• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House OKs $787B stimulus bill with GOP opposition

so what you are saying is we know little about it.


How about. Can you think of a better way to stimulate the economy other than mice conservation?

Yes I can. I never said that this was the best way. I just said that the money would find it's way into the economy.
 
I don't think it is a complete fix nor was it passed off as one.

If this stimulus undershoots the said GDP shortfall, stagflation will most definitely occur. If stagflation is the result, then the government should not have done anything. Recapitalization would have been a much wiser decision.

The key is attracting the estimated $8 trillion in private capital just sitting on the sidelines. This bill fails to do so, at least in my opinion.
 
If a family takes on debts to increase their living standards and then all of the sudden they have taken on too much debt, is it then sane to borrow money to sustain the living standard or pay back the debt and reduce the living standard?

If a family takes on debt to increase their living standards, are they really getting richer or actually poorer?

The basic principles also do apply to nations, thus borrowing to sustain a living standard which is above ones ability, a standard that has been reached by debt in the first place, its unsustainable and an economic fallacy, thus making the nation even poorer by taking on more debt, not richer, and not in any way being a rescue package.
 
Thanks for your consideration. I expected the dogpile when I posted. It's entirely fair.
Your welcome :2wave:


I just worry about the cost on society as a whole in learning this lesson. You are right about the lessons that need to be learned. But we are all interconnected and these lessons won't be learned in a vacuum.

I personally believe that if we continue to be enablers this cycle will forever happen until the inevitable real collapse.

It is a hard lesson to learn. We have come to far for it not to have a significant hurt. It is to late for that not to happen.
 
If a family takes on debts to increase their living standards and then all of the sudden they have taken on too much debt, is it then sane to borrow money to sustain the living standard or pay back the debt and reduce the living standard?

If a family takes on debt to increase their living standards, are they really getting richer or actually poorer?

The basic principles also do apply to nations, thus borrowing to sustain a living standard which is above ones ability, a standard that has been reached by debt in the first place, its unsustainable and an economic fallacy, thus making the nation even poorer by taking on more debt, not richer, and not in any way being a rescue package.

Fiscal stimulus policy is supposed to be in the form of investment! Besides, it is a little bit of a stretch to compare the finances of a family and a country that has the worlds largest economy.
 
Fiscal stimulus policy is supposed to be in the form of investment! Besides, it is a little bit of a stretch to compare the finances of a family and a country that has the worlds largest economy.

Yes, that is stretchy, but when the situation is so bad, and people in the west are living above ability because of debt they cannot afford to pay, then its kind of getting comparable.

The stimulus package is in a way the same as an indebted family that has taken on too much debt and now struggles with the down payment, and then borrows money to sustain the lifestyle they had before the down payments increased to unbarable levels. In reality they are getting poorer, while their lifestyle is the same, eventually a correction MUST happen.

Personally I believe this economic crisis is partly due to a global correction. Our discussion about Germany and such is a scenario like this is quite interesting to look at especially considered their potential income(exports) vs external debt rates, which is much more sustainable than for example the UK, or even the US. Its also interesting to look at GDP vs debt, with especially the UK as worthy mention, have they actually become richer or poorer the last 20 years? How about that debt level vs their GDP per person level, and living standards..? In my HUMBLE opinion the UK is just completely offroad and heading for disaster. The US is quite better of, while for example Germany is very fair off, especially considering the enormous wealth of their companies compared to the enormous total debt of UK companies, and I believe a somewhat disturbing ration in US companies as well. Personal savings rates are also interesting, especially considering the UK have none, while the rest of Europe is between 10-20% of GDP. And also personal debt levels which are highest in the UK of any country in the west per capital.

In my opinion taken into consideration these numbers, do you consider the UK to be one of the poorest economies in Europe or not? Do you accept this way of thinking, rather than just pointing at GDP?
 
Personally I believe this economic crisis is partly due to a global correction. Our discussion about Germany and such is a scenario like this is quite interesting to look at especially considered their potential income(exports) vs external debt rates, which is much more sustainable than for example the UK, or even the US. Its also interesting to look at GDP vs debt, with especially the UK as worthy mention, have they actually become richer or poorer the last 20 years? How about that debt level vs their GDP per person level, and living standards..? In my HUMBLE opinion the UK is just completely offroad and heading for disaster. The US is quite better of, while for example Germany is very fair off, especially considering the enormous wealth of their companies compared to the enormous total debt of UK companies, and I believe a somewhat disturbing ration in US companies as well. Personal savings rates are also interesting, especially considering the UK have none, while the rest of Europe is between 10-20% of GDP. And also personal debt levels which are highest in the UK of any country in the west per capital.

Savings rates are an arbitrary comparison (IMHO) because Americans and to a lesser extent, the British, rely heavily on financial services and investment. The common analogy is that 10% of the population hold 60% of the wealth; therefore are we to assume that 60% of the wealth is not investing heavily? I find it hard to believe the wealthy (the majority of income earners) spend more on consumption, as a % of their disposable income, than the typical family of 4.

In my opinion taken into consideration these numbers, do you consider the UK to be one of the poorest economies in Europe or not? Do you accept this way of thinking, rather than just pointing at GDP?

"Poor" is a very loose term when describing a country with a high gdp/capita. Believe it or not, Norway has the sixth highest rate of external debt per capita in the world, with the UK coming in third. But when you measure external debt/ GDP, UK is really bad ($10 trillion + external debt/$2 trillion + economy). source

Germany has $4 trillion + in external debt with a $2.8 trillion + GDP, while Norway is nearly equal. Source

I am not overly impressed with the external debt/gdp ratio of any "developed" European country, most especially Ireland!
 
Savings rates are an arbitrary comparison (IMHO) because Americans and to a lesser extent, the British, rely heavily on financial services and investment. The common analogy is that 10% of the population hold 60% of the wealth; therefore are we to assume that 60% of the wealth is not investing heavily? I find it hard to believe the wealthy (the majority of income earners) spend more on consumption, as a % of their disposable income, than the typical family of 4.

Interesting.. But considering UK growth based on debts and "spent" rather than saved savings, doesn't this account for a gap in GDP numbers, that otherwise would not be there?

Personally I believe in a "save when times are good, spend when times are bad", which equals in todays reality that the UK people and the US people have nothing to spend, while people in many European countries have a fortune to spend, so the UK and the US seems not to be following that type of economic policy, because times have been good and they have spend, and now times are bad and they have nothing to spend.
The US and the UK have a bigger stock market capitalization however, but do you not consider that a great loss considered where we are, compared to more stable "traditional ways" of saving?

"Poor" is a very loose term when describing a country with a high gdp/capita. Believe it or not, Norway has the sixth highest rate of external debt per capita in the world, with the UK coming in third. But when you measure external debt/ GDP, UK is really bad ($10 trillion + external debt/$2 trillion + economy). source

Germany has $4 trillion + in external debt with a $2.8 trillion + GDP, while Norway is nearly equal. Source

I am not overly impressed with the external debt/gdp ratio of any "developed" European country, most especially Ireland!

Poor and rich is very interesting to think about in other perspective than just production, especially.

Actually, I have known for a long time that Norway is overrated, its not ACTUALLY a rich country with rich people, mostly a rich state, and as you point out not even the state can in reality be considered rich. Its interesting about Scandinavia if you compare Norway to Denmark and Sweden, that after paid housing and food, because of prices, Norwegians are left with the least left over money for other things. Thats even before our extreme costs for things like buying and owning a car, which is also expensive in Denmark, and our humongous costs for "pleasure" in form of for example tobacco and alcohol which is rather popular in the scandinavian countries. So in the end you can conclude that a Norwegian who lives in a house, buys food, drives a car and use either/or both tobacco and alcohol is a far poorer man than his Swedish or Danish counterpart.

Also its interesting to look at work habits, and this is where it starts getting interesting with Norway vs the rest of Scandinavia, Norway vs Europe, Europe vs the US and so fourth. Because Norwegians work a LOT, they put in most hours of overtime of anyone in scandinavia, but why is that? I think because its the Norwegian population is considerably poorer than their Swedish neighbours..

Try explaining and talking about this with any other Norwegian than me, and he will lock down in "nationalist/we are best" modus just like Americans get when I talk about realities with them that contradict their rose tainted picture of their own country.

Housing is also incredibly important, the quality of such.. Norwegians for example spend a fortune on improving their housing, most in Europe I believe while a "comparable" country Belgium lets their housing rot in the hope the EU institutions will buy them and tear them down to make room for European Union buildings.

Ahhr, anyways, lots of interesting topics in reality. What has always and will always be very clear to me personally is that wealth is measured in a far different way than just GDP(production, activity).
 
Ahhr, anyways, lots of interesting topics in reality. What has always and will always be very clear to me personally is that wealth is measured in a far different way than just GDP(production, activity).

You mean development. Wealth is based on assets and income (production).

Depending on your definition of development, Cuba is sometimes considered a "developed" nation... Don't ask me:confused:
 
Personally I believe this economic crisis is partly due to a global correction. Our discussion about Germany and such is a scenario like this is quite interesting to look at especially considered their potential income(exports) vs external debt rates, which is much more sustainable than for example the UK, or even the US. Its also interesting to look at GDP vs debt, with especially the UK as worthy mention, have they actually become richer or poorer the last 20 years? How about that debt level vs their GDP per person level, and living standards..? In my HUMBLE opinion the UK is just completely offroad and heading for disaster.
Max we have had ample proof that not only do you not know what you are talking about but that you say most of this anti-UK stuff because of the general anti-EU feeling here. If the UK people were enthusiastic Europhiles I'm sure you'd soon change your tune.
 
Flag burning in protest to the governments actions is considered patriotic. I guess you're not much of a patriot...


LMFAO

No where but in the idiotic minds of leftist losers is such an act considered patriotic.
 
You mean development. Wealth is based on assets and income (production).

Depending on your definition of development, Cuba is sometimes considered a "developed" nation... Don't ask me:confused:

Some parts of development counts in wealth! Take housing standards for example. Many nations are "rich" but have poor housing, while others are "poor" and have excellent housing. National assets for example surely include things like infrastructure and cities, not just production.

Cuba isn't developed nor rich.
 
Max we have had ample proof that not only do you not know what you are talking about but that you say most of this anti-UK stuff because of the general anti-EU feeling here. If the UK people were enthusiastic Europhiles I'm sure you'd soon change your tune.

No, I wouldnt.. If the UK took some responsibility and completely reformed their economy, then I would change my opinion.
 
No, I wouldnt.. If the UK took some responsibility and completely reformed their economy, then I would change my opinion.

"completely reform?
To what? Pre Thatcher?

When the EU lands had employment struggles, the UK was enjoying low unemployment.

What should be "reformed"?
 
Thats not evidence that "no one has read it", its just his opinion.. But it is reasonable however.. Why in the world is the document 1100 pages in the first place in a time where government need to try to be more transparent?

Good point. It is very scary that any form of "free" government would deliberately create such an enormous pile of words with the principal that the tax payers will pay for it while not premitting us to see it!!!. What was the "RUSH" to get this through? Why not wait for a full review by scholars and economists and the media? To know now that our government thinks so little of its people is reason to overthrow it by any and all means. Is this what we voted for? Is this representation? We have obvioulsy become passive sheep and WE HAVE RECEIVED WHAT WE DESERVE.
 
Obama promised that all bills would be available for 5 days before he signs them.


He lied.
 
so what you are saying is we know little about it.


How about. Can you think of a better way to stimulate the economy other than mice conservation?
Listen up Rush... er, Rev. It's not mice conservation. That's just another in a long list of deceit from your side of the isle.
 
If a family takes on debts to increase their living standards and then all of the sudden they have taken on too much debt, is it then sane to borrow money to sustain the living standard or pay back the debt and reduce the living standard?

If a family takes on debt to increase their living standards, are they really getting richer or actually poorer?

The basic principles also do apply to nations, thus borrowing to sustain a living standard which is above ones ability, a standard that has been reached by debt in the first place, its unsustainable and an economic fallacy, thus making the nation even poorer by taking on more debt, not richer, and not in any way being a rescue package.

Repubs got us in the mess we are in. Did you vote repub in the election?
 
Do you know who that is?

Eh he looked this:

Biggus.jpg
 
Do you know who that is?
My apologies for not knowing what country every poster is from. Mea cupla...

Regardless, he talks like a repub. The repubs burned through our surplus and doubled the debt in 6 years but didn't start being fiscally conscientious until they lost their majority. Suddenly they care about the debt we are laying on our progeny. It sounds like a ploy.. let's spend all the money helping out our corporate buddies and when the money isd gone we'll blame it on the dems.
 
Back
Top Bottom