• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Free Market Failures in Recessions - Why Obama's Spending is Necessary

Cecil James

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
156
Reaction score
71
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
In my recent post: Tax Rates, Spending, Recessions and the Reagan Myth, I explained the history of increases/decreases as well as spending cuts as recession-fighting techniques. I showed that the benefits of Reagan and Bush’s tax cutswere dwarfed by the growth that occurred after Bill Clinton’s tax raises (note: I am talking specifically about tax rates on the top earners, as their rates have been lowered significantly over the last 40 or so years).

Conservative’s only defense has been to claim that the GOP Congress rolled back his tax increases. As you can see, they weren’t very successful.



Then Conservative went off on an anti-Obama tangent. So I showed him how much quicker the jobs stopped bleeding under Obama as opposed to Reagan. He went off on his usual rant about using BLS.gov data, so I showed him the employment numbers for Reagan and Obama for the same date span (one year prior to inauguration to one year after). It shows Obama walking into an economy that’s bleeding jobs, and this effect tapering off within a few months, and the number of jobs slowly rising (so far). Reagan on the other hand, walks into an economy where jobs are increasing. Within months, we see the economy losing jobs for the rest of this time span.





My point here was to compare and contrast the economy under Obama vs. his hero, Reagan.

Conservative has done everything he can to avoid admitting what the graph shows. His responses have been:
1-To erroneously claim that I should be including “discouraged workers. This would make sense if I were posting number unemployed or unemployment rates, since discouraged workers may or may not be accounted for depending on how the numbers are calculated. But the graph above shows sheer number of people employed (in the hundred thousands).

2- Talk about sheer number of jobs lost (as if unemployment rates were stable when Obama walked into office, and suddenly they began dropping). His numbers are not wrong, but they don’t tell the story (and he refuses to acknowledge) that this is what was already happening when Obama walked into office.

3- He continues to attempt to meander onto the subject of liberalism, government dependency, accuse me of not having a job yet, etc.

4-Whining about how Obama predicted the stimulus plan would stop unemployment from rising above 8% (he’s wrong: economists predicted this before they realized how bad things really were).

I will take this as a concession that he realizes he is wrong and would rather spend the rest of his posts diverting the conversation into other topics.

I would like to now show the alternatives many “free market” (by this I mean virtually unfettered capitalism) proponents/libertarians/fiscal conservatives have simply fail when they are tried.

I have already shown the Reagan example (he cut spending in 81 and unemployment started to rise). The graph here is compatible with the BLS graphs above.



We can also look at Hoover vs FDR.

Hoover tried cutting spending and this made problems worse. FDR’s New Deal led to actual GDP growth. The templated free market /libertarian/fiscal conservative response is to claim that Hoover wasn’t a real conservative, that he and FDR were more alike than different. Also, that FDR’s New Deal actually prolonged the Great Depression.

But the data shows that there was a stark difference between Hoover and FDR.

 

Cecil James

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
156
Reaction score
71
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Furthermore, the data shows that GDP was growing until FDR cut spending in order to try and reign in the budget. This is when the US was hit with another recession.



Of course, free marketers /libertarians/fiscal conservatives will simply disown Hoover (and Reagan for that matter, saying they aren’t true representatives of their economic school of thought). Whether or not this is true, there is a measurable difference between them and their more “liberal” counterparts. And from what we can measure, the “more” free market /libertarian/fiscal conservative approach yields far worse results. So it’s pointless to argue that more extreme version of a demonstrably flawed approach is necessary.

The other common response is that our budget is out of control. Actually I agree. But what the marketers /libertarians/fiscal conservatives fail to realize is that cutting spending cuts revenues and leaves our economy bleeding more jobs and GDP, which only makes the problem worse. In this case “spending” is really investing. It keeps demand afloat. It keeps people working and paying their taxes, mortgage, and shopping at Target. And this means Target doesn’t have to lay off their employees, who in turn can keep paying their taxes, mortgage, etc.

The problem isn’t spending, it’s the erroneous free market claim that cutting taxes will increase revenues. In reality, it has reduced revenues and made the debt problem worse.







The point here isn’t that Obama is doing a remarkable job (IMO the stimulus package should have been bigger as economists like Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz were saying from the get-go and should have done more to help local governments), but I don’t think a bigger stimulus plan was politically feasible.
So when financial/economic agencies like HIS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers, and Moody’sEconomy.com say “it could have been worse,” they mean we could have had a president that tired a more free market /libertarian/fiscal conservative approach.



As bad as things are, it would have been worse.


Bailout Prevents Great Depression 2.0 - Capital Commerce (usnews.com)

What Did TARP Accomplish? - Economix Blog - NYTimes.com

Milton Freidman explaining how the Fed could have prevented the Great Depression had they bailed out the banks.
 
Last edited:

Conservative

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
105,030
Reaction score
9,714
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
In my recent post: Tax Rates, Spending, Recessions and the Reagan Myth, I explained the history of increases/decreases as well as spending cuts as recession-fighting techniques. I showed that the benefits of Reagan and Bush’s tax cutswere dwarfed by the growth that occurred after Bill Clinton’s tax raises (note: I am talking specifically about tax rates on the top earners, as their rates have been lowered significantly over the last 40 or so years).

Conservative’s only defense has been to claim that the GOP Congress rolled back his tax increases. As you can see, they weren’t very successful.



Then Conservative went off on an anti-Obama tangent. So I showed him how much quicker the jobs stopped bleeding under Obama as opposed to Reagan. He went off on his usual rant about using BLS.gov data, so I showed him the employment numbers for Reagan and Obama for the same date span (one year prior to inauguration to one year after). It shows Obama walking into an economy that’s bleeding jobs, and this effect tapering off within a few months, and the number of jobs slowly rising (so far). Reagan on the other hand, walks into an economy where jobs are increasing. Within months, we see the economy losing jobs for the rest of this time span.





My point here was to compare and contrast the economy under Obama vs. his hero, Reagan.

Conservative has done everything he can to avoid admitting what the graph shows. His responses have been:
1-To erroneously claim that I should be including “discouraged workers. This would make sense if I were posting number unemployed or unemployment rates, since discouraged workers may or may not be accounted for depending on how the numbers are calculated. But the graph above shows sheer number of people employed (in the hundred thousands).

2- Talk about sheer number of jobs lost (as if unemployment rates were stable when Obama walked into office, and suddenly they began dropping). His numbers are not wrong, but they don’t tell the story (and he refuses to acknowledge) that this is what was already happening when Obama walked into office.

3- He continues to attempt to meander onto the subject of liberalism, government dependency, accuse me of not having a job yet, etc.

4-Whining about how Obama predicted the stimulus plan would stop unemployment from rising above 8% (he’s wrong: economists predicted this before they realized how bad things really were).

I will take this as a concession that he realizes he is wrong and would rather spend the rest of his posts diverting the conversation into other topics.

I would like to now show the alternatives many “free market” (by this I mean virtually unfettered capitalism) proponents/libertarians/fiscal conservatives have simply fail when they are tried.

I have already shown the Reagan example (he cut spending in 81 and unemployment started to rise). The graph here is compatible with the BLS graphs above.



We can also look at Hoover vs FDR.

Hoover tried cutting spending and this made problems worse. FDR’s New Deal led to actual GDP growth. The templated free market /libertarian/fiscal conservative response is to claim that Hoover wasn’t a real conservative, that he and FDR were more alike than different. Also, that FDR’s New Deal actually prolonged the Great Depression.

But the data shows that there was a stark difference between Hoover and FDR.

This will be my only post on this board. You can post as many charts as you want, go back as far as you want and none of those charts, graphs, YouTube videos are going to change the results that Obama has generated while increasing the debt 3 trillion dollars in two years without spending all the stimulus plan and without implementation of the healthcare debacle.

Here are the results that you want to ignore

Unemployed + Discouraged
2008 8095 7831 8194 8043 8797 8980 9356 9890 10036 10656 11225 12042
2009 12653 13445 13995 14556 15310 15514 15330 15751 15865 16420 16201 16196
2010 15902 16075 15999 16457 16056 15830 15784

Employment by year compared to the recession year of 2008

2008 146421 146165 146173 146306 146023 145768 145515 145187 145021 144677 143907 143188
2009 142221 141687 140854 140902 140438 140038 139817 139433 138768 138242 138381 137792
2010 138333 138641 138905 139455 139420 139119 138960

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

GDP By President
***1980*** ***1988*** ***1992*** ***2000*** ***2008*** ***2009***
GDP 2,788.10 5,100.40 6,342.309,951.50 14,441.4014,256.30

Income Tax revenue by year

Current Report: Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government (Combined Statement): Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service

Receipt 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

Individual Income tax 915.3 1,145.7 1163.5 1,043.9 927.2 808.9 793.7 858.3
Corporate Taxes 138.2 304.3 370.2 353.9 278.3 189.4 131.8 148.0

Total 1053.5 1,450.0 1533.7 1,397.8 1205.5 998.3 925.5 1006.3


And then the real Reagan record

The Real Reagan Economic Record: Responsible and Successful Fiscal Policy | The Heritage Foundation

Now go back to dealing with your braindead friends who you can snow with your rhetoric and never be challenged. You can continue to tell us how great "your" President is and how good he is doing but the majority in ths country now see through the rhetoric and fluff. Have you considered joining the Obama spin machine?
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Gov't Spending extended the Great Depression, Obama Spending is extending the latest.

Welcome to reality, all that information overload sounds so great in your Frosh Poli-Sci class, but the real world is a far different animal.
 

Goof Noodle

Active member
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
257
Reaction score
60
Location
Omaha, NE
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
We have money to spend? Lets all thank China.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Let's start this argument from a truthful perspective.
There isn't a free market.
All done.

Now Hoover created all sorts of programs but it wasn't he who helped deepen the recession to a depression, it was the federal reserves inaction and non application of quantitative easing measures that triggered it.

A reduction in 1/3 of the money supply is likely to cause all sorts of chaos in a market(aka, depression).
Hoover, Roosevelt had very little of anything to do with that.
 

Conservative

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
105,030
Reaction score
9,714
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This guy is weak sauce.
Proposing a lot of "correlation = causation" arguments.
Must be part of the liberal training guide as I hear that a lot here, correlation=causation argument. Guess when all else fails baffle them with bs.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Cecil James said:
I would like to now show the alternatives many “free market” (by this I mean virtually unfettered capitalism) proponents/libertarians/fiscal conservatives have simply fail when they are tried."
I'd love to see these examples when you have time.
 

Conservative

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
105,030
Reaction score
9,714
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It's not because he is liberal but because he is (sometimes) doing what he accused you of.

Conformation bias.
I would love for anyone to explain how their can be confirmation bias when information provided comes from non partisan sites that use actual data in reporting the numbers? BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and the U.S. Treasury sites have been used for years and it seems no one had any problem with those sites when Clinton was in office but now for some reason they are wrong.

Way too much credit is given to CBO as many don't seem to understand their role. CBO takes data given them by Congress and scores that data without changing it. CBO makes predictions based upon Congressional Data and CBO was commissioned by Congress. CBO website gives a good explanation of what they do and they admit their record is seldom completelly accurate because assumptions are changed by reality. For example Obama predicted a 4% economic growth for the year 2010 and that is what CBO uses to predict revenue. Since the economy isn't growing at 4% the revenue projections are going to come in under what was predicted thus creating a bigger deficit. BEA however doesn't make predictions it simply reports results. Don't know about anyone else but I prefer results to predictions.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I would love for anyone to explain how their can be confirmation bias when information provided comes from non partisan sites that use actual data in reporting the numbers? BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and the U.S. Treasury sites have been used for years and it seems no one had any problem with those sites when Clinton was in office but now for some reason they are wrong.

Way too much credit is given to CBO as many don't seem to understand their role. CBO takes data given them by Congress and scores that data without changing it. CBO makes predictions based upon Congressional Data and CBO was commissioned by Congress. CBO website gives a good explanation of what they do and they admit their record is seldom completelly accurate because assumptions are changed by reality. For example Obama predicted a 4% economic growth for the year 2010 and that is what CBO uses to predict revenue. Since the economy isn't growing at 4% the revenue projections are going to come in under what was predicted thus creating a bigger deficit. BEA however doesn't make predictions it simply reports results. Don't know about anyone else but I prefer results to predictions.
Even unbiased statistics can lead to confirmation bias.

If a specific statistic implies that your argument may be true, you may stop researching it any further.

Kinda like how people use life expectancy, as a means of judging a medical care system.
It confirms their own bias and they don't explore it further.

Edit: the key word here is may, something may be true from looking at data but then again it may not and you'll never truly know unless you look at all possible data.
 
Last edited:

Cecil James

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
156
Reaction score
71
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
All the weak responses I expected. If you guys ever get bored of libertarianism/conservatvism, you can always take up creation science.

The libertarian guys - I showed examples of spending cuts causing deeper recessions. I showed a clear difference between Hoover and FDR's spending, and GDP growing/shrinking when FDR spent, then tried to reign in spending. I showed Reagan's spending cuts being followed by a rise in unemployment.

Conservative - You repeated the nonsense i already refuted in my opening post (including pretending I "ignored" discouraged workers from my employment numbers). You also complained about biased sources, then linked to the Heritage Foundation;


Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

Doesn't sound like they're too interested in being unbiased.
 

Conservative

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
105,030
Reaction score
9,714
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
All the weak responses I expected. If you guys ever get bored of libertarianism/conservatvism, you can always take up creation science.

The libertarian guys - I showed examples of spending cuts causing deeper recessions. I showed a clear difference between Hoover and FDR's spending, and GDP growing/shrinking when FDR spent, then tried to reign in spending. I showed Reagan's spending cuts being followed by a rise in unemployment.

Conservative - You repeated the nonsense i already refuted in my opening post (including pretending I "ignored" discouraged workers from my employment numbers). You also complained about biased sources, then linked to the Heritage Foundation;


Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

Doesn't sound like they're too interested in being unbiased.
Yet you post data from CBO as it if was accurate showing that you have never verified the accuracy of CBO data. Then you have a CHE avitar and call yourself slightly liberal. You appear to about as radical as our Community Organizer in Chief. Obviously you have been taught that leftwing economic policy is utopia yet I find it interesting that people from those countries don't by that utopian label. Good luck relying on the govt. for all that you want for you are going to need a lot of luck.
 

Cecil James

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
156
Reaction score
71
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Yet you post data from CBO as it if was accurate showing that you have never verified the accuracy of CBO data. Then you have a CHE avitar and call yourself slightly liberal. You appear to about as radical as our Community Organizer in Chief. Obviously you have been taught that leftwing economic policy is utopia yet I find it interesting that people from those countries don't by that utopian label. Good luck relying on the govt. for all that you want for you are going to need a lot of luck.
You're only downplaying the CBO data because you find it inconvenient. You praise the BLS data because you think it backs your position when you copy paste the numbers. When I showed the graphs comparing employment numbers going from up to down under Reagan, and going from dropping 500k/month to leveling out under Obama, you pretend I was supposed to include discouraged workers which makes no sense (because, as I've explained several times--including in my opening post), that would only matter if I was posting # UNemployed. The fact that you can't seem to grasp this, while claiming to be 'GDP guru' is astounding.

I'll admit, I mainly decided to go with the Che avatar to annoy you.
 

Conservative

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
105,030
Reaction score
9,714
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You're only downplaying the CBO data because you find it inconvenient. You praise the BLS data because you think it backs your position when you copy paste the numbers. When I showed the graphs comparing employment numbers going from up to down under Reagan, and going from dropping 500k/month to leveling out under Obama, you pretend I was supposed to include discouraged workers which makes no sense (because, as I've explained several times--including in my opening post), that would only matter if I was posting # UNemployed. The fact that you can't seem to grasp this, while claiming to be 'GDP guru' is astounding.

I'll admit, I mainly decided to go with the Che avatar to annoy you.
Yes, I play up the bls, bea data because it is data based upon verifiable sources and is actual data. CBO makes projections based upon what Congress gives them. comparing Reagan to Obama is like comparing night to day, they are part of the same date but exact opposites.

Why are you continuing to focus on the past which obviously you know little about. It is the present that matters along with results. Like it or not I have posted the results and I doubt that 16 million Americans give a rat's behind what the unemployment rate was during the Reagan years or that you claim that things are getting better. GDP was adjusted downward last month after reporting a higher number and employed workers dropped again. That is what the American people are looking at and how it affects them, not what Reagan did.

We can argue until hell freezes over and nothing is going to change your mind or mine although I do seem a little more receptive to actual data, not projections. I am also a pro growth conservative and don't like what "your" President is doing to the country. He doesn't give a damn what the American people think and when the American people see the results that aren't favorable, that isn't very smart. This country wasn't built on the principles he is implementing and the results are quite telling. His economic policy is more suited for countries in Europe which by the way are even rejecting socialism.

So keep posting charts that you claim show an improvement which they do but an improvement over what? When we get back to employment numbers even close to what Bush left us, when we get back to keeping campaign promises of 8%unemployment and halving the deficit by the end of his first term, then and only then will I take another look at what he is doing. So far he is exactly who I said he was, an empty suit, with an empty resume, working hard to implement a leftwing agenda on the most prosperous country on the face of the earth.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The libertarian guys - I showed examples of spending cuts causing deeper recessions. I showed a clear difference between Hoover and FDR's spending, and GDP growing/shrinking when FDR spent, then tried to reign in spending. I showed Reagan's spending cuts being followed by a rise in unemployment.
For Hoover, It was largely due to the contraction of the money supply.
You put up the video from Friedman's "Free to Choose" series, watch the rest of it and it will be explained.

Higher unemployment isn't necessarily bad, you also have to remember that there is a lag between spending cuts and that money circulating through out the system to help create more jobs.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
64,243
Reaction score
32,798
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
not only that, but he's ignoring the real beginning of the time scale for this recession. what we are comparing here are policies; not presidencies (well he can if he wants to, but as far as the ability to discern what we should do today it's useless); and many of Obama's notable policies (bailouts, stimulus spending, etc) are merely continuations of late-term Bush policies. If you really want to compare how fast one policy v another turns the economy around, the correct time to begin comparing today's recession would be when Bush announced the first stimulus back in 2008.

the notion that Hoover cut spending in an attempt to fix the recession he faced is also..... humorous :D FDR lambasted Hoover for overspending in his initial campaign; just like Obama did to Bush.
 
Last edited:

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
In my recent post: Tax Rates, Spending, Recessions and the Reagan Myth, I explained the history of increases/decreases as well as spending cuts as recession-fighting techniques. I showed that the benefits of Reagan and Bush’s tax cutswere dwarfed by the growth that occurred after Bill Clinton’s tax raises (note: I am talking specifically about tax rates on the top earners, as their rates have been lowered significantly over the last 40 or so years).
My advice: Ignore Conservative. It's not hard to see why.

My question to you is:
Why do you think stimulus spending is the answer to a financial/liquidity crisis?

I don't expect any of your detractors to explain why supply side economics will work (it hasn't before and it won't) instead.

You do understand that a financial/liquidity crisis is a whole different animal then other crisises no?
 

Conservative

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
105,030
Reaction score
9,714
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
My advice: Ignore Conservative. It's not hard to see why.

My question to you is:
Why do you think stimulus spending is the answer to a financial/liquidity crisis?

I don't expect any of your detractors to explain why supply side economics will work (it hasn't before and it won't) instead.

You do understand that a financial/liquidity crisis is a whole different animal then other crisises no?
OC, OC, welcome back, I was hoping that you would educate me about Buffet's tax rate if he didn't contribute to charity and if that tax rate would still be below his employees? I was so looking forward to getting educated by you and your self stated superior intelligence. I reallly look forward to seeing your brilliance in action.

Then I know I can count on you giving us your solution to the problems we have today and how to put 16 million Americans back to work?
 
Last edited:

Cecil James

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
156
Reaction score
71
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Yes, I play up the bls, bea data because it is data based upon verifiable sources and is actual data......
So keep posting charts that you claim show an improvement which they do but an improvement over what?,.....
So you do agree then that the chart I posted is in fact BLS data and it shows that Obama walked into an economy losing 500,000 jobs/month which then bottomed out and stabilized and Reagan walked into an economy that was creating jobs, which months after turned into an economy that was losing them? Why not just say "yes?" Even if it's a "yes, but Reagan had it worse." At least that way we'll actually be getting somewhere and you may regain a smidgen of credibility and not just sound like the resident forum blow hard.
 

Cecil James

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
156
Reaction score
71
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
For Hoover, It was largely due to the contraction of the money supply.
You put up the video from Friedman's "Free to Choose" series, watch the rest of it and it will be explained.

Higher unemployment isn't necessarily bad, you also have to remember that there is a lag between spending cuts and that money circulating through out the system to help create more jobs.
I have watched the entire video though it was a while back. The point I was making related more to explaining why the bannks needed to be bailed out this time. I understand Friedman goes on to say that the Fed is partyl to blame for getting us into the GD to begin with.
 

Cecil James

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
156
Reaction score
71
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
My advice: Ignore Conservative. It's not hard to see why.

My question to you is:
Why do you think stimulus spending is the answer to a financial/liquidity crisis?

I don't expect any of your detractors to explain why supply side economics will work (it hasn't before and it won't) instead.

You do understand that a financial/liquidity crisis is a whole different animal then other crisises no?
I understand the difference. And rathet than seeing it as an "answer" I see it as a way to stop the bleeding from getting worse and maintaining or even replinishing a certain levek of demand while the private sector recovers. Normally, I suppose the Fed could lower interest rates, but this isn't an option this time around.
 
Top Bottom