be sacrifices.

You build an infrastructure and you keep it safe and you add on to it.

The only way inflation will happen is if those top 1-5-10% decide not to give up what they have.

The top 1-5-10% have us so brainwashed and so skewed that we are to believe ANYTHING other than the same old same old laissaez faire, let them control everything... will fail and we'll be worse off.

I argue the opposite. I argue that if we promote national sovereignty and self reliance (as much as possible), no longer sending jobs to countries with dictatorships, spotty human rights and so on... the WORLD will be better as a whole not just the US.

---------- Post added at 02:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:55 PM ----------

Then we have a problem that we should be fixing. IF we are supposed to be this great country (and I believe we are) then we need to make sure we do not do business with countries that have spotty human rights, dictatorships and so on.

Trust me, the US is the world's largest consumer nation, companies will do what they have to, to make sure they sell product here. But, what we have done is wanted cheaper so we shipped jobs to those countries and paid less and spiraled downward. Even our "human rights" advocates don't speak out anymore. It's time we show that what we are.

We are the US, we are the greatest nation to ever grace this planet and we do not need nor will we condone human rights violations, dictatorships and so on.

but those days are over, pan. national sovereignty is a quaint old thing at this point.

i was reading some articles the came out in a journal called Global Social Policy commemorating (if you want to call it that) the 25th anniversary of the bhopal disaster. it outlines the serious problems with regulating the actions of transnational corporations like dow, how close to impossible it is to hold them accountable, the problems of jurisdiction and the usual types of class-fraction based corruption/coziness, the many and varied ways in which these trans- and national regulatory/legal problems converged on screwing over the victims. it's pretty interesting and really quite grim and seems the way of things these days.

if you like i can get the articles and make them available--pm me with an email address----i'm not sure how easy the journal is to find.
i mention this not only because i just happened to read a bunch of stuff earlier this morning, but also because we can't really carry on too far in thinking about what might make sense to do to change the organization of capitalism without having a good working idea of how things operate...the bhopal disaster became emblematic of many things, mostly ugly but some not so (the mobilization of the survivors for example) and its analyzed that way.

Also, Pan, becoming self-reliant goes against the grain of global markets. After all, why would a country start up or heavily expand an industry when it can just purchase the end products from someone else at a fraction of the cost, using the wealth they've generated by doing what they do well?

are you saying that the only way to move forward for humanity now is to condone human rights violations and dictatorships? This is what you want in your new world order?

dk, when you cherry-pick your one and your one, you shouldn't be surprised to end up with a very strange two.

dk...wow. just wow.
i hardly seems necessary to ask whether you read the post you bit that sentence from. you *obviously* didn't and what's better is that you demonstrate the point i was making in the process.

but still. wow.

glad you like it. maybe now you'll see what I see on other threads when you disagree with 'conservative' positions. Because, to be honest, your statements in those circumstances don't make alot of sense either.......so, wow.

How about whenever someone talks about what a majority of self described conservatives believe, instead of just pointing out that there is a minority of self described conservatives who don't believe that you actually explain why you don't believe that?

It was Union Carbide that caused the problems over there (They were bought out by Dow).

But I would agree that India needs an EPA organization that has the power to fix things.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for this thread topic, it is hard to claim Obama is anything yet. He has been criticized by the Right for things he 'might' do (but has no plans to), and the left wants him to do something yet any attempt is blocked by the Senate.

This chart appeared in today's IBD. Commercial and industrial loans issued by commercial banks has been declining for the past 8 months and is down $583 billion from the peak according to IBD.

http://www.investors.com/image/ISShalf_100219.png.cms

As the federal government pumps stimulus into the economy it is being siphoned off, this should be a concern.

In addition the money supply as measured by M2 is shrinking in spite of the Fed's soft money policy:

Investors.com - A Bad Time For Fed To Tighten?

Now the Fed is signeling to the market a shift in posture to tighten the money supply and "easy credit" in spite of virtually no inflation:

Fed Discount-Rate Move Signals End to Emergency Steps (Update1) - Bloomberg.com

No inflation:

U.S. Economy: Consumer Prices Increase Less Than Anticipated - Bloomberg.com

The Obama administration and the Fed are not in sync and one of the major problems affecting job creation, the availability of credit, goes unaddressed. Liberal or conservative, what we need is a concerted effort to turn the economy around on a long term basis. Right now we are seriously at risk of another down-turn given a shrinking monetary supply, strengthening dollar, higher interest rates, higher taxes and deflationary pressures.

I hope the President is having a good time in Vegas campaigning for Reid.:shakehead:

Certain people will benefit from higher interest rates, higher taxes, less money, stronger dollar, lower stock prices, and deflation. It might not be you, but there are winners. I like higher interest rates, a strong dollar, and deflation (lower commodity prices). I have quite a bit of money in a savings account, but I am also locked in at a low rate on my mortgage.

If I had to buy a house, I would want really low rates, and easy credit available with a large monetary supply.

If I was getting ready to retire, it might be different. I wouldn't want the stock market to crash before I was able to get out. I would be worried about inflation or the dollar getting really weak. I would also be worried about taxes.

If I was a high school kid, I want my $7/hour to actually buy something.

If I was a 40-something business owner, I would want lower rates. Easy loans, and low taxes.

If I were a foreigner, I would want a weak dollar to be able to buy more and get more on vacation here.

If I was paying back the national debt, I would want our money to be worth less than it is now with an increasing monetary supply.

You do know that the Fed and the president are "not in sync" pretty much because the fed is set up to be independent of the presidency, right?

Sure, I think that the fed should pump a little more money into the economy, but that is me as liberal interventionist saying this. The fact that you also believe this leads me to think that anything you can use against Obama you will, regardless of whether it fits with your own ideas.

The main economic indicators are starting to show a turn-around happening. Those committed to the view that Obama is Doing Bad Things to the Economy are having to reach into more and more obscure indicators for evidence.

Anecdotally, as one of the excessively-numbered unemployed, I'm seeing a sudden surge in job opportunities just in the last couple weeks. I have an application in for a contract-to-hire gig with McCann Erickson New York right now--so think employed thoughts my direction please! (And no, I won't be moving there if I get it, it's a telecommute position, but I probably will be visiting the city more frequently if I do.)

This is true, but I think most would prefer an end to the recession and certainly for economic improvement rather than deterioration.

My problem tends to be with things like bailouts for banks and then they raise rates/fees, lower credit availability, record record profits, continue record foreclosure rates, etc. I did not support the bailouts, but since the banks got them, should they be obligated to do something in return? We, the taxpayer and consumer, got the raw end of the deal

But we are talking about savings rates of 2%, or nothing after taxes and inflation, then on the other side people are paying up to 20% or more on credit card debt. Then banks can get capital or be bailed-out at virtually no real cost????

You support my view the economy is too complicated to micro-manage and for everyone the government tries to help they hurt someone.

---------- Post added at 09:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:38 PM ----------

Why be condescending?

Why shouldn't we expect or demand the Fed and the administration get on the same page?

Looking at the causes of the Great Depression, poorly timed restriction of the money supply hurt. We do not want a repeat. The Fed's words indicate that they understand that, but some of the indicators I see, indicate otherwise.

This issue is bigger than Obama. We all know how I feel about him. I don't know how you want me to respond to him when I think he is wrong, misguided, being political, etc., but what we need is to get him and everyone else focused on the real issues. I think his campaigning at this time is an insult, given what is going on. He talks about global warming but ignores how the financial industry got bailed-out but turns around and hurts every American in this country needing or using credit!

I am very frustrated.

It's not about being condescending. It's about being at least a bit coherent when trying to get on the "let's bash Obama" bandwagon. I mean, if you are posting another "Obama is the devil" type of post, you should at least get the basics right, right?

The fed was set up to be as independent from the presidency as possible. The interest rates are set by the FOMC. The president nominates some, but not all, of the members of the FOMC, and their terms are set to overlap with multiple presidents to make sure that the fed works in an apartisan manner. So 11 out of 12 members of the board were not appointed by Obama, including the Chairman.

And the second point is that the Fed rate really won't impact the economy for at least another 6 months.

Point being, the fact that you don't what you are talking about and yet insist on making it a sort of political point about Obama is very telling about the possibility of having an actual debate with you.

There is forward looking information and there are lagging indicators. There is no doubt there are some positive data points, but there are also some data points that should give cause for concern. In addition there is the condition of a fledgling recovery being reversed by premature action or doing things that can quickly put an end to the recovery. For example if banks hoard capital at the expense of business growth we could see a second round of job loss, consumer demand, foreclosures, etc. , in turn putting more pressure on banks to preserve their capital. Some cycles need to be broken, some cycles in order to be broken require risk taking with a profit motivation as opposed to risk avoidance with a survival motivation. Banks need to be encouraged to transition from survival to a profit motivation. But, we have a President who talks negatively about the financial sector taking risks and talks likes he wants to punish risk taking. I agree that the extreme is not good, but neither extreme is good.

---------- Post added at 10:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:00 PM ----------

I am bored with the above. Trust me, Obama doesn't get 2% of the criticism he could get. I don't even point out most of the easy and obvious areas. In my first post today, I only had one line about Obama, most would have seen that line and understood it was just a guy venting at the politics of the day. In fact, when Bush was President this board thrived because of the criticisms and defenses of the Bush administration, there is no defense of the Obama administration. People here, on the right don't need to rub it in, and people on the left don't seem to want to discuss it. Just a few months ago, there were countless comment about the survival of the Republican Party, endless speculation. Why has that changed? why isn't there the same level of interest in the future of the Democratic Party?

Maybe the reason for that is that you get out what you put in? Maybe the discussion ends because there is a pattern of posting nonsense and then responding with the sort of victimization and metadiscussion above?

I mean, what is the alternative? Seriously discussing how Obama messed up because the fed raised interest rates, even though the fed is independent from the president and 11 of 12 members were either appointed by the FED board of governors or Bush?

As far as discussing the future of the democratic party, wasn't there a thread on Scott Brown and other stuff? Healthcare? Gitmo?


You make it sound like everyone here is an ardent Obama supporter. I have significant problems with him: the stimulus was to small, the new banking regulations too little and too weak, the healthcare reform proposal too weak and poorly sold to the public, he should have prosecuted the Bush people for war crimes, and he seems to be more concerned with appearing moderate and above the fray than actually doing anything. But just because I have these problems with him doesn't mean that I will join any Obama bashing bandwagon just to score a few political points. Just because I disagree with a lot of what he does doesn't mean that I'll buy the "Obama lending money to Brazil to enrich Soros" posts, or the "Obama is to blame for the FED" posts, or the "Obama is the next Herbert Hoover" posts.

Economic Scene - Success of Stimulus Bill Is Noteworthy as Another Is Weighed - NYTimes.com

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...phic-popup.jpg

It looks that about the same time that the stimulus started the economy did a complete 180.

I am not a victim of anything. I will do something you won't do, I admit that some of my posts are lame attempt at humor, sarcasm and occasionally in bad taste but I am pretty certain that the vast majority of what I post is certainly not nonsense. And my typical pattern is to initially start off with a prettern serious point, question or observation, it is typically only after getting baited do I go down into the gutter. When I do that I know what I am doing and I know why.

If what I posted was not clear, asking for simple clarification would help. The above is not clear to me as to what you are looking for in a response.

---------- Post added at 01:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:21 AM ----------

Is it your view that the stimulus saved us from the "brink"? Do you think the stumulus is all the needs to be done? Is simply spending nearly a trillion dollars the answer to future recessions? Do you have concerns of a "double dip", if not why not?

There should be a government economics course at college. The rules that apply to governments aren't the same as companies or individuals.

1. The banks have been stabilized. If they had not been stabilized, it would take years for the smaller banks to grow to the size required and offer decent rates.

2. A lot of that money has been paid back or may not need to be spent. Recovery.gov is a good concept, but they need to whip up a simple TV show to explain it to people like me.

3. Some calculated 'unknown to me' amount gets paid right back to the government in taxes. I pay about 40-50% in taxes once everything gets added in I believe. And then the money I give to other people gets taxed, and the cycle repeats.

4. The psychological impact on the stock market here and around the world was positive. The stock market can cascade and snowball down fast now that a lot of trades are based on mathematical models by large institutional investors.

I'm not saying that there aren't problems with printing money out of thin air or funding projects that may not of been done (or should not have been done), but I feel that the economy is healthier now than a year ago.

The fact that we are better off now then a year ago is what is important. Is everything fixed? No there is still a lot to do but we are better off.

If you are driving 100 MPH down a freeway the wrong direction you can't simply throw the car in reverse and expect to be going 100 MPH in the right direction, you first have to slow down, then stop, then turn around, then accelerate back up. The same is true with the economy. We can't just make it change directions instantly, it takes work and it takes time. Will Obama get the economy back to where it was, i don't know, but he sure has gone a long way toward that goal. And it is pretty damn clear that the change occurred right when Obama started enacting his plans.

I personally don't see ANYTHING better than 2 years ago as far Obama is concerned.

What I do see is that gas prices are holding somewhat steady and people are making adjustments. But as for the job market, it's worse, wages are still decreasing, people are still losing decent paying jobs and having to pick up low end wage jobs. People are still defaulting/getting deferments which just ups the interest, on student loans because they don't make enough.

I still see houses in foreclosure, it's easy to say "well they are down... well, how many were foreclosed on before and how many remain empty or bought up dirt cheap and turned into "rentals". We should see the stats on those being evicted.

I still see jobs being shipped overseas and no true jobs here being created. I still see an infrastructure that is falling apart and the excuses of no money to fix them being bandied about. SO what happened to the stimulus money that was supposed to fix our infrastructure and create "shovel ready jobs". I know of 4 major cities in Ohio that their water/sewer systems are being held together with duct tape (almost literally) and will be totally in need of a new system, within the next 2-3 years, IF they are lucky.

I remember posting on here how roughly 75% of our major bridges were in need of repair (most built in the 50's to early 70's and not meant to with hold heavier trucks and the amount of daily traffic they do).

Our roads have gotten worse, but that's a fucked up Ohio thing. For whatever reason we continue to use the same company to repave the same highways every year, regardless of what party is in power.

Government corruption, partisanship and selling out the hard worker is still running rampant and there is NO push from our president or Dem leaders to change that.

Figures can be pulled out of anywhere, what matters is when I see my neighbors, family and friends actually realizing a better standard of living and not going backward.

Going backward should be unacceptable to ANY government official especially a president.

I reiterate, you can state whatever poll or bring out any graph you want to, but it doesn't mean shit when the wages are falling, the classes are moving further apart, and we are being fed bullshit.

There is no reason, whatsoever, that a person who works 40 hours a week should have to live on food stamps, live in fear of foreclosure, need government assistance in ANYWAY. Only reason that happens... wages are not high enough to support a respectable standard of living (a house payment that is decent, but you know with raises every year and maybe a chance to move up, the payments become more and more affordable, basic cable, reasonable utility use, average mileage, maybe a 1 or 2 night out dinner, being able to save a little for Jr's college or that Summer vacation, etc). NOT ONE OF THOSE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A "LUXURY" TO SOMEONE WHO WORKS 40 OR MORE HOURS A WEEK. IT SHOULD BE UNACCEPTABLE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE TOP 10% ARE STEADILY INCREASING THEIR WEALTH. FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PART TO MAKE EXCUSES FOR THIS TO BE OK AND FOR A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT TO NOT WORK TO TRY TO CORRECT THIS IS FUCKING INSANE. The GOP are paid for by the top 5% when did the DEMS sell out?

Pan this is where personal responsibility has to come into play. Just because you work a 40 hour week, doesn't entitle you to have a $200k house that you can't afford, eat a steak dinner 2 nights a week, or go on vacation. people have been buying things they can't afford for quite a while now. And to blame govn't for peoples' overspending is just dishonest.

[quote=pan6467;2760566]I personally don't see ANYTHING better than 2 years ago as far Obama is concerned./QUOTE]

Some things are slightly better but I don't see great improvement either. The DJIA has somewhat stabilized up about 20% from where it was when Obama started, but that level seems weak since every time Obama makes a dumb statement about taxing banks or canceling bonuses the stock market drops again for a few days.

The financing crunch from a year and a half ago seems to have eased but I read about small businesses still having problems getting financing and Obama seems convinced he has to do something about that.

Unemployment is up from a year ago and is projected to be around 10% for years.

Foreclosures are still a problem. Car sales and home sales were up a bit but that seems more like stealing future sales thanks to Obama's giveaways with cash for clunkers and home purchase credit. I read stories shortly after cash for clunkers ended that car sales fell off the cliff again and there was great concern that the same would happen with home sales if the home purchase credit ended.

Now I'm reading that commercial foreclosures are expected to be a problem. I'm reading complaints that the credit card companies are boosting rates again.

I think the reality is that there has been a fundamental shrinkage in the economy thanks to people no longer being able to use their home equity as a piggy bank and no longer being able to live on credit. I think Obama is going to have to deal with that instead of trying to artificially inflate the economy and stick the taxpayer with a huge debt.


So where do businesses get the money to make this happen? Most businesses are not making huge profits where they can afford to pay increased salaries and remain competitive. And no, I don't think excessive executive salaries are the rule. Maybe in some large corporations, but in small businesses I think lots of owners are just getting by. I have inlaws who run a small software business and they are commenting all the time about how the money just isn't there.

Secondly, what is a reasonable income? If it's say $15.00/hr, then how is paying the person who formerly made $8.00 /hr $15.00 hr remotely fair to the person who was skilled enough to earn $15.00/hr? What happens to his salary? If it stays at $15.00/hr then why should he improve his skills when all he has to do is show up at work to collect $15.00/hr? If the $15.00/hr guy's salary now increases to $23.00/hr or $30.00/hr then what happens to inflation?

I've been thru this personally and the answer in my opinion is not to just pay everybody what the government says is sufficient to cover his living expenses. When I started working, the best job I could find was at just under 2x minimum wage. I decided that I didn't like that, so I spent the time learning skills that were needed to get hired by the company that I wanted to work for in the first place. It took me a few years bt managed to get to where I wanted to be.

I'm wondering how much of the problem with the average American has to do with things other than real wages. (BTW, do we know how real wages have fared in the U.S. over the past couple of decades?)

What about other issues such as the savings rate or the debt-to-income ratios of the average American household?

Jobs will get back on track when the economy does, not before. And we won't know it's happening until after the fact. It will be a long, slow recovery. Few people are expecting otherwise.

The next time around, I hope many will have learned some hard lessons. You cannot go about your business expecting something like this cannot happen.

Is it perhaps that too many were reaching too far for the American dream?

You have to know the risks. You then have to know how much you are willing to take.

I believe it was one of the links I posted in this thread. It showed a steady and marked decrease since 1995.


Perhaps, but I don't see wages increasing for a very long time.

We have become a somewhat "live for today society" for numerous reasons, primarily I believe it the news feeding us pablum and our politicians being flat out corrupt.

And what exactly were people reaching too far for? When everything goes up but wages there is serious trouble.

And as the hard working class and lower 90% of the people are told "They are over reaching", the top 10% continue to grow wealth off the backs of the working man, paying him lower wages, outsourcing jobs and having government in their back pocket.

So, someone working 40 hours and wanting to live within his means but can't because wages are, IMHO, artificially held down.... it is that worker's fault for wanting a decent life?

There's a lengthy article in the newest Rolling Stone that says the banks are setting us up for another fall here shortly. I haven't read all of it, but I'll summarize when I'm done

I have not seen the Rolling Stone article, but as the financial crisis gets studied what we will find is most of the problems revolve around the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act in 1999, signed by Bill Clinton, written by Republicans with virtually unanimous bi-partisan support. This allowed commercial banks to engage in investment banking activities, to date nothing has changed. The exposure of a catastrophic repeat is very real. Congress needs to act separating commercial banking activity from investment banking activity. This is not a "failed Bush administration policy" it is a failed banking policy. It would be nice for people to stop the blame game and get the job done. So, in spite of Obama's rhetoric we are still at risk, and I think or hope he knows it. Volcker seems to have Obama's ear and is certainty sending that message.

ace...I am actually impressed that a free market, "no regs" guy like you is willing to acknowledge that the financial services modernization bill that effectively repealed most of Glass-Steagall was responsible for the abuses of the last 10 years.

IMO, it was compounded by Bush's SEC chairman turning a blind eye to those abuses.

And the economy was further adversely impacted in terms of debt/deficit by taking a budget surplus (and paying down the debt) and instead of continuing that policy, enacting the 01 and 03 tax cuts (at a cost of $1 trillion) that provided little or no stimulus...and an unnecessary invasion and occupation of Iraq (at a cost of another $1 trillion before its over).

But now that you recognize the impact of the de-regulation of the banking/financial services sector, are you ready to re-regulate?

The House passed a bill (with zero Republican votes) late last year that the WH supports.

The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act addresses:

sub-prime lending - The bill outlaws many of the egregious and predatory industry practices that fueled the subprime lending boom and establishes a simple standard for all home loans: institutions must ensure that borrowers can repay the loans they are sold

derivatives - the bill regulates the over-the-counter derivatives marketplace, requiring all standardized swap transactions to be cleared and traded on an exchange

bail-outs - the bill requires big banks and other financial institutions (with $50 billion in assets) to foot the bill for any bailouts in the future. These institutions would pay assessments based on a company’s potential risk to the whole financial system if they were to fail.

ponzi schemes - the bill strengthens the SEC’s powers so that it can better protect investors from Madoff type frauds

consumer protections - the bill creates a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency to protect consumers and small businesses by ensuring that bank loans, mortgages, credit cards are fair, affordable, understandable, and transparent.

This certainly is not the answer to the long-term need to retool the US economy....but it would help prevent a recurrence of those abuses.

---------- Post added at 10:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:38 PM ----------

The Recovery Act was never intended to "fix" the economy, but rather to stop the free-fall, jump start the economy and put it in the right direction.

To that end, it included significant investments in alternative energy programs, health technology, a national broadband program, etc. where, in recent years, the US has fallen behind China, India, EU countries and even Iran (see below) in science, engineering and technology....IMO, these are essential to growing the economy in the right direction.

We are no longer the "great innovator" and if we dont address that fact, the long-term outlook for our place in a global economy is not good.

An interesting article (and report) on "geopolitical shifts in knowledge creation"
Knowledge creation (R&D) leads to job creation and a 21st century economy.

We better refocus our efforts and that takes both public and private commitments and investments!

I understand debate technique and the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point, but to suggest I am a "no regs" guy is a bit over the top. I am not sure if you actually believe your summation of my views or if it is something else. Which is it?

I would not characterize investment banking activities as an abuse. There are winners and losers. the dramatic shift in market conditions was compounded in my view by government, and there was certainly no legitimate reason for the government to selectively bailout some and not others.

This goes off point. The federal deficit had virtually nothing to do with the financial crisis. It is very common for an economy in war to increase its debt. And deficit spending as a percentage of GDP was in line with historical averages. Even with the tax cuts, taxes collected went up. The real problem with the deficit is spending and the accounting tricks used to raid social security.

Again, I am not clear on what your intent is in the way you characterize the issue. Banks were never de-regulated, I would say they were wrongly regulated. The government did not let the hens run free, the government let the wolves into the hen house thinking it was a good thing.

If true it should have passed and become law, the WH had a super majority.

I currently support reinstatement of Glass-Steagal, past Fed chairs support it, and there are some conservatives who do as well. If the WH supports it, I think Obama could get it done. I think this would be a major win for him, and could re-set the tone in Washington. I have no interest in a repeat of the financial crisis or a double dip recession. Now is the time to act.

The federal deficit during the Bush years had A LOT to do with the financial crisis. Part of the reason a bubble was created was that the need to finance that deficit led to a huge influx of foreign money into the US, helping foster excess liquidity, risk taking, and inflating the bubble.

From a 2005 paper by Menzie Chinn:

As far as the size of those deficits go, the problem wasn't the size itself, but that they came during an economic expansion. Deficits are and should be bigger during a recession, but when you have deficits during an expansion, it only makes the recovery from the next recession that much harder.

roachboy, the number doesn't look so bad when you flip it over to the cost of the wars to each taxpayer. In that case, it's only $7,228 currently. That's less than $1,000 per year, certainly that's not too much to bear, is it?

I would rather have my $7K, or better yet my $7K minus the cost of universal health care.

Interesting question. An answer requires speculation regarding any assumed benefit to war. There have been some wars initiated with no social benefit to any one, some for example simply ego or emotionally driven. However, some wars have been fought with what some would see as significant social benefit, but how do you measure that? If we did the exercise with WWII, calculating the cost and asking if it was worth it, what would the answer be? Or, what if the Allies initiated preemptive military action rather than responsive military action and we did this exercise, what would the answer be?

ace, you cannot possibly be serious in equating the debacle in iraq with world war 2.
you cannot be.
so your question is moot.

baraka: have a look at some of the other options that parse the squandered money differently. like by amount of money that coulda been spent on health care or job creation or infrastructure development or research & development that's instead been pissed away in the afterburn of the neo-con's fiasco in iraq. some imperial dreams burn alot of fuel on their way into the ash-heap.

You are going to eat your words, roachboy, when we get terror to sign an unconditional surrender.

Yea, I was looking in the mirror this morning thinking about how moot I am. I actually like being moot, but forgive me for interfering with your fallible, oops, infallible judgment.

With all my moot regards,


Ace

---------- Post added at 07:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:33 PM ----------

Assume we did not use our military and even with the use of our military there have been costs due to our "war on terror" or their war on us. What are those costs? What would they be if we had not used our military in war since 2001? I bet you just want to pretend that we live in a happy, happy world.:):):)How about we go to the ME and start a big camp fire and sing our way to peace and happiness.:):):) I bet Twinker Bell would sprinkle us all with her magic fairy dust and we can be happier and happier.:):):) Happy, happy happy.

{added} Sorry for the tone above. I assume people see what I see, in this case it seems obvious to me that it very important when looking at costs to look at benefits. To look at costs alone seems a bit odd to me. I think looking at the benefits and the costs is very important to the issue put on the table here, to suggest that it is not is something I assumed was dishonest, perhaps it wasn't, perhaps it was something else - and that something else is what I don't see.