|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 22, 2011 13:58:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Nov 22, 2011 14:54:04 GMT -5
My my...looks like someone found their testosterone. Let's see if he can keep hold of it now.
|
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 22, 2011 15:57:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Nov 22, 2011 16:32:18 GMT -5
It's still stupid, the entire premise is stupid. Our unemployment problem is worse than our deficit problem and focusing on the deficit will only make shit worse. That spending keeps people employed and/or out of poverty. And, again, a public deficit means a private surplus. It is simple mathematics.  That is how debt works, when you add together all the sectors, you get 0. The only possible way to reduce to deficit is to take money away from private citizens, the very people we need to have money so they can spend it and keep the economy functioning. The government can handle debt (in part because a government can always write money into existence*), but a family can't. *Don't you fucking dare bring up hyperinflation, inflation is nowhere near a problem at the moment and is not a problem until you have the labor force at full capacity. Making extra money to use in order to put people to work is not a bad fiscal policy. |
|
|
|
Post by Hyperio on Nov 22, 2011 16:49:12 GMT -5
Vene, the problem is that Republicans think they have found a "perfect" person to take money away from - the poor. The fact that it will likely cause a long-time crash of domestic market is a feature for them, not a bug. They don't want money at the moment - they already have it, they want complete and utter domination over common men. They can always get money from foreign markets, and patriotism means for them making sure the rich pay less than poor (if at all) and have enough government contracts.*
They are despicable people.
* I realize I may be painting black the rich elite of the USA, but so far they work well to fit my description. Until I see those who caused the crisis in jail I am unlikely to change my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Nov 22, 2011 16:52:28 GMT -5
Oh, I am well aware this is what the GOP want, but we shouldn't fall for the rhetoric and believe the supercommittee was a good idea in the first place, just like we shouldn't believe deficit reduction is appropriate during the worst economy since the 1930s.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Nov 22, 2011 18:20:25 GMT -5
Obama is now threatening Republicans with veto if they refuse to pass Republican policy. We're well down the looking glass here, guys. Obama is responsible for the doulbe-dip recession he just caused. He didn't have to force congress to accept unnecessary and destructive spending cuts in a spending-starved economy. The results are his fault- not Big Bad Republicans, nor Nasty Evil Congress. Obama is at fault. *Don't you fucking dare bring up hyperinflation, inflation is nowhere near a problem at the moment and is not a problem until you have the labor force at full capacity. Making extra money to use in order to put people to work is not a bad fiscal policy. High inflation would actually be better than the current disinflation. It makes debt easier to pay off, because wages increase and debt stays the same. It also speeds up the economy, effectively creating a sub-zero interest rate (in the long run). Debt and inflation are good- unemployment and low growth are bad. Obama is trying to reduce the good things, worsening the bad things. |
|
|
|
Post by priestling on Nov 22, 2011 19:17:20 GMT -5
Heaven forbid we let the tax cuts expire and we tax the richest in the country a bit more to compensate, right Fred?
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Nov 22, 2011 19:30:06 GMT -5
Heaven forbid we let the tax cuts expire and we tax the richest in the country a bit more to compensate, right Fred? In the long run, good point. In the short run, wrong problem. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 22, 2011 19:47:32 GMT -5
Obama is now threatening Republicans with veto if they refuse to pass Republican policy. We're well down the looking glass here, guys. Obama is responsible for the doulbe-dip recession he just caused. He didn't have to force congress to accept unnecessary and destructive spending cuts in a spending-starved economy. The results are his fault- not Big Bad Republicans, nor Nasty Evil Congress. Obama is at fault. No Fred Obama will not solely at fault. Congress has the power of the purse, they control spending in this country. If they get their shit together they could override any veto. High inflation would actually be better than the current disinflation. It makes debt easier to pay off, because wages increase and debt stays the same. It also speeds up the economy, effectively creating a sub-zero interest rate (in the long run). Debt and inflation are good- unemployment and low growth are bad. Obama is trying to reduce the good things, worsening the bad things. I think your daft if you think wages will increase to keep up with high inflation. It has never happened in the past. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Nov 22, 2011 20:08:16 GMT -5
Obama is now threatening Republicans with veto if they refuse to pass Republican policy. We're well down the looking glass here, guys. Obama is responsible for the doulbe-dip recession he just caused. He didn't have to force congress to accept unnecessary and destructive spending cuts in a spending-starved economy. The results are his fault- not Big Bad Republicans, nor Nasty Evil Congress. Obama is at fault. No Fred Obama will not solely at fault. Congress has the power of the purse, they control spending in this country. If they get their shit together they could override any veto. So you're saying that Obama isn't responsible for a policy he says congress must pass (deliberately worsening the recession) because all the Republicans could spontaneously get together and become progressives? Yeah. That's going to happen. Inflation is basically wages. You can't have (or it's very, very difficult to have) high inflation without rapid wage increases. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 22, 2011 21:02:08 GMT -5
So you're saying that Obama isn't responsible for a policy he says congress must pass (deliberately worsening the recession) because all the Republicans could spontaneously get together and become progressives? Yeah. That's going to happen. No, Obama is saying that congress is not going to weasel it's way out of what was agreed upon. Make no mistake that the GOP only want's to make carve outs for the mandatory cuts to defense spending and not the other automatic cuts. Inflation is basically wages. You can't have (or it's very, very difficult to have) high inflation without rapid wage increases. Inflation is a increase in the price of consumer products. The whole problem with the inflation that happened in the 70's was that wages did not increase. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Nov 22, 2011 22:43:56 GMT -5
So you're saying that Obama isn't responsible for a policy he says congress must pass (deliberately worsening the recession) because all the Republicans could spontaneously get together and become progressives? Yeah. That's going to happen. No, Obama is saying that congress is not going to weasel it's way out of what was agreed upon. Make no mistake that the GOP only want's to make carve outs for the mandatory cuts to defense spending and not the other automatic cuts. 'What congress agreed on' was deliberately saboutaging the economy. Obama should allow congress not to deliberately saboutage the economy, because a strong economy is a good thing. To do this he should veto any cuts to spending, not any bills that would end cuts to spending. What happened in the '70s was a wage-price spiral. Workers expected a rise in wages, which led to higher price increases and then higher wage increases. This is called wage-pull inflation. Wages are the leading indicicator of inflation. Low wage growth, probably low inflation. High wage growth, certainly high inflation. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 22, 2011 22:57:22 GMT -5
'What congress agreed on' was deliberately saboutaging the economy. Obama should allow congress not to deliberately saboutage the economy, because a strong economy is a good thing. To do this he should veto any cuts to spending, not any bills that would end cuts to spending. The problem is that the bill creating the super committee and the automatic cuts was already passed. So now the only thing the GOP is going to try and safe is defense spending. They are not going to sent Obama any other types of increases or bills to save other spending. What happened in the '70s was a wage-price spiral. Workers expected a rise in wages, which led to higher price increases and then higher wage increases. This is called wage-pull inflation. Wages are the leading indicicator of inflation. Low wage growth, probably low inflation. High wage growth, certainly high inflation. Okay, so you agree that in the 70's inflation out paced wages. No, the two leading indicators or measures of inflation is Consumer Price Index and Producer Price Index. Nether has anything to do with wages. |
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Nov 22, 2011 23:14:35 GMT -5
Inflation is basically wages. You can't have (or it's very, very difficult to have) high inflation without rapid wage increases. You know, Fred, usually I enjoy reading your posts. I don't often agree with what you say, but you usually aren't in silly territory, but this? Seriously? You really think that this is an accurate statement? I'm afraid you're going to have to prove that one to me. It's just ridiculous. Inflation has nothing to do with wages, it is simply an increase in consumer prices. |
|
