- Joined
- Nov 15, 2009
- Messages
- 13,156
- Reaction score
- 1,038
- Location
- melbourne florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Guess this might be the 'Double dip' recession obami said would not happen?
Guess this might be the 'Double dip' recession obami said would not happen?
No I would say it is the same recession Obama and his spending is not helping or changing anything
Guess this might be the 'Double dip' recession obami said would not happen?
It has helped and it will hurt
The spending has caused the recession to be shallower then it would have been. Believe it or not without the government deficit spending in the Obama admin, the # of unemployed would be higher, housing values would be lower, and there would be more foreclousures then current levels. The spending will of course hurt future US economic growth,
It has helped and it will hurt
The spending has caused the recession to be shallower then it would have been. Believe it or not without the government deficit spending in the Obama admin, the # of unemployed would be higher, housing values would be lower, and there would be more foreclousures then current levels. The spending will of course hurt future US economic growth,
There is no proof it helped. It did 2 things. Tripled the debt and expanded government. Obama did not learn from the failed policies of the great depression
No I would say it is the same recession Obama and his spending is not helping or changing anything
There is no proof it helped. It did 2 things. Tripled the debt and expanded government. Obama did not learn from the failed policies of the great depression
Would you rather have had him say
The economy is in the toilet, and will remain so because to many stupid morons gave out loans to other stupid morons when both groups knew they would and could not be paid back unless housing prices continued to appreciate at unrealistic levels for years to come. That is is going to require America to take a drastic decline in spending and in wage expectations, not to mention pensions will be lost or reduced drastically
There is no proof it helped. It did 2 things. Tripled the debt and expanded government. Obama did not learn from the failed policies of the great depression
There is no doubt in my mind, both the bush stimulus and obama stimulus increased disposable income in the economy. Can anyone tell me what two things added together make disposable income? Can anyone tell me what causes an economy to go into recession? Why does GDP go backwards?
Go back and discover who precisely who ordered Fanny and Freddie to 'lend baby lend'.
Then come back to present day and find out the value of Fanny & Freddie on the Stock exchange, then after that, why not go and see how much cash Obama has dripped into these two trash cans?
Then vote accordingly come November.
We need not accept an unemployment rate Of 5 percent or more, such as we have had for 60 out of the last 61 months. There is no need for us to be satisfied with a rate of growth that keeps good men out of work and good capacity out of use.
There are a number of ways by which the Federal Government can meet its responsibilities to aid economic growth...
...--to cut the fetters which hold back private spending. In the past...It could also be done by increasing Federal expenditures more rapidly than necessary, but such a course would soon demoralize both the Government and our economy...
The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system...
I am not talking about a "quickie" or a temporary tax cut, which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm, to ease some temporary complaint. I am talking about the accumulated evidence of the last 5 years that our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking.
In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the Federal Government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.
Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital.
In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.
I repeat: our practical choice is not between a tax-cut deficit and a budgetary surplus. It is between two kinds of deficits: a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy; or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, increase tax revenues, and achieve--and I believe this can be done--a budget surplus. The first type of deficit is a sign of waste and weakness; the second reflects an investment in the future.
This Nation can afford to reduce taxes, we can afford a temporary deficit, but we cannot afford to do nothing. For on the strength of our free economy rests the hope of all free nations. We shall not fail that hope, for free men and free nations must prosper and they must prevail.
Thank you.
Going by that level of evidence there is no proof that it did not prevent unemployment from hitting 50% preventing the economic collapse of the US
Not a single piece eh?
Okay, I fully realize you are going to, as usual, run away from hard questions, but here are some for others to laugh at you on when you flee:
(if you stopped doing that, I'd stop mocking you)
According to you, sending hundreds of billions of dollars as rebates into the economy did nothing to stimulate spending: Do you agree?
According to you, CARS did not increase sales: Do you agree?
According to you, Bonus Depreciation, which was IDENTICAL to Bush's program did absolutely nothing for corporate purchases: Do you agree?
According to you, not letting GM and Chrysler go under, and thereby preventing millions from joining welfare rolls did not help the economy: Do you agree?
That's just for starters. How about you start answering before I really start getting mean?
There is no proof it did anything.
It did nothing for jobs or to improve the economy. Unemployment continues to increase
What you fail to consider is how big this economic crisis was, and how much worse it could and can/will be. This is/was not an regular recession, but a debt deleveraging depression. Those are not fun, Japan is still working through theirs and have been for 20 years.
It was like Enron, as long as the stock goes up everything will be okay. It is a great time to be a bottom feeder.
It did not keep cut backs in the military throwing a few hundred thousand to the unemployement lines, not to mention the spinoff jobs
It did not keep medicare and medicaid funded to continue funding providing revenues to doctors, nurses, hospitals and drug companies that would not have recieved this money
It did not keep GM, Chrysler and the various banks in operation keeping millions employed, not to mention the spin off jobs
What you fail to consider is how big this economic crisis was, and how much worse it could and can/will be. This is/was not an regular recession, but a debt deleveraging depression. Those are not fun, Japan is still working through theirs and have been for 20 years.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?