|
Post by skyfire on Apr 2, 2009 21:36:45 GMT -5
1. do you have a link to that report? ] link to the report on their siteAs you can see from the chart above, by 2010 the deficit will hit 12% of GDP. Go back and look at what the pundits were saying, and there was virtual unanimity in the opinion that we'd be hosed if it went down that low. Note that the full report itself is 56 pages and comes up as a PDF file; I've only got half an hour left in the evening, and so I'm not going to be braving the download tonight (Adobe seems to hate me lately). What you mentioned all depends upon whether or not the money is handled responsibly or if people turn into Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV). Why? They don't know if we'll be able to pay when the debt becomes due. There've already been scattered reports stating that China is balking at trying to buy any more of our debt, and China's push for an international currency may well be an outgrowth of that.
|
|
|
Post by A. Sapien on Apr 2, 2009 21:41:02 GMT -5
As noted in a previous thread, the Congressional Budget Office released a report stating that if the Obama budget went through as planned, it'd bottom out the deficit. It'd take the nation well over 10 years to dig itself back out, and by that time the nation as a whole will see its credit rating slide so low that no one will voluntarily acquire American debt... which people need to do in order for the nation to dig itself out. It could potentially lead to a debt spiral that, in a worst-case scenario, will collapse the nation. It's for this reason that several members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, have spent the past week or so trimming the budget back: so that we can get a stimulus going through without having such a massive deficit to accompany it. 1. do you have a link to that report? 2. How long do you think it will take us to get out of the debt we are in now? No one expects to get out of the debt in only a couple years. This is ignoring that fact that if we don't send money now to get out of the current recession, fix health care, change energy policy we will never get out of debt. Other countries will not stop buying US debt, why? It is because our economy affects the rest of the world in a big way. Here's the thread he started over the report, actually. Another one of his "OH GOD. OBAMA WILL KILL US ALL" posts. fstdt.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=pg&action=display&thread=377&page=1cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/03-20-PresidentBudget.pdfHere's the actual report. As expected, Skyfire is GROSSLY misrepresenting the report. If anything it shows a long term improvement, from a downward trend started by George W. Bush. Considering our current economic situation, it looks to be a damn FAVORABLE report. Skyfire has the economic sense of a fucking first-grader, apparently.
|
|
|
Post by A. Sapien on Apr 2, 2009 21:42:48 GMT -5
1. do you have a link to that report? ] link to the report on their siteAs you can see from the chart above, by 2010 the deficit will hit 12% of GDP. Go back and look at what the pundits were saying, and there was virtual unanimity in the opinion that we'd be hosed if it went down that low. You have got to be shitting me. And you expect to get an MBA? Stop listening to fucking pundits and do some actual fucking research. Fuck, look at the graph you posted, you see a trend? Starting between 2007-2008? We're already heading into the shit. If we don't spend into it towards projects that will improve our growth, the best we can hope for is leveling off, or simply slowing the decline.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Apr 2, 2009 21:48:05 GMT -5
So why are you scared of Obama? Scared? No. Frustrated at the fact that it was painfully obvious during the election that he didn't know what he was talking about when it came to the economy yet people still voted him in? Yes. Anyone foolish enough to think that a nation can tax its way out of a recession or that Congress can be trusted not to be partisan when it came to labor unions* doesn't really deserve to be handling economic policy. No, I'm talking about the tendency for some of his supporters to shout "racism!" whenever they face down criticisms of how the guy's doing things. It makes it sound like his supporters are all sycophants. *For those that don't remember, one of the DNC's key issues during the election was card-check. The idea was that if 50% of a company's work force signed cards stating that they wanted to unionize, the company had three months to come to terms with the union in question or Congress could intervene and start dictating terms. Problem is, the proposal is inherently flawed: [1] Signing cards instead of doing a secret ballot means that everyone who wants to can know whether or not an employee wanted unionization. This will leave people open for retaliation by both co-workers and supervisors. [2] Contract negotiations can easily take well beyond three months' time to hammer out, especially if a company is only just now going union. Setting the three-month deadline reflects a lack of understanding about how things work. [3] Allowing Congress to intervene means that unless Congress delegates a wholly neutral panel to hear things then it'll be a foregone conclusion how the matter will end: a DNC-controlled Congress will be inclined to give the union whatever it wants, while a GOP-controlled Congress will be inclined to give the owners whatever they want.
|
|
|
Post by A. Sapien on Apr 2, 2009 21:51:48 GMT -5
So why are you scared of Obama? Scared? No. Frustrated at the fact that it was painfully obvious during the election that he didn't know what he was talking about when it came to the economy yet people still voted him in? Yes. Anyone foolish enough to think that a nation can tax its way out of a recession or that Congress can be trusted not to be partisan when it came to labor unions* doesn't really deserve to be handling economic policy. Your party got us into this mess! We tried your way, guess what? IT FUCKING FAILED.Maybe, just FUCKING maybe, you don't know a fucking thing about economics? You're just spouting off the conservative mantra. That's not economics, that's you being a partisan hack. Yes, because that's totally his fault. Says the sycophant. We get it, unions bad. You can shut up now.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Apr 2, 2009 21:58:13 GMT -5
The graph shows only a divergence in the baseline and the Presidents budget after 2012. Of course this is if there is no change in spending trends after the economy improves.
As Sapien says, you fail at your analysis Skyfire, the report is actually a good thing. Next time you should take the time to read the report instead of listening to GOP talking points.
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Apr 2, 2009 22:09:21 GMT -5
Skyfire, before you continue, please state again how and why a massive national deficit will override any positive gains from the legislatures Obama is pushing through now. Come on, you and I must've taken at least some similar classes, so I know you can answer this. As noted in a previous thread, the Congressional Budget Office released a report stating that if the Obama budget went through as planned, it'd bottom out the deficit. It'd take the nation well over 10 years to dig itself back out, and by that time the nation as a whole will see its credit rating slide so low that no one will voluntarily acquire American debt... which people need to do in order for the nation to dig itself out. It could potentially lead to a debt spiral that, in a worst-case scenario, will collapse the nation. It's for this reason that several members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, have spent the past week or so trimming the budget back: so that we can get a stimulus going through without having such a massive deficit to accompany it. Wrong answer. You know what's actually the biggest effects of massive deficit? Lowered interest rates and high interest costs. Except we WANT low interest rate to stimulate the demand side of the market, and the interest costs going to nations like China are miniscule compared to the rising costs of everything else if we don't fix it. Otherwise, the chance a US Treasury Bond falls below investment grade is nearly nil, let alone default. The chance of that happening within our lifetime is about the chance of me fucking a Disney porn star. Most investors are not knee-jerk reactionists, especially on high established securities like the US Treasury Bill. In fact, the 10-year treasury note, while low, is still 100Bp higher than the all time low in November. Interestingly enough, Countdown on MSNBC (which, admittedly, is also biased) covered the exactly same thing on story #3. Check it out if you like.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Apr 2, 2009 22:13:15 GMT -5
Frustrated at the fact that it was painfully obvious during the election that he didn't know what he was talking about when it came to the economy yet people still voted him in? Yes. What are you talking about? He told us he wanted to do just the opposite of what GOP did, that is a good think because look what the last 8 years got us. Tax our way out? Are you high? Obama's tax increases will only be for the top earners, the ones that have the least affect on the economy. That is called unionizing, welcome to America! What you fail to understand is it is still up to the employees if they want cards or a ballot. No it forced both side to try and hammer out a deal and not drag there feet. Nether a GOP congress or a DNC congress is going to give one side exactly what they want, especially on the DNC side because the last thing they want is a union that kills the business it is in. Plus many states are "right to work states" in which people do not have to join a union to work at a job. This means that if a company wants it can drag it's feet and just hire people who don't want to be in a union.
|
|
|
Post by A. Sapien on Apr 2, 2009 22:27:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 2, 2009 22:45:31 GMT -5
It's for this reason that several members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, have spent the past week or so trimming the budget back: so that we can get a stimulus going through without having such a massive deficit to accompany it. The why is Italy (110% of GDP is debt) still standing? Come one, let's be serious here. The US isn't even close to being highest on indebtedness, and isn't even close to being in trouble. 12% debt is not even close to being too much, it's too little. That much debt will not lift us from the chasm Bush has happily driven us into. 35% debt isn't too much. Maybe 80% might be overdoing it a bit. And, also, in a recession DEBT IS GOOD. I know, shocking, right? And lets be honest about why the Republicans are being the party of obstruction: if Obama is allowed to enact policies which will be good for the US economy, he will win his second term. THAT is why Republicans are 'worried about debt', not some magical problem which could only happen to the US and nowhere else.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 2, 2009 22:53:58 GMT -5
Anyone foolish enough to think that a nation can tax its way out of a recession or that Congress can be trusted not to be partisan when it came to labor unions* doesn't really deserve to be handling economic policy. Nobody thinks a nation can tax it's way out of recession. Some (idiots and morons, all) think that tax cuts are magical despite never working, and, like millitary spending, do not add to the deficit only they care about. Obama believes (like reality) that government spending is the only way to hoist a nation from recession other than fiscal policy, which is a bit tricky to use when you have a 0% interest rate. It's also true that Congress has been very anti-labour pretty much from Day 1 1776. Or is that not what you meant? BTW, does 'partisan' mean anything any more? Or is just a synonym for 'bad'? *For those that don't remember, one of the DNC's key issues during the election was card-check. You mean the Employee Free Choice Act? Which would remove the right to call a union election from managers and give it to employees? And also allow them to chose either secret or non-secret ballot? Or did you mean the imaginary Secret Ballot Abolishment Act that some moron Republicans have invented in their fantasy world in order to bag the Democrats about supporting?
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Apr 2, 2009 23:48:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Apr 3, 2009 7:21:45 GMT -5
Wow Sky, you really don't understand economy at all do you. A few points you need to consider:
1)In order to pay off debt, the government and companies must have a source of income. 2)The government's source of income is taxes, for companies it is people buying products and services. 3)Only people who have jobs can pay taxes, and buy products and services 4)Therefore, when there is a dearth of jobs, jobs must be created so that people have an income to spend.
How you are completely not understainding this very basic thing is astounding. Also, I know my list is completely simplified and leaves out the various nuances, but that does not mean it is not a very basic concept that must be understood in order to have a successful economy.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 3, 2009 7:51:19 GMT -5
Probably would be best if you read the thing first. Keith Olbermann reported that in fact, these projections were based on the previous President's spending plan, and if you look at the actual document, they appear to do so in at least a few of their projections, referencing Bush plans and not Obama plans. There is a saying. "Judge slow." You seem to have taken the GOP talking points before checking the facts, and that assessment is wrong on multiple levels. Yeah, those same "reports" that have been circulating since I was five. I'd feel more comfortable with that if it wasn't coming from someone with a limited understanding of the economy. What you've said in this thread alone demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about. Your accusations of Obama are therefore laughable. Hmmm.... That sounds like a gross misrepresentation of facts. But yes, anyone foolish enough to believe your strawman representation of things doesn't deserve to be handing out economic policy. If only things were as simple as the reality you were painting. But then, "Obama's" failings seem to be nothing more than your own failure to understand what's been said. Why would that affect his standing? That wasn't a shout of racism because you were criticising Obama, by the way. It was based on your religion. I'd figure that would be patently obvious. It might not have been appropriate, but to spin it elsewhere? No. No, but I'm sure you'll claim that anyway.
|
|
|
Post by mice34 on Apr 3, 2009 12:11:42 GMT -5
OMG, it is literally an OP-ed by Karl Rove! I thought that was a joke!
|
|