Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Melissia wrote:Meanwhile you get the same trash vomited out by FOX and other similar "respectable" news sources, except instead of blaming economic downturns they blame the democratic party.

Because apparently telling people that they can't steal and other such regulation dooms capitalism.

Of course. Everyone knows theft is the basis of capitalism.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Evidently telling the Democratic Party that you can't have multitrillion dollar deficits year end and out dooms capitalism as well.

No, it just makes you look like a fool who hasn't paid much attention to history, really.

Other than Argentina, Zimbabwe, the Weimar Republic, and Greece right?

Frazzled wrote:

Alexzandvar wrote:

sebster wrote:

Melissia wrote:If you listen to the Republican party, the debt is the only thing that's bringing the US economy down.

Which is why the best thing is to stop listening to the Republican Party until they start being sensible again.

It's funny to because there "God" Ronald Reagan almost ruined the economy with his backwards economic policy's. Not to mention there was nothing "Small and Compact" about Reagan's government.

You mean the guy who had 6% growth, yep he sure ruined the economy. Nothing says turnaround like 500,000 new jobs a month, plus joking about launching the B-52s at the evil Rooskies. Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall!

For his first term, You do know that a presidents actions have consequences AFTER there terms end? He raised the debt sealing 44 times, it was a great time to be in the military as everyone else, but not so much for you average citizen. Not to mention his speeches on calling the Democrats and Ye Olde Republicans 'appeasers" for working with the Russians and Chinese rather than running around saber rattling.

Trust me, the fact that Ronald Reagan played the, carry a stick and speak very very loudly does not make him gods gift to stern diplomacy.

timetowaste85 wrote:I know God frowns on suicide, but I think he frowns more on zombies.

God loves zombies! His only begotten son became a zombie....

Easy E wrote:Yup. The unspoken corrolary being when they have to refinance privately, it will cost them a lot more, and the banks may not be able to pony up.

It represents another cost in an already struggling industry, that's true.

I was a little puzzled by the angle taken by the article in the OP, though. It has a dig at central planning by the Feds, because they lent this money in the first place to ensure stability, and then says when the banks have to borrow at commercial rates they may now struggle... which surely means stability was improved originally when the Feds lent at low cost?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Why on earth do you think the funds are being returned?

EDIT: er...yea those funds have been completely repaid..wink-wink nudge nudge.

Umm, yeah, will be. This right wing idea that the answer to TARP being 75% repaid is to just make up suggestions that it's all a big accounting trick seems particularly ridiculous, even for you guys.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Meanwhile you get the same trash vomited out by FOX and other similar "respectable" news sources, except instead of blaming economic downturns they blame the democratic party.

Because apparently telling people that they can't steal and other such regulation dooms capitalism.

Lots of people on both sides are being ridiculous. When you have a system shock, such as banking collapse following a housing bubble, then you will likely have a recession. The sensible responses are to increase government spending temporarily to offset the temporary decline in aggregate demand, and work on reforming banking to prevent a similar asset bubble in future.

Instead we get talk about total economic collapse so you better get more ammo & bottled water, and nonsense about how unfettered capitalism would never have a had a bubble.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Evidently telling the Democratic Party that you can't have multitrillion dollar deficits year end and out dooms capitalism as well.

Stop playing make-believe games. The large deficits are the result of recession, and long term once the US economy recovers the country will move back to modest deficits (and would even be in surplus if it wasn't for the Bush tax cuts). Pretending the current large deficits are going to be sustained year in, year out is simply nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Other than Argentina, Zimbabwe, the Weimar Republic, and Greece right?

The position in the US is simply not like Argentina, Zimbabwe, the Weimar Republic or Greece. The debt is nothing like the debt in those countries, the solutions proposed are nothing like the solutions attempted in those countries.

It's like you know nothing of any of this other than 'USA has deficit, Greece has deficit therefore they're the same'.

Umm, yeah, will be. This right wing idea that the answer to TARP being 75% repaid is to just make up suggestions that it's all a big accounting trick seems particularly ridiculous, even for you guys.

Well, in your defense you don't have all the information that er...players in the industyr have. it was not just TARP. I'd better stop there, but this isn't Republican ranting, but industry ranting.

In US budget history, it has tended to be Republican presidents who presided over increased deficits, and Democrat presidents who presided over decreased deficits.

Speaking of economics and politics:

CT GAMER wrote:Speaking of economics and politics:

Anything produced by News Corp is a lie.

CT GAMER wrote:Speaking of economics and politics

So-called "emergency funding" raised the "baseline" in 2009, which is what the chart is based on. If you take out the "emergency funding" - 2009 Omnibus Spending Bill, TARP, and the Stimulus - then the numbers look different. In fact, you see that the Obama administration really did increase spending.

Things like TARP and the Stimulus were never supposed to be part of the regular, year-to-year budget. But the Obama administration has taken these short term, temporary spending increases and made them a regular feature of government spending.

Well he is technically right in that it's unprecedented.

Because it's unprecedented that it's rising at such a low rate.

Pre '08 economics aren't relevant. The USA, like Europe, is still trying to overcome a massive recession. Governments in all countries are trying to do that as much as possible. Only in the USA is it not publicly acknowledged, and no wonder when it is ridiculed as "socialism".
Obama is no socialist, he's a good old fashioned Keynesian.

Melissia wrote:Well he is technically right in that it's unprecedented.

Because it's unprecedented that it's rising at such a low rate.

Since the number is tracked year to year that is a disingenuous (but true) statement.

Because once you are spending 6 trillion dollars a year how much more do you really need? But wait, wait...how did we get there. I'll give you a hint.

Feth all of them.

yes, it is, and we are all going to die.

Im not really worried about an economic collapse......Im a gun nut...have plenty of protection for myself and my wife and a ton of ammo to boot. Try and loot my house.......I dare ya!!!

Joey wrote:Pre '08 economics aren't relevant. The USA, like Europe, is still trying to overcome a massive recession. Governments in all countries are trying to do that as much as possible. Only in the USA is it not publicly acknowledged, and no wonder when it is ridiculed as "socialism".
Obama is no socialist, he's a good old fashioned Keynesian.

Which is the ridiculousness of all of this. Despite all the crazy rhetoric getting thrown around the US went with basic Keynesian stimulus, it probably didn't shovel out enough money but what it did put out reduced the decline and increased the recovery dramatically. On the other hand, despite everyone calling them socialist all the time, Europe went for the right wing approach of 'austerity', and they remain mired in economic turmoil.

Taskmaster99 wrote:Im not really worried about an economic collapse......Im a gun nut...have plenty of protection for myself and my wife and a ton of ammo to boot. Try and loot my house.......I dare ya!!!

anyways

Gas is now down to 3.30 a gallon here were just a few weeks ago it was tickling 4 dollars(still too damn high though, I remember when it was like 1.50 and everyone was bitching), so my fear is slowly being replaced with cautious optimism.

Taskmaster99 wrote:Im not really worried about an economic collapse......Im a gun nut...have plenty of protection for myself and my wife and a ton of ammo to boot. Try and loot my house.......I dare ya!!!

This is never an answer. Guns do not solve anything. this sort of thing really saddens me, wears te mutual human spirit & good will?

stonned_astartes wrote:

Taskmaster99 wrote:Im not really worried about an economic collapse......Im a gun nut...have plenty of protection for myself and my wife and a ton of ammo to boot. Try and loot my house.......I dare ya!!!

This is never an answer. Guns do not solve anything. this sort of thing really saddens me, wears te mutual human spirit & good will?

Translation: I'm first against the wall when the revolution comes.

AustonT wrote:

The national debt in January 2009 was about $10 trillion. In April 2012 it was $15 trillion.

I'm curious how Obama is only responsible for a 16% increase in national debt.

Its the New Math. You know Goodfacts not Truefacts.

Frazzled wrote:Its the New Math. You know Goodfacts not Truefacts.

Goodfacts are Truefacts.

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

We have never been at war with Eurasia.

At least since 1941 you're right on that war thing.

biccat wrote:

AustonT wrote:

The national debt in January 2009 was about $10 trillion. In April 2012 it was $15 trillion.

I'm curious how Obama is only responsible for a 16% increase in national debt.

Easily answered. The chart ends April 2011.

AustonT wrote:Easily answered. The chart ends April 2011.

Hm.

Still, the National Debt was 14T in April 2011.

So its just wrong and/or a lie. Both excellent and typical.

biccat wrote:

AustonT wrote:Easily answered. The chart ends April 2011.

Hm.

Still, the National Debt was 14T in April 2011.

In that case I retreat to the safer highground: I didn't make the chart.

If the debt did not increase during a fething huge recession, it'd be a miracle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

AustonT wrote:Easily answered. The chart ends April 2011.

Hm.

Still, the National Debt was 14T in April 2011.

What was inflation for the period of '08-11?

Joey wrote:If the debt did not increase during a fething huge recession, it'd be a miracle.

Yes, that is Keynesian. What is not Keynesian is imploding the financial with a level of debt greater than all the other naitonal debt of the rest of the world combined, especially when it was particularly for infrstructure spending, just keeping government jobs afloat.

If you had dumped $1.0Trillion US into a 20 year fund for physical capex I'd be a much more happy camper. We didn't and it didn't do

Considering how El Presidente has never actually run a budget before thats not particularly surprising.

Joey wrote:What was inflation for the period of '08-11?

Why does that matter?

Upon further analysis, in January 2001 the National Debt was $5.7 T. To get to $10.6 T, the debt by about 85%, not 115% as claimed. This suggests that whoever made the data was taking some of the debt acquired during Obama's presidency and attributing it to Bush.

Obama increased the debt 43% (Jan. 2009 - Jan. 2012) in 3 years, Bush increased it by 85% in 8.