Page 33 of 41 FirstFirst ... 233132333435 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 330 of 404

Thread: CBO: Stimulus hurts economy in the long run

  1. #321
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: CBO: Stimulus hurts economy in the long run

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    tightness of money is hurting but so is the lack of knowledge of what Obamacare is going to cost as well as what the tax structure will be in the next 5 years. Businesses need certainty as they are investing their own money not printing it.
    So they're betting on an Obama victory?

  2. #322
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,250

    Re: CBO: Stimulus hurts economy in the long run

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    So they're betting on an Obama victory?
    Why would anyone vote to give Obama another term with the results he generated? Don't results matter to you? You apparently aren't among the 25 plus million unemployed and under employed Americans or worried about the rising misery index

  3. #323
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: CBO: Stimulus hurts economy in the long run

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Why would anyone vote to give Obama another term with the results he generated? Don't results matter to you? You apparently aren't among the 25 plus million unemployed and under employed Americans or worried about the rising misery index
    I was just inferring that from your post. Or are you saying business are figuring that a Republican president will raise rates in five years?

  4. #324
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,250

    Re: CBO: Stimulus hurts economy in the long run

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    I was just inferring that from your post. Or are you saying business are figuring that a Republican president will raise rates in five years?
    Hiring will begin when the small businesses in this country here those wonderful words, "Barack Obama, you're fired!" I am sure they can count on your support.

  5. #325
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: CBO: Stimulus hurts economy in the long run

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Hiring will begin when the small businesses in this country here those wonderful words, "Barack Obama, you're fired!" I am sure they can count on your support.
    Wow, so we're going to have to wait five years?

  6. #326
    Professor

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    04-26-13 @ 03:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,404
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: CBO: Stimulus hurts economy in the long run

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Hiring will begin when the small businesses in this country here those wonderful words, "Barack Obama, you're fired!" I am sure they can count on your support.
    I don't see job growth under a republican led administration that seems very focused on cutting spending by eliminating jobs, two things are needed to fuel small business growth hiring the return or start up large corporations and the american consumer has to have the money to support US manufacturing and to purchase the services and products that small businesses make available

  7. #327
    Professor
    finebead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 09:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,558

    Re: CBO: Stimulus hurts economy in the long run

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    WRONG. What TARP and the "Stimulus" did was make Washington Elites look like they were doing something rather then letting the system clear out the trash. A hard sharp fall followed by a natural recovery would, long term be far better then the softened drop and long term harm caused. However, NOT acting was not politically... beneficial. Anyone that believes the system was "saved" by the Government is ignorant to reality.
    Back to the original point of this thread, did the stimulus hurt the economy in the long run, my point is that it did to some degree, but that it was better than the alternative. There was NO PAINLESS WAY OUT, from the republican housing bust and banking crisis. There were only BAD and WORSE ways out.

    Please explain how the bolded statement of yours would have worked. The bursting of the housing bubble and the financial crisis caused layoffs in home construction, mortgage industry, and banking sectors. Those folks stopped buying cars and eating out, so the down cycle spread to autos, and resulted in the bankruptcy at Chrysler and GM (rescued with TARP $), which would have resulted in more foreclosures. People would be scared to death and stop eating out, going to movies, or buying new clothes, all in order to save money in case they got whacked. Now the movie theaters start shutting down, and local restaurants strart closing, resulting in more people getting laid off, then they quit spending.

    So, in your secenario, where does it stop? How many industries have to fail and get sucked down the drain, before we reach the bottom and only required level of business survives because that is all a terrified population will support? This deserves a discussion, more than one sentence.

    How much wealth destruction would americans have experienced? Stockholders in how many banks and insurance companies would have been wiped out (many lost a lot anyhow), and their bondholders too (which in general did not occur). The general stock market would not have stopped going down from 14,000 on the DJIA to 6,600, it would have done down farther, scaring mom and pop to death, wiping out retirement accounts. Many more layoffs at those closed firms would have occurred. Who would buy up the carcasses without any federal backstop (I contend NOBODY would, and certainly NOBODY WOULD DO IT QUICKLY, until the smoke had cleared)? How long would it have taken for all these companies to go to a bankruptcy judge and have their assets analyzed and decisions made on liquidation vs. restructuring (that usually takes a year or two for a very big company in bankruptcy)? In the meantime, every day is full of worse and worse news as the next company goes bankrupt and lays off a wad of people. Eventually you reach the bottom. How long would it take? How many industries would be decimated? We know this could not be contained to housing alone, as autos had already gone down. When would we have reached the bottom, explain that.

    Even the great republican Alan Greenspan, talking about TARP and Stimulus said "Collapse has been taken off the table". TARP and Stimulus were not done to "fix the economy", they were done to "stop the death spiral down in the economy" while it was in its early stage, when it would be easier to deal with. You cannot have a recovery until AFTER YOU STOP THE DOWN SPIRAL. TARP and Stimulus did that. Mr. Greenspan evidently thinks avoiding COLLAPSE is a good thing; i.e. having less to recover from will speed the recovery up in arriving, and I agree.

    There are only 3 spenders in the economy; consumers, industry, and the govt. Consumer spending shut down (and would have shut down more), business spending shut down, and only govt. spending was left. What would have happened if govt. spending had not picked up to cover the withdrawal of the consumer and business? Greenspan said it, COLLAPSE was on the table.
    Last edited by finebead; 11-30-11 at 08:56 AM.

  8. #328
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: CBO: Stimulus hurts economy in the long run

    Quote Originally Posted by finebead View Post
    Back to the original point of this thread, did the stimulus hurt the economy in the long run, my point is that it did to some degree, but that it was better than the alternative. There was NO PAINLESS WAY OUT, from the republican housing bust and banking crisis. There were only BAD and WORSE ways out.
    Here is the problem. I am going to argue from the point that you are correct even though I do not believe you are. But let's say you are. The reason even that failed is because the government completely decided to not hold anyone accountable for anything, change anything or enforce the financial laws that were on the books.

    I believe IF the government would have forced out all the CEO's of the bailed out entities (this is a complicated arguement which I will further get into later), completely banned any bail-out in the future as opposed to laying out a framework to make bail-outs a permanate thing and then dragging the CEO's that ran afoul of Sarbanes/Oxley, that would have made a big difference.

    Barnanke should have resigned in disgrace and the Wall Street whore in Geithner should have never been appointed. We got rid of Dodd and Bennett (Utah) which was a good start but nobody trusts the leaders we have in Congress either. (Either party)

    Look at what Corzine was still able to do. It shouldn't be a question of "did he break the law". It should be a case where he has already been arrested. We had a president completely overturn accepted bankruptcy laws and take from investors and give to those who helped him get elected. People know that the markets didn't go from 8000 to 12000 because of fundemental gains. It went there because of a massive printing of money that allowed the financial industry to continue to wallow in money while those on main street continued to go backwards. I disagree as an idea that the solution is to take from the rich. The problem was we took from main street to give to the rich.

    Now the government would have argued that they couldn't fire all the bailed out (sorry, got to go, I'll finish later)
    Last edited by 1Perry; 11-30-11 at 09:08 AM.

  9. #329
    Guru

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In a Blue State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,732

    Re: CBO: Stimulus hurts economy in the long run

    Aren't we still in a downward spiral? Slower, but downward.
    We went from sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me to safe spaces.

  10. #330
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: CBO: Stimulus hurts economy in the long run

    O.K. for some reason I can't edit, I'll continue here. (the daughter called, she ran out of gas). Anyway, the whole we must keep everything secret was total B.S. You do the same thing that FDR did. You get all the CEO's of the big banks together and you lock them in a room and tell them that they weren't leaving until they come up with a plan where there would not be a run on any of them. This is one thing that FDR did that was the right move.


    Quote Originally Posted by finebead View Post
    Please explain how the bolded statement of yours would have worked. The bursting of the housing bubble and the financial crisis caused layoffs in home construction, mortgage industry, and banking sectors. Those folks stopped buying cars and eating out, so the down cycle spread to autos, and resulted in the bankruptcy at Chrysler and GM (rescued with TARP $), which would have resulted in more foreclosures. People would be scared to death and stop eating out, going to movies, or buying new clothes, all in order to save money in case they got whacked. Now the movie theaters start shutting down, and local restaurants strart closing, resulting in more people getting laid off, then they quit spending.
    The collapse did not cause the downfall of GM and Chrylser. That had failed long ago but with the easy money and things seemingly going well they were able to continue to kick their problems down the road just like Europe is doing now. The problem is, they did not fix their problems. They also have simply kicked their problems down the road concerning their unsustainable legacy costs. A proper bankruptcy could have addressed this. I would have even supported limitied government involvement to make sure that at least a portion of these were retained before GM and CHrysler were allowed to start paying out bonuses and such.

    So, in your secenario, where does it stop? How many industries have to fail and get sucked down the drain, before we reach the bottom and only required level of business survives because that is all a terrified population will support? This deserves a discussion, more than one sentence.
    Indeed. I wasn't terrified.

    How much wealth destruction would americans have experienced? Stockholders in how many banks and insurance companies would have been wiped out (many lost a lot anyhow), and their bondholders too (which in general did not occur). The general stock market would not have stopped going down from 14,000 on the DJIA to 6,600, it would have done down farther, scaring mom and pop to death, wiping out retirement accounts. Many more layoffs at those closed firms would have occurred. Who would buy up the carcasses without any federal backstop (I contend NOBODY would, and certainly NOBODY WOULD DO IT QUICKLY, until the smoke had cleared)? How long would it have taken for all these companies to go to a bankruptcy judge and have their assets analyzed and decisions made on liquidation vs. restructuring (that usually takes a year or two for a very big company in bankruptcy)? In the meantime, every day is full of worse and worse news as the next company goes bankrupt and lays off a wad of people. Eventually you reach the bottom. How long would it take? How many industries would be decimated? We know this could not be contained to housing alone, as autos had already gone down. When would we have reached the bottom, explain that.
    I completely dismiss this arguement. It was said that the markets would collapse without TARP. We enacted TARP and the markets collapsed. We shoul dhave left it alone right there. We should not have went on a program that's only purpose was to get the markets back up to where they were before the crash. I lost no money in the crash. I didn't make any but I also didn't lose any. (Yes, I was invested in my retirement account). I'm in for the long haul, not to move in/out in/out in/out to find the next bubble.

    This is why people are reluctant to get back into the markets. I certainly do not trust it right now. I'm in the absolutely safest things I can get in. Yeah. I'll see little growth for now but I sleep well at night.

    Even the great republican Alan Greenspan, talking about TARP and Stimulus said "Collapse has been taken off the table". TARP and Stimulus were not done to "fix the economy", they were done to "stop the death spiral down in the economy" while it was in its early stage, when it would be easier to deal with. You cannot have a recovery until AFTER YOU STOP THE DOWN SPIRAL. TARP and Stimulus did that. Mr. Greenspan evidently thinks avoiding COLLAPSE is a good thing; i.e. having less to recover from will speed the recovery up in arriving, and I agree.
    Greenspan is a ****ing idiot. It was his idiotic policies that allowed the bubble in the first place. Anyone that would listen to anything that Greenspan has to say, well, I do not want to atract the ire of the mods but making no personal accusations to anyone but anyone that cares what Greenspan has to say has to be an idiot.

    There are only 3 spenders in the economy; consumers, industry, and the govt. Consumer spending shut down (and would have shut down more), business spending shut down, and only govt. spending was left. What would have happened if govt. spending had not picked up to cover the withdrawal of the consumer and business? Greenspan said it, COLLAPSE was on the table.
    The government is not a spender. They are a transferer. Do I believe what Micheal Jacksons doctor has to say about how much he was helping him? Of course not. He's was simply trying to save his reputation and ass just like with anything Greenspan has to say.

    I simply do not understand this at all. Anyone who wants to be honest will admit that it was Greenspans monetary policies that allowed the bubble to inflate. And yet for some reason some people still care what his opinion is. How wrong does someone have to be to have their opinions dismissed after that?

Page 33 of 41 FirstFirst ... 233132333435 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •