Startin?rammunition wrote:
what the fuck are you on about SgtSlutter?
you bet ye
Or, you know, school. You know that thing where you learn that America isn't the anti-christ of the world?rammunition wrote:
silence says it all
Yes, massive economic downturn. You NEED a positive GDP. A recession would be bad. The whole system works based on sustained economic growth. It's the only way of dealing with debts the size the US has and can't hope to pay off. You increase GDP at a rate that means the value of your debts as a percentage of GDP decreases - unfortunately it is beginning to spiral out of control. Not imminent doom sort of out of control, just all bad long term. These things have a nasty habit of building up.Pug wrote:
Well, that ain't quite right. I'd say the opposite is prolly about right in my town - 70% good, 30% bad...but what do I know, I must be stupid.Bertster7 wrote:
Things ARE bad in the US. That's not in question.FEOS wrote:
It doesn't reflect reality. It reflects that over 70% of Americans let the media think for them instead of thinking for themselves.
Sub-prime mortgages, credit crunch, massive economic downturn - that is things going badly. It's not the end of the world, but it is definitely bad.
Trying to deny something so outrageously obvious would just be stupid. So, 30% of Americans must be stupid by the results of that survey.
"Massive economic downturn" - with a positive gdp?
Well, I'm not saying everything's rosey, but I think you illustrated the OP perfectly - reality versus hype.
Ps. the other day I did see an article saying 65% of Chinese think the future is going to be worse. So I guess we're only 5% different.
What you mean is more debt = inflation.Bertster7 wrote:
Yes, massive economic downturn. You NEED a positive GDP. A recession would be bad. The whole system works based on sustained economic growth. It's the only way of dealing with debts the size the US has and can't hope to pay off. You increase GDP at a rate that means the value of your debts as a percentage of GDP decreases - unfortunately it is beginning to spiral out of control. Not imminent doom sort of out of control, just all bad long term. These things have a nasty habit of building up.
Debt is included in GDP.
I gots to run, but the interest paid on the debt is subtracted from GDP, while the increase in government spending increases GDP. I saw GDP has been positive from 2004 (didn't go further)...so we are in a "massive economic downturn" with a positive gdp?
Yes.Pug wrote:
I gots to run, but the interest paid on the debt is subtracted from GDP, while the increase in government spending increases GDP. I saw GDP has been positive from 2004 (didn't go further)...so we are in a "massive economic downturn" with a positive gdp?
What part of the term downturn do you not understand. Your economic growth is slow. Do you not understand economics at all?
The US is in the middle of a massive economic downturn right now. That is beyond question.
On the edge of recession even.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-05-06 12:15:19)
Yes I understand economics. I guess what I don't understand is that somehow growth is not growth? Explain that plz.Bertster7 wrote:
Yes.Pug wrote:
I gots to run, but the interest paid on the debt is subtracted from GDP, while the increase in government spending increases GDP. I saw GDP has been positive from 2004 (didn't go further)...so we are in a "massive economic downturn" with a positive gdp?
What part of the term downturn do you not understand. Your economic growth is slow. Do you not understand economics at all?
The US is in the middle of a massive economic downturn right now. That is beyond question.
On the edge of recession even.
Evidently you don't.Pug wrote:
Yes I understand economics. I guess what I don't understand is that somehow growth is not growth? Explain that plz.Bertster7 wrote:
Yes.Pug wrote:
I gots to run, but the interest paid on the debt is subtracted from GDP, while the increase in government spending increases GDP. I saw GDP has been positive from 2004 (didn't go further)...so we are in a "massive economic downturn" with a positive gdp?
What part of the term downturn do you not understand. Your economic growth is slow. Do you not understand economics at all?
The US is in the middle of a massive economic downturn right now. That is beyond question.
On the edge of recession even.
Growth in 2004 was somewhere around the 3% mark. Predictions for 2008 put it at 0.2% - that's a downturn. How is it a downturn? Because it's 15x less, that's how. Still positive, but barely.
With the dollar so insanely weak, inflation up to about 4% (anything above 2% is bad), unemployment on the rise, house prices in freefall (average prices have dropped about 30% in 2 years) and the budget deficit rather large (in part because of the rather expensive tax rebate scheme to get consumers purchasing) - the US is in the midst of an economic downturn, bordering on recession.
House price fluctuations are regional. In some areas, the prices haven't budged, in some areas, they've dropped quite a bit.Bertster7 wrote:
Evidently you don't.Pug wrote:
Yes I understand economics. I guess what I don't understand is that somehow growth is not growth? Explain that plz.Bertster7 wrote:
Yes.
What part of the term downturn do you not understand. Your economic growth is slow. Do you not understand economics at all?
The US is in the middle of a massive economic downturn right now. That is beyond question.
On the edge of recession even.
Growth in 2004 was somewhere around the 3% mark. Predictions for 2008 put it at 0.2% - that's a downturn. How is it a downturn? Because it's 15x less, that's how. Still positive, but barely.
With the dollar so insanely weak, inflation up to about 4% (anything above 2% is bad), unemployment on the rise, house prices in freefall (average prices have dropped about 30% in 2 years) and the budget deficit rather large (in part because of the rather expensive tax rebate scheme to get consumers purchasing) - the US is in the midst of an economic downturn, bordering on recession.
Unemployment has been relatively static, GDP is still positive. It's not nearly as positive as it was a few years ago, but it's certainly not negative, either.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Which is why you look at averages from the top 10 or 20 metropolitan areas to get an overall picture of what effects the most people.FEOS wrote:
House price fluctuations are regional. In some areas, the prices haven't budged, in some areas, they've dropped quite a bit.
Unemployment is up to more than 5%. At the start of last year it was about 4.5%. That's 1.5 million more unemployed people this year than last year.FEOS wrote:
Unemployment has been relatively static
Which is a massive economic downturn. "Not nearly as positive" - that's what a downturn is. If it was a recession, I'd call it a recession. As it is, you don't have much of a buffer zone, which is very risky, especially given the combination of other factors.FEOS wrote:
GDP is still positive. It's not nearly as positive as it was a few years ago, but it's certainly not negative, either.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-05-06 12:46:38)
So a downturn means everyone is unemployed, homes are worthless, and the budget deficit will cause a black hole in Iowa...and a growing economy? Got it.Bertster7 wrote:
Evidently you don't.
Growth in 2004 was somewhere around the 3% mark. Predictions for 2008 put it at 0.2% - that's a downturn. How is it a downturn? Because it's 15x less, that's how. Still positive, but barely.
With the dollar so insanely weak, inflation up to about 4% (anything above 2% is bad), unemployment on the rise, house prices in freefall (average prices have dropped about 30% in 2 years) and the budget deficit rather large (in part because of the rather expensive tax rebate scheme to get consumers purchasing) - the US is in the midst of an economic downturn, bordering on recession.
It's called hope.
I'm not willing to call it a night until I get my cookies...got it?
How are you so sure I know nothing about economics? I can correct you if you like, although you won't listen.
Pug wrote:
So a downturn means everyone is unemployed, homes are worthless, and the budget deficit will cause a black hole in Iowa...and a growing economy? Got it.Bertster7 wrote:
Evidently you don't.
Growth in 2004 was somewhere around the 3% mark. Predictions for 2008 put it at 0.2% - that's a downturn. How is it a downturn? Because it's 15x less, that's how. Still positive, but barely.
With the dollar so insanely weak, inflation up to about 4% (anything above 2% is bad), unemployment on the rise, house prices in freefall (average prices have dropped about 30% in 2 years) and the budget deficit rather large (in part because of the rather expensive tax rebate scheme to get consumers purchasing) - the US is in the midst of an economic downturn, bordering on recession.
It's called hope.
I'm not willing to call it a night until I get my cookies...got it?
How are you so sure I know nothing about economics? I can correct you if you like, although you won't listen.
Ahh we just have different opinions. But remember what I started with - I live off the beaten path in a bubble.
"Three economists were out hunting. The first guy shoots and misses the deer two feet to the left. The second guy shoots and misses the deer two feet to the right. The third guy yells "WE GOT HIM!!!!"
"Three economists were out hunting. The first guy shoots and misses the deer two feet to the left. The second guy shoots and misses the deer two feet to the right. The third guy yells "WE GOT HIM!!!!"
Now compare all that to the late 70s and early 80s. Then come back and say how the sky is falling.Bertster7 wrote:
Which is why you look at averages from the top 10 or 20 metropolitan areas to get an overall picture of what effects the most people.FEOS wrote:
House price fluctuations are regional. In some areas, the prices haven't budged, in some areas, they've dropped quite a bit.Unemployment is up to more than 5%. At the start of last year it was about 4.5%. That's 1.5 million more unemployed people this year than last year.FEOS wrote:
Unemployment has been relatively staticWhich is a massive economic downturn. "Not nearly as positive" - that's what a downturn is. If it was a recession, I'd call it a recession. As it is, you don't have much of a buffer zone, which is very risky, especially given the combination of other factors.FEOS wrote:
GDP is still positive. It's not nearly as positive as it was a few years ago, but it's certainly not negative, either.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
The stock market seems to think the worst is over. Unemployment numbers weren't nearly as bad as expected and the dollar has shown some life . Oil hit $123 a barrel and we still closed in the green (over 13k). 4.98% might not seem like much, but it is certainly better than a losing direction. There is a lot of ground to make up, but a reversal is a welcome change.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Point taken, but it's a start.pierro wrote:
-I don’t know much about CAFTA but I can say that the Canadians think they got owned in negotiations by the Americans (I’m not sure about Mexico)…what I’m learning is that there is not a lot inherantly good in a lot of policies but it is how you implement them and the Americans aren’t doing the world’s greatest job at that from what you’ve mentioned (I don’t know much about the subject so I’ll take you word for it)…still the trade deficit is about 2.5% of GDP and any improvements in policy would only have a marginal effect on trade in general…I guess what can be said is that if trade policy is as bad as you say it is…although it isn’t great for america but its not the end of the world.
Yep, I hope socialized healthcare gets through, but who knows?...pierro wrote:
-Obviously they are more corporate these days but to me, it looks like a perfect storm of positive reforms waiting to happen…the bailouts (i.e. bear sterns) are likely to be a contributing factor in a greater crackdown on corporations in general (anybody will look good compared to who we have now) which ties into military spending… the candidates are already leaning towards the wildly popular single payer system.
In principle, maybe, but I prefer a savings system that is voluntary.pierro wrote:
-When you say SS do you mean social security? Isn’t that one of the best mechanism for insuring savings (its forced savings) even if the collection mechanism is somewhat regressive?
I don't have a problem with Bush's tax cuts as much as I do his spending habits. I actually didn't mind his tax cut plan so much -- it was one of the few things he didn't screw up. Of course, once we entered Iraq, it all went down the toilet from there....pierro wrote:
-American standard of living has been stagnant since the 70s (there are arguments among economists whether it's gone up or down since then) because most wealth goes to those at the top…I would think a rollback of Bush’s tax cuts as the democrats are planning would turn this around slightly…but you are right, America is consuming beyond its means and that’s unsustainable, and the ensuing crisis will likely dwarf what’s occuring now- but it will be no great depression and America will recover
This is true. His tax cuts have generated record revenue.. problem is he spends recklessly.Turquoise wrote:
I don't have a problem with Bush's tax cuts as much as I do his spending habits. .
Side note: Lets not forget who really controls the checkbook in our Government.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
It's funny how that works. I wrote my college thesis on his tax cut plan and came to some very negative conclusions about how the cuts favored rich people.
Yet, one aspect I didn't look at back then was the rise in tax revenue. After I found that out, it changed my opinion of the cuts totally.
The trick to an effective government is finding ways to increase tax revenue without hurting productivity, and ironically, his plan basically did that. I just wish Bush had stuck to cutting taxes rather than have chosen to invade Iraq. He got in way over his head with foreign policy.
Yet, one aspect I didn't look at back then was the rise in tax revenue. After I found that out, it changed my opinion of the cuts totally.
The trick to an effective government is finding ways to increase tax revenue without hurting productivity, and ironically, his plan basically did that. I just wish Bush had stuck to cutting taxes rather than have chosen to invade Iraq. He got in way over his head with foreign policy.
I can agree with that. They tried to kill his Daddy though! ..lolTurquoise wrote:
It's funny how that works. I wrote my college thesis on his tax cut plan and came to some very negative conclusions about how the cuts favored rich people.
Yet, one aspect I didn't look at back then was the rise in tax revenue. After I found that out, it changed my opinion of the cuts totally.
The trick to an effective government is finding ways to increase tax revenue without hurting productivity, and ironically, his plan basically did that. I just wish Bush had stuck to cutting taxes rather than have chosen to invade Iraq. He got in way over his head with foreign policy.
Good job on kicking Clinton's ass tonight also Turq .
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Heh.. yeah.. the margin is pretty big. Although, like in Indiana, it is starting to shrink.
I don't think Hillary has a prayer at winning NC, but it would be so awesome if Obama gained an upset victory in Indiana.
I don't think Hillary has a prayer at winning NC, but it would be so awesome if Obama gained an upset victory in Indiana.
Congress could have repealed the tax cuts at anytime over the last two years. Also consider the amount of pork they squeeze into every bit of legislation that comes up. I really wish we had a more mainstream outlet to expose these guys with their "bridges to nowhere".
Xbone Stormsurgezz
What's especially ironic is that most of the tax cut think tanks usually support Republicans, but in 2006, Republicans supported so much pork, that these groups were supportive of the "Lou Dobbs" Democrats that swept the House and Senate.Kmarion wrote:
Congress could have repealed the tax cuts at anytime over the last two years. Also consider the amount of pork they squeeze into every bit of legislation that comes up. I really wish we had a more mainstream outlet to expose these guys with their "bridges to nowhere".
The trick is whether or not these conservative and moderate Democrats can keep their hands out of the pie. Right now, there are still many Republicans and Democrats at the top of the pork list, but the relatively even distribution between both parties basically renders the "small government" myth of the Republican party void.
As much as I hate McCain on other issues, I have to admit that he is good at not indulging in pork. I wish more of his party was like that (and more of the Democrats for that matter).
Last edited by Turquoise (2008-05-06 18:18:15)
Pork is what they use to discreetly associate spending blame. They all do it.
It's a political proxy war.
It's a political proxy war.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Well, I actually agree with the conservative take on corporate taxation because it makes sense when you think about the outsourcing problem we face. I think cutting the federal corporate income tax down to 25% will make us much more competitive with several other First World nations when it comes to corporate investment.pierro wrote:
A rollback of Bush’s tax cuts will put America more on track and will occur as soon as a Democrat in the white house will stop vetoing that sort of legislation…the tax cuts did not accomplish anything (they shifting rationale behind them was last to create jobs and it didn’t)…also the idea that tax cuts can increase revenue is voodoo economics 99% of the time, record revenue comes because the economy has been growing (as always but this time unsustainably)…one must ask the question what is the ends of an economy and the answer is to create sustainable well being…it is with a tax system that is approaching regressive that majority of the American people’s living standards has stayed the same so if that is the rationale for what “going down” is in the OP, that’s occurred in America for the last 70 years…the funny thing is that at the same time the economy has been growing but the fruits are going into the hands of the plutocrats…the only argument in favor of that is that they will invest the money (more effectively) instead of spending it…but a tax system favoring savings can easily be designed and homer simpson putting his money in the bank will have it end up being invested just as effectively as if it had been given directly to the Chairman of Goldman Sachs
-In short, a more progressive tax system (which is coming) will cause enormous benefits in the wellbeing of the majority…the best measure of how well a nation is doing and when that occurs America will no longer be “going down” in that sense
-The iraq war is only 2% of the budget (military spending was more then 10% in the cold war) and my gut tells me that pork barrel spending is even smaller then that
I know what you mean by voodoo economics, but you have to admit that tax cuts (when angled properly) do actually increase tax revenue. It's not the cuts I'm worried about so much as it is the spending. I'm against cutting taxes much more until we start cutting spending, and currently, Social Security is the huge drain on our system.
Of course, with the AARP being the most powerful lobbying group, I don't think we're even going to see privatization of SS anytime soon.