Recession Looming?

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Record growth? Record employment? That was the 90s.

ok near record growth and near record employment hardly a recession my point still stands.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The debt isn't as bad as it was 60 years ago during WWII, so its just great that Bush has increased it 50% and almost $3 trillion.

Pro-debt justifications from the pass the buck generation.

This country hasn't been debt free in the last 100 years.

Another doom and gloom scenario from the tax and spend generation.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Instead of arguing mindlessly of whether or not a recession is going to happen again. How about someone with economic expertise here sum up what could be better done to avoid an economic fall out? Everything else is just pointless.

Keep the Democrats out of office.

 

[Iriemon]

This country hasn't been debt free in the last 100 years.

Another doom and gloom scenario from the tax and spend generation.

I'd rather tax and spend than spend and borrow. Paying taxes is distateful, expecting our kids to pay for to the cost of our government is immoral.

 

[Iriemon]

Keep the Democrats out of office.

And keep running up debt.

The pass the buck generation.

 

[Iriemon]

Instead of arguing mindlessly of whether or not a recession is going to happen again. How about someone with economic expertise here sum up what could be better done to avoid an economic fall out? Everything else is just pointless.

Recessions are very difficult to completely avoid; there is a natural business cycle that occurs. When time are good, businesses tend to think they'll last forever and over produce. At some point, an excess of inventory requires businesses to slow down. Add in all kinds of other shock producing effect from oil prices to market corrections, and it is very difficult to control.

For all the bandering about of how great the economy is or isn't, the president has limited control over the economy. Fiscal stimulus like govt spending and tax cuts have a small or insignificant overall effect on the economy. The greater effects are caused by money supply and interest rate manipulations, which the Fed does, not the President or congress. And the Fed has to balance a healthy economy against keeping inflation in check.

Arguably, the Fed has done a pretty good job, since Volcker was appointed in 1979. After the nasty rescession in 82, recessions in 92 and '01 were relatively mild, -- the '01 "recession" was arguably not a rescession at all, there were never 2 consecutive down quarters (the classic definition of a recission) and real GDP grew .7% overall that year.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I'd rather tax and spend than spend and borrow. Paying taxes is distateful, expecting our kids to pay for to the cost of our government is immoral.

Umm our kids have been paying off the debt of the past generation for the past 100 years, the debt has increased every year since WW2 so if you don't think that our kids should pay for our generations spending then why the hell is it ok for me to pay for your generations spending?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

And keep running up debt.

The pass the buck generation.

The debts been running up since 1900 not until Bush gets into office have the Democrats had a problem with it what a coincidence. :roll:

 

[Iriemon]

The debts been running up since 1900 not until Bush gets into office have the Democrats had a problem with it what a coincidence. :roll:

The budget went from a surplus to 1/2 trillion annual deficits, and the debt is 50% higher than in was in '01.

No coincidence at all.

You're argument that since there was a debt before it makes no difference whether it is growing or shrinking or by how much is pretty lame.

 

[Iriemon]

Umm our kids have been paying off the debt of the past generation for the past 100 years, the debt has increased every year since WW2 so if you don't think that our kids should pay for our generations spending then why the hell is it ok for me to pay for your generations spending?

The debt as a percentage of GDP was gradually paid down until it was only 32% when Reagan took office 25 years ago. So in fact our generation inhereted a debt that was relatively the smallest in decades. Under the pass the buck leadership of Reagan Bush and Bush it has grown to about 65% today, and growing rapidly.


I've posted the numbers before, I know you've seen them and you're just making apologies for the Republican debt. But I'll post the numbers again if anyone else wants to see them.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The budget went from a surplus to 1/2 trillion annual deficits, and the debt is 50% higher than in was in '01.

No coincidence at all.

You're argument that since there was a debt before it makes no difference whether it is growing or shrinking or by how much is pretty lame.

Ya under a Republican Congress who reigned in many of the entitlement programs ie welfare reform and didn't allow Clinton to get the new ones that he wanted wow what a coincidence.

The fact of the matter is that the Democrats haven't given a **** about running up the debt in the last 40 years you only bring it up now because you think you can make an election issue out of it; furthermore, running up the debt during war time is the right thing to do it's justified but the Dems rose the national debt during peace time which is not justifiable.

The way the Democrats want to get rid of the debt is to increase taxes without reigning in spending. You want to talk about recessions try that policy out and see what happens, oh they already did it under Carter and Clinton mmmm that's good stagflation.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The debt as a percentage of GDP was gradually paid down until it was only 32% when Reagan took office 25 years ago. So in fact our generation inhereted a debt that was relatively the smallest in decades. Under the pass the buck leadership of Reagan Bush and Bush it has grown to about 65% today, and growing rapidly.

The actual debt increased no one payed down anything the GDP just grew the fact of the matter is that the Democrats invented debt spending through their entitlement programs and now they want to place blame on GWB for debt spending during war time when it's actually justifiable.

 

[Iriemon]

The actual debt increased no one payed down anything the GDP just grew the fact of the matter is that the Democrats invented debt spending through their entitlement programs and now they want to place blame on GWB for debt spending during war time when it's actually justifiable.

Actual figures do not matter over long periods of time; relative figures or inflation adjusted figures do.

If you don't understand this basic economic concept, let me know and I'll try to find you a primer on the time value of money.

 

[DeeJayH]

The debts been running up since 1900 not until Bush gets into office have the Democrats had a problem with it what a coincidence. :roll:

has anybody actually seen the 'lockbox' :2rofll:

 

[Iriemon]

Ya under a Republican Congress who reigned mant of the entitlement programs wow what a coincidence.

The fact of the matter is that the Democrats haven't given a **** about running up the debt in the last 40 years you only bring it up now because you think you can make an election issue out of it; furthermore, running up the debt during war time is the right thing to do it's justified but the Dems rose the national debt during peace time which is not justifiable.

The way the Democrats want to get rid of the debt is to increase taxes without reigning in spending. You want to talk about recessions try that policy out and see what happens, oh they already did it under Carter and Clinton mmmm that's good stagflation.

Sure sure. Any more excuses for Bush inheriting a surplus budet and running up $2.8 trillion more debt in 5 1/2 years?

Now you can tell us how "deficits don't matter" Mr. Cheney.

 

[jfuh]

Recessions are very difficult to completely avoid; there is a natural business cycle that occurs. When time are good, businesses tend to think they'll last forever and over produce. At some point, an excess of inventory requires businesses to slow down. Add in all kinds of other shock producing effect from oil prices to market corrections, and it is very difficult to control.

For all the bandering about of how great the economy is or isn't, the president has limited control over the economy. Fiscal stimulus like govt spending and tax cuts have a small or insignificant overall effect on the economy. The greater effects are caused by money supply and interest rate manipulations, which the Fed does, not the President or congress. And the Fed has to balance a healthy economy against keeping inflation in check.

Arguably, the Fed has done a pretty good job, since Volcker was appointed in 1979. After the nasty rescession in 82, recessions in 92 and '01 were relatively mild, -- the '01 "recession" was arguably not a rescession at all, there were never 2 consecutive down quarters (the classic definition of a recission) and real GDP grew .7% overall that year.

I think at this point most ppl should already acknowledge that the president has nearly 0 influence on the economy (thank god for that cause bush would bankrupt us).
However this doesn't really answer my question, at least not to a point that I understand (again, not an economist). It seems that even with a national average of gasoline prices far higher then either of the two energy crisis back in the day there is very little effect on the daily lives of the average american. We are still going on road trips, I still see plenty of gas guzzlers (though also more motorcycles).
The soap bubble dot com economy was bound to burst, however the current economy is not exactly in great growth either when compared to our Asian neighbors.
An economy that has such an import export deficit in goods and services is bound to have problems. Not to mention a government that can literally be brought to it's knees overnight should China or Japan suddenly ask for thier money back (not so much with Japan but China? Who knows).

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Actual figures do not matter over long periods of time; relative figures or inflation adjusted figures do.

If you don't understand this basic economic concept, let me know and I'll try to find you a primer on the time value of money.

No no you claimed that the debt as a % of the GDP was "payed down" which is completely false because nothing was "payed down" the GDP simply grew nobody payed for anything as you claim instead the Dems passed down the debt to the next generation.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Sure sure. Any more excuses for Bush inheriting a surplus budet and running up $2.8 trillion more debt in 5 1/2 years?

Now you can tell us how "deficits don't matter" Mr. Cheney.

lmfao the welfare reform bill was passed by a Republican congress in 1996 which was followed by the only decrease in debt that this nation has experienced in the last 100 years. Hmm, what a coincidence.

Furthermore; increasing the debt during war time is totally justifiable increasing it during peace time on entitlement programs is gross negligence.

 

[Iriemon]

No no you claimed that the debt as a % of the GDP was "payed down" which is completely false because nothing was "payed down" he GDP simply grew nobody payed for anything as you claim instead the Dems passed down the debt to the next generation.

Fair enough -- I agree "paid down" was not a good choice of words. The use of debt was limited so that the overall debt shrank relative to the economy. That is, until 1981, when deficits skyrocketed under Reagan and Bush and the debt grew much faster than GDP -- from 1981 to 1993 it grew from 32 to 66% of GDP.

 

[Iriemon]

lmfao the welfare reform bill was passed by a Republican congress in 1996 which was followed by the only decrease in debt that this nation has experienced in the last 100 years. Hmm, what a coincidence.

Furthermore; increasing the debt during war time is totally justifiable increasing it during peace time on entitlement programs is gross negligence.

Who mean the Republicans who have so responsibily managed the budget since they took control of the Govt in 2001? What a joke.

Ah -- now we have the "this is WWIII" excuse for passing the buck.

Next let's hear about Katrina.

 

[Iriemon]

I think at this point most ppl should already acknowledge that the president has nearly 0 influence on the economy (thank god for that cause bush would bankrupt us).
However this doesn't really answer my question, at least not to a point that I understand (again, not an economist). It seems that even with a national average of gasoline prices far higher then either of the two energy crisis back in the day there is very little effect on the daily lives of the average american. We are still going on road trips, I still see plenty of gas guzzlers (though also more motorcycles).
The soap bubble dot com economy was bound to burst, however the current economy is not exactly in great growth either when compared to our Asian neighbors.
An economy that has such an import export deficit in goods and services is bound to have problems. Not to mention a government that can literally be brought to it's knees overnight should China or Japan suddenly ask for thier money back (not so much with Japan but China? Who knows).

An high trade deficit is actually a sign of a healthy economy -- only rich nations with strong currency can afford to maintain such deficits. Although, they cannot go on forever, at some point economic factors will force the Govt to limit its deficit financing -- painfully if not down with control.

The so-called "soap-bubble" economy did have over extended markets, however, there was also a real, fundamental impact to it. Even taking the 99-01 correction into account, market and econmic performance in the 90s was great. Productivity has increased 30% since the early 90s, an outstanding figure.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Fair enough -- I agree "paid down" was not a good choice of words. The use of debt was limited so that the overall debt shrank relative to the economy. That is, until 1981, when deficits skyrocketed under Reagan and Bush and the debt grew much faster than GDP -- from 1981 to 1993 it grew from 32 to 66% of GDP.

Actually non-military discretionary spending fell under Reagan and the increase in military spending is a small price to pay for the collapse of the Soviet Union, Clinton simply inherited the peace dividend a luxury not enjoyed by GWB.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Who mean the Republicans who have so responsibily managed the budget since they took control of the Govt in 2001? What a joke.

What did Clinton do to cut the debt? Has increasing taxes ever cut the debt before? Did Clinton ever propose to cut entitlements? Was that his idea? Hell no he was dragged into it kicking and screaming and finally was forced to sign the bill when the Republicans shut down the federal government.

Ah -- now we have the "this is WWIII" excuse for passing the buck.

Next let's hear about Katrina.

Take a look around we are in WW3.

 

[Iriemon]

Actually non-military discretionary spending fell under Reagan and the increase in military spending is a small price to pay for the collapse of the Soviet Union, Clinton simply inherited the peace dividend a luxury not enjoyed by GWB.

"it's a small price to pay" -- another pass the buck excuse. You're pulling them all out today.

Interest expense on the debt is approaching $400 billion a year on the Republican debt -- so much for the "small price."

If the Govt wants to spend tons of $$ on war toys and war games that's fine. But do the adult thing and pay for it by raising taxes -- don't pass the buck and expect future generations to pay for our Govt's expenses. That's wrong.

This guys knows it:

"Future generations shouldn't be forced to pay back money that we have borrowed. We pay back money that we have borrowed. We owe this kind of responsibility to our children and grandchildren" President Bush 3/3/01

www.senate.gov/~budget/democratic/charts/2003/debtpacket040803.pdf

Unfortunately he's a demogouge and tho' he says great sounding things, he doesn't do them.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

"it's a small price to pay" -- another pass the buck excuse. You're pulling them all out today.

Ya because the fall of the Soviet Union isn't the most important event of the latter half of the 20th century. And contrary to the liberal opinion it wasn't Gorbachev that ended the cold war it was Reagan changing the military policy from one of containment to one of aggressive military expansion and confrontation.

Interest expense on the debt is approaching $400 billion a year on the Republican debt -- so much for the "small price."

How much of this debt is actually a result of Democratic entitlement programs? What entitlement programs do you intend to cut to eliminate the debt? Oh wait that's right you would rather just increase taxes and cut military spending during WW3 good call.

Wow look at all that military spending, it's such a large percentage of spending.

If the Govt wants to spend tons of $$ on war toys and war games that's fine. But do the adult thing and pay for it by raising taxes -- don't pass the buck and expect future generations to pay for our Govt's expenses. That's wrong.

Or how about we just cut the entitlement programs? The governments soul responsiblity is to provide for national security and defense that's it and that's all there would be plenty of funds for the military if we cut entitlement programs.

This guys knows it:

"Future generations shouldn't be forced to pay back money that we have borrowed. We pay back money that we have borrowed. We owe this kind of responsibility to our children and grandchildren" President Bush 3/3/01

www.senate.gov/~budget/democratic/charts/2003/debtpacket040803.pdf

Unfortunately he's a demogouge and tho' he says great sounding things, he doesn't do them.

What a coincidence he said that before 9-11-01.