Explaining Why Federal Deficits Are Needed[W:5330]

[Unitedwestand13]

EVERY TIME government meddles in business it is a disaster. Business should be allowed to run itself any way it wishes...outside of fraud and environmental protection laws.
Money corrects business. A business does bad things, people stop buying it's products. Greeed forces them to smarten up.

the underlined statement made me want to ask you a question:

Tell me, how do you explain the circumstances surrounding the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire of 1911?

 

[DA60]

the underlined statement made me want to ask you a question:

Tell me, how do you explain the circumstances surrounding the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire of 1911?

Just look at wikipedia for your answer.

How do you stop it? Simple...health and safety regulations (I forgot to add that above...have now done so).

But I also believe businesses should be criminally liable for accidents that could have been avoided. If it can be proven in court that you deliberately cut maintenance corners on your aircraft and one of them crashes directly due to that negligence and kills a bunch of people...then you are criminally liable for their deaths and should go to jail for it, possibly for life...not just fined. And that would apply to everyone that knew of the negligence and it's potential ramifications but did nothing to stop it..the workers, the supervisors and even the CEO's (if it went that high up). Few things scare a CEO more than the prospect of doing hard time with hardened criminals.
You have to prove all that first, of course.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Just look at wikipedia for your answer.

How do you stop it? Simple...health and safety regulations (I forgot to add that above...have now done so).

I am not asking for wikipedia's answer

I want your personal oppinion.

 

[DA60]

I am not asking for wikipedia's answer

I want your personal oppinion.

How would I know...I was not even born then.

You want to know why it happened, consult the history books.

 

[DA60]

(2 of 2)



It is tragic that you lost family members at a young age. But I have news for you: You did not deserve it. No one deserves tragedy in their life, not of that sort, although few escape having at least a little.

In the economic sphere, it is safe to say that a great many, perhaps most, do not get what they deserve. The 60 year old auto worker displaced by global trade agreements did not get what he deserved, he is merely collateral damage in a changing world. The small time Thai investor who lost all in the Asian currency crisis likely had zero guilt in the event, he too was just another bit of dust blown about in the wind. The girl with the diploma in software development did not deserve to work for 5 years at Starbucks before getting a real job, she was again just a piece of flotsam awash in the economic ocean, ironically one that will probably accentuate the sort of change that was problematic for her.

You may say it is arrogant for a burger flipper to aspire to the middle class. But go back a few years, and that wasn't arrogance, it was the norm. In fact, it wasn't even hard. These truly were entry positions, and career jobs were waiting down the line, with employers eager to get new people. What is sad today is that many young people don't remember this, and some are not even aware of it. They see a dog eat dog world where it takes 10 years of living in Dad's basement, and working at McDonald's, to get a career type job, and not a great one at that, as normal and probably unchangeable.

Thank you for the sentiment.

I sense you are a decent person with rather naive ideals...no offense.

I used to be a die hard liberal when I was young. I believed good government could fix everything. But then I learned that there is no more corrupt institution then government.

I would like it if what you are saying is true...but I just do not believe it is so.

Life is hard until humanity evolves enough to make it less so.

That is why I do not believe in Communism. I love the idea of everyone sharing everything. But the reality is that humans are still far too greedy and selfish to make it work. But maybe one day...in a thousand or two thousand more years of evolution...maybe then it could work.

BUt not now unfortunately.

 

[Conservative]

You said he "inherited an economy coming out of recession." The recession and effects of the collapse were very much still with us when he took office.

You must be a liberal them. You never admit you're wrong, you just double down with more Republican propaganda.

Didn't read the article from the WS Journal, did you? Nor did you read my post on Obama incompetence which created the worst recovery on record which is why the affects are very much with us and millions of Americans today. Poor leadership, incompetence, and arrogance are Obama traits

 

[Conservative]

I don't think you read this. It clearly does not give credit to Bush for fixing everything.

Then take a Reading comprehension course, It was TARP that recapitalized the banks and that ended the recession

 

[rocket88]

Then take a Reading comprehension course, It was TARP that recapitalized the banks and that ended the recession

I think you are the one that needs to work on your reading comprehension if you think that gave all the credit to Bush.

 

[mmi]

what did Obama do to bring us out of recession and solve the financial crisis?

He sprinkled magic Negro dust all over the country from Air Force One.

 

[rocket88]

Then take a Reading comprehension course, It was TARP that recapitalized the banks and that ended the recession

I read it a second time. It doesn't even mention TARP specifically.

 

[Conservative]

I think you are the one that needs to work on your reading comprehension if you think that gave all the credit to Bush.

The question was what brought us out of the recession and the answer from the left is the stimulus, the WSJ says the following:

The answer is an emphatic “no,” for reasons that require only a calendar and a news archive. The stimulus package was enacted in February, a month after the consumption rebound began. And as of October 30, only a fraction of the stimulus funds had been spent or “awarded”—roughly 20% of the total, according to Recovery.gov.

 

[Conservative]

I read it a second time. It doesn't even mention TARP specifically.

So what stabilized the banks? Think my leftwing friend

 

[rocket88]

The question was what brought us out of the recession and the answer from the left is the stimulus, the WSJ says the following:

We're arguing two different points. You insist on putting words in my mouth. I never said that Obama's stimulus fixed anything. You'll continue to say I did because you're arguing a straw man, and you never give up a good straw man.

 

[Conservative]

We're arguing two different points. You insist on putting words in my mouth. I never said that Obama's stimulus fixed anything. You'll continue to say I did because you're arguing a straw man, and you never give up a good straw man.

So then what you are giving Obama credit for?

 

[rocket88]

So what stabilized the banks? Think my leftwing friend

Does the article price your point? It clearly does not.

TARP, by the way, was passed by a Democratic Congress over significant Republican opposition.

Today?s Bailout Anniversary Reminds Us That the Tea Party Is More Than Anti-Obama - Reason.com

As you like to say, take a civics class.

 

[rocket88]

So then what you are giving Obama credit for?

I'm not giving him credit, except that he kept it from getting any worse before things could stabilize again. I took issue with your assertion that Obama inherited a good economy, when he clearly did not.

 

[Conservative]

Does the article price your point? It clearly does not.

TARP, by the way, was passed by a Democratic Congress over significant Republican opposition.

Today?s Bailout Anniversary Reminds Us That the Tea Party Is More Than Anti-Obama - Reason.com

As you like to say, take a civics class.

I have no idea why this obsession you have with giving Obama credit and propping up his failed Administration, however the reality is TARP was created by the Bush Administration and was signed by President Bush. TARP is what stabilized the banks and what brought us out of Recession, nothing that Obama did. By the way, I was never for TARP as I don't believe it is the Government's responsibility to bail out the private industry and all TARP did was kick the can down the road

By the way the Senate voted 74-25 in favor of TARP and the House had 95 Democrats vote against so again not sure exactly what your point is. Seems you want to give Obama credit for what Paulson and Bush created, the dividend Democrat Congress passed, and Bush signed. You want to talk about civics?

 

[Conservative]

I'm not giving him credit, except that he kept it from getting any worse before things could stabilize again. I took issue with your assertion that Obama inherited a good economy, when he clearly did not.

It was getting batter when he took office as the WSJ article stated, consumption was up. Obama implemented a stimulus program that prolonged the recession because it offered a Tax rebate, tax cuts to buy things for people who didn't have the money to do so, and then was supposed to create shovel ready jobs which it didn't do. Not sure why you have such a selective memory but it isn't doing much for your credibility. Just admit you are wrong and we can move on with you gaining some respect

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

So what stabilized the banks? Think my leftwing friend

What stabilized the banks??? MASSIVE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION, that's what. Something your precious private sector could not have dreamed of doing, even if they had the will to temporarily sacrifice their profit motive for the good of the country.

And that is where your business-good-govt.-bad religion would have taken us all over the cliff, led by closed-minded idiots that populate the Republican party. The private sector, the finance sector specifically, brought the financial crisis upon all of us, and the govt., including the Fed, pulled our collective asses out of the fire. And they were the only ones capable of doing so. And guess what? It took some govt. debt to save our economy. And it wasn't optional, as in Reagan's case; this govt. intervention had to happen.

 

[Conservative]

What stabilized the banks??? MASSIVE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION, that's what. Something your precious private sector could not have dreamed of doing, even if they had the will to temporarily sacrifice their profit motive for the good of the country.

And that is where your business-good-govt.-bad religion would have taken us all over the cliff, led by closed-minded idiots that populate the Republican party. The private sector, the finance sector specifically, brought the financial crisis upon all of us, and the govt., including the Fed, pulled our collective asses out of the fire. And they were the only ones capable of doing so. And guess what? It took some govt. debt to save our economy. And it wasn't optional, as in Reagan's case; this govt. intervention had to happen.

As has been stated many times here there is a time for govt. spending when done the right way. TARP was a LOAN, do you understand that. It was govt. intervention forced on the banks, some of which wanted no part of it. You really have no understanding of the private sector at all and it was govt. interference and social engineering that caused the financial crisis in the first place starting with Clinton's sub prime loans in the 90's and Bush's Home ownership society.

As usual you have no idea what Reagan did and continue to ignore that his stimulus HAD NO GOVT. SPENDING BUT WAS ALL TAX CUTS. Govt. spending came AFTER the tax cuts were passed

It really is sad the education you have received that taught you nothing but big govt. good

 

[Gaea]

It was getting batter when he took office as the WSJ article stated, consumption was up. Obama implemented a stimulus program that prolonged the recession because it offered a Tax rebate, tax cuts to buy things for people who didn't have the money to do so, and then was supposed to create shovel ready jobs which it didn't do. Not sure why you have such a selective memory but it isn't doing much for your credibility. Just admit you are wrong and we can move on with you gaining some respect

First off, I find it hilarious that you're continuously referring to your article as written by the WSJ, when the website is called Wall Street Pit.

Second off, saying the economy was improving when he took office is absurd. The economy contracted in every quarter from Q3 2008 to Q2 2009.

 

[rocket88]

I have no idea why this obsession you have with giving Obama credit and propping up his failed Administration, however the reality is TARP was created by the Bush Administration and was signed by President Bush. TARP is what stabilized the banks and what brought us out of Recession, nothing that Obama did. By the way, I was never for TARP as I don't believe it is the Government's responsibility to bail out the private industry and all TARP did was kick the can down the road

By the way the Senate voted 74-25 in favor of TARP and the House had 95 Democrats vote against so again not sure exactly what your point is. Seems you want to give Obama credit for what Paulson and Bush created, the dividend Democrat Congress passed, and Bush signed. You want to talk about civics?

A Congress controlled by Democrats passed it. Over the objections of the Tea Partiers. That's your lesson in civics, which you have forgotten about in your rush to fluff up Bush. Bush deserves credit for signing it, but you can thank Democrats for putting it on his desk.

I have no idea why you have this obsession with giving Bush credit and propping up his failed administration. Keep drinking the Kool Aid.

You are the one who is wrong, and you prove it by continually posting Republican propaganda. Have you ever had an original thought?

 

[Ganesh]

EVERY TIME government meddles in business it is a disaster. Business should be allowed to run itself any way it wishes...outside of fraud, health and safety rules and environmental protection laws.

Straight hyperbole Mr D. To begin with, governments don't meddle from time to time, they are part of the economy, an essential and irreplaceable one. "Government" has pulled your or your ancestor's butts out of the fire endless times, from the 2008 greed orgy, all the way back to your heroes setting up an organization that had taxation with representation, with many events in between.

Money corrects business. A business does bad things, people stop buying it's products. Greeed forces them to smarten up.

Greed, or other negative factors, do nothing of the kind. Business today would be all about greed and exploitation, were it not for the myriad progressive reforms of the past couple of centuries. Indeed, the fact that the above two activities still persist strongly is in no small measure is an indication of the momentum they possess within private business. Microsoft (and some other large corporations) will only pay their share of taxes if taken to court- witness the recent debacle with Microsoft in Ireland for example. Wal Mart is not interested in the urban planning issues of small towns, that's their problem. Nor are they interested in paying a living wage (in some locations, staff receive welfare benefits to survive). Nor will they accept unionization, a fundamental right in a democracy. Wal Mart is not interested in democracy, it is interested in the Walton Family. People do not stop buying Microsoft products, because they either don't know about the issues, don't care about the issues, feel apathetic and helpless, feel cynical and bleak, or have little or no choice in certain circumstances, or have been brainwashed by right wing hysterics. Ditto for Wal Mart, and many others. Your assessment of the demand for products is, as is often stated by the far right, based on elementary economics texts, which provide a whoafully simplistic picture of the real world.

The problem now is business pays politicians to allow them to be corrupt and to take taxpayer money to do it (bank bail outs). My goal is to never bail out any business and force them purely to go on public sentiment. That is how you remove most corruption from business..not more regulations when government is in big business pockets. And it is IMPOSSIBLE to remove that so long as government gives big business money. IMPOSSIBLE.

Public sentiment huh? What do you think public sentiment thought about the freezing up of interbank lending, or the proportion of bad debt within bundled mortgages held by the international financial system? Just how many out there do you think either had a clue of what it was all about, or could care less, or if they did had any way of doing something about it? You are again falling back on your economics 101 text: "If Johnny's coffee shop serves better coffee, then Johnny will make money, and Betty's place down the street will go out of business, blah blah blah".

 

[Ganesh]

There is welfare now...but it is wasteful. Make it simple. You need food and shelter, walk into a regional, federal shelter and take what you need. NOT what you want...what you need. No cash. Nothing you can sell to corrupt yourself with. Just the basics of survival. That is what welfare should be, imo...providing the basics of survival and nothing more. Sending out checks always results in corruption because the checks are often used for other things.
The bonus is it would cost the government FAR less then it spends now on welfare.

Your system wouldn't work. For one thing, income support programs are about more than just charity. They are a method of keeping up demand, and hence economic activity, during downturns in the economy. As much as it brings bile to the throat of the ultra-right, giving people money is sometimes a good idea, in a macroeconomic sense. Before such progressive reforms, the economy would simply spiral down in a recession, pulling down all and sundry with it, until hitting bottom. This was one of the great lessons of the great depression of the '30s. This is a key point here, as the fervently right wing often cannot grasp the idea. There is often a difference between individual attributes, and national ones. Discussions of macroeconomics inevitably fall back on blather about welfare bums or rugged frontiersmen.

What dot com scandal. There was no scandal...there was just the dot.com crash...I don't recall a scandal (and I am an investor). The S&L scandal was because of too much government help. They should have been allowed to die. And Wall street mergers are fine...happen all the time.
The problem arises when governments come to the rescue of their CEO buddies and use tax dollars to bail them out..that is wrong. And they do it by panicking the public into falsely believing that if they were not bailed out that the economy would collapse.
Like the auto bailouts. It cost taxpayers billions that they will never get back and if GM had been led fail, it simply would have been bought up by others and run separately...probably better. No jobs would have been lost. And look at Chrysler? They were bailed out and now they are not even American anymore (they are owned by Fiat). So that was a waste.

GM bought by the government. AIG bought by the Fed. These are bad things, not good things.

And the bank bailouts...total nonsense. The economies would not have collapsed had they failed...not at all.
And it was a lie...they were not that close to failure. TARP was supposed to bail out the teetering banks. But the BUsh administration had to force the banks to take TARP money...they did not want or need it. How could the banks have been teetering on the edge if they turned down TARP?

Uncovered TARP Docs Reveal How Paulson Forced Bankers To Take Cash - Business Insider

Beside...what happens to consumers if their bank fails? NOTHING.
Their assets are covered by FDIC. ANd their mortgages/loans are just bought by another bank. And the great thing is, if no other bank wants to buy the mortgage...it goes away and you no longer owe money. Bank failures are NOT bad for consumers.
But they ARE bad for the CEO's who could lose their swimming pools. SO they lie to the public to get them to bail out the useless CEO's.

I see. So corrupt and inept government does have some good points, like insuring your bank account. You are again looking at things from a personal level, and missing the larger picture. Individuals may well have had their relatively small accounts saved, but they would not have been immune to a larger economic meltdown. Banks stopped lending, because they no longer knew how solvent they were, or how solvent other institutions were, such was the mess the entrepreneurial class had made. A freezing of credit would have had a ripple effect, less money, economic activity, less employment, less demand, even less business activity, and so on. Your and your insured savings account would have been swept up at some point. It was government backing, by increasing liquidity, and buying up questionable debt, that eased the crisis.

Government/federal reserve corruption is BY FAR the number one problem with the economy...not corporate corruption. Corporations are only as corrupt as governments allow them to be.

Do you not see the irony of your statement ? If not, there is not much hope here.

 

[mmi]

Clinton's sub prime loans in the 90's

>>Reagan … his stimulus HAD NO GOVT. SPENDING BUT WAS ALL TAX CUTS. Govt. spending came AFTER the tax cuts were passed

Reagan's first budget was laid out in two documents, both signed on Aug 13 — the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act and the Economic Recovery Tax Act. Some elements of the tax plan (e.g., accelerated depreciation deductions) were later repealed, and the payroll tax rate was subsequently raised by eight percent.

By 1986, income tax revenues were up 18.7%, payroll tax receipts were up 55.4%, spending was up 46%, and the national debt had expanded by 113%. Unemployment remained above seven percent until Nov 1986.

>>It really is sad the education you have received that taught you nothing but big govt. good

It's sad that you can't get the facts straight.