• 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!

Obama ‘Agnostic’ on Deficit Cuts, Won’t Prejudge Tax Increases

It was not close. Your spewing Obama fear mongering talking points. As The link I used points out it was very close to Reagan.

The early 80's recession was a steep and harsh one, because Volker finally called for an end to the high inflation rates of the US. He raised the fed funds rates to very high levels, which caused a decrease in overall economic activity. That is why that recession occured

This recession is due to deb fueled bubbles being burst. When a debt fueled bubble bursts you tend to see deflation. In a heavily indebted nation deflation is the last thing you want to see as it makes debt repayment harder and harder. Overall you end up with a downward spiral that causes economic activity to decrease, leading to further deflation and so on
 
The early 80's recession was a steep and harsh one, because Volker finally called for an end to the high inflation rates of the US. He raised the fed funds rates to very high levels, which caused a decrease in overall economic activity. That is why that recession occured

This recession is due to deb fueled bubbles being burst. When a debt fueled bubble bursts you tend to see deflation. In a heavily indebted nation deflation is the last thing you want to see as it makes debt repayment harder and harder. Overall you end up with a downward spiral that causes economic activity to decrease, leading to further deflation and so on

Wow, finally someone with some understanding in economics and finance.
 
you're the one forecasting inflation sufficient to finance ONE TRIL OF SERVICE PAYMENTS per year

LOL!

i'm afraid this time keynes has simply bit off more than any economist (or waiter at applebees) can chew

america simply cannot afford ONE TRIL per year of INTEREST

despite cyclical smoothing

regardless of what many of the foremost financial minds on the planet (LOL!) say

we simply cannot afford it

sorry
 
you're the one forecasting inflation sufficient to finance ONE TRIL OF SERVICE PAYMENTS per year

LOL!

i'm afraid this time keynes has simply bit off more than any economist (or waiter at applebees) can chew

america simply cannot afford ONE TRIL per year of INTEREST

despite cyclical smoothing

regardless of what many of the foremost financial minds on the planet (LOL!) say

we simply cannot afford it

sorry

Sure the US can withstand 1 trillion of interest, if the economy was double the size it is today. A high enough inflation rate can make that occur within 4 years say about 18%
 
Sure the US can withstand 1 trillion of interest, if the economy was double the size it is today. A high enough inflation rate can make that occur within 4 years say about 18%

18% will be a bit high, and i highly doubt the fed will allow it to get that far. But 6%-8% will be more likely IMHO; combined with economic growth and higher taxes, the treasury will not have any problems.
 
you're the one forecasting inflation sufficient to finance ONE TRIL OF SERVICE PAYMENTS per year

LOL!

i'm afraid this time keynes has simply bit off more than any economist (or waiter at applebees) can chew

america simply cannot afford ONE TRIL per year of INTEREST

despite cyclical smoothing

regardless of what many of the foremost financial minds on the planet (LOL!) say

we simply cannot afford it

sorry

Why have you not answered my question?
 
Nope!

The last time short term treasury yields were 0% was???? That's right, 1930's. The entire world braced for impact and luckily Ben began printing like a mad man. While i fault the stimulus for being puny, it was better than no stimulus.

And to be entirely technical, short term treasuries were in a state of negative yields first quarter 2009. That has never happened before.

More Obama talking points. Obama has done nothing except increase the debt.

This was a Reagan like recession not even close to a depression.

It is and will continue to get worse because of Obama policies. The one thing you fail to see is the inflation during Reagan Obama does not have that so this recession is close to Reagan because of that.

Politifacts in order to show that this is worse than Reagan did not look at inflation.

Laffer: Obama's 'Train Wreck' Ahead - HUMAN EVENTS


Arthur Laffer, creator of the Laffer Curve that showed how low tax rates boost economic growth, is warning anyone who will listen that the economy is headed for a “train wreck” in 2011 that will make the current recession look tame by comparison.

The famed economist, whose supply-side, tax-cutting policies enacted by President Reagan in 1981 put the economy on a record-breaking, 25-year economic trajectory of growth and prosperity, is telling Americans not to be lulled by sporadic signs of growth this year, because the economy is headed for a sharper decline next year when tax rates are expected to jump sharply, sending the economy into a new tailspin.

“It will make the decline in U.S. output from 2010 to 2011 worse than the decline in output in 2008 and 2009 which will catastrophic,” Laffer said in an interview with HUMAN EVENTS.


In a wide-ranging discussion about where the economy is headed, and the fiscal, tax and monetary reasons why, Laffer gives a bleak forecast of where President Obama and his administration are taking the country in the next three years -- which he predicts will end with Obama’s defeat in 2012.

“Obama is a fine, very impressive person. He really is. Unfortunately, everything that he is doing in economics is exactly wrong. He is a crappy president,” Laffer said.

“Whenever a country is in the throes of spending too much and raising taxes, it’s a fiscal catastrophe in the making and this is what is happening now,” he said.

The economy in the short-term this year “will continue to improve, growing by more than 4 percent. By the end of 2010 the unemployment rate could fall to as low as 7 percent and the Obama administration will be busting with pride and conceit,” Laffer told his clients in his latest economic outlook for the year ahead.

But don’t be fooled into thinking the economy is actually coming out of one of the worst recessions of the post-war era, because this year will be a false recovery, he adds. The downturn will begin again when “2011 will enter center stage, followed quickly by an economic catastrophe. All the factors that will make 2010 (and have already made the last half of 2009) look so good will reverse direction, and 2011 will be a train wreck,” he said in his forecast.

The big reason, among several, is Obama’s plan to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire at the end of this year, and other tax increases the Obama administration intends to enact this year and next, and how businesses will respond to these tax changes.

“In anticipation of known tax increases the economy will shift income and output from 2011 -- the higher tax year -- into 2010 -- the lower tax year. As a result of this income shift, 2010 will look a lot better than it should, and 2011 will be a train wreck,” he predicts.

“GDP growth in 2010 will be some 3 to 4 percent higher than it otherwise should be, thus green shoots,” he said. “The transfer of income from 2011 into 2010 will not only make 2010 [economic growth] higher than it otherwise would be, it will also make 2011 [economic growth] 3 and 4 percent lower than it otherwise should be because people have shifted income out of 2011 into 2010.”
 
Sure the US can withstand 1 trillion of interest, if the economy was double the size it is today. A high enough inflation rate can make that occur within 4 years say about 18%

IF the economy is DOUBLE the size it is today

in FOUR years

LOL!

voila!

these keynesians, man...

they're just like MAGICIANS!

LOL!

unfortunately, the rabbit is DEAD
 
Last edited:
Why do you think this recession is closer to the Reagan Carter one rather then the depression?

It could very well be due to the massive governmental stimulus that has been enacted from a rather early point in the economic crisis.

Or more to the point, what do you think would have happened to the economy without the government spending that has led to the massive deficit

I think the capitalism would take over and the market would repair itself.

Obama did all he could to destroy capitalism through this economic downturn.
 
The early 80's recession was a steep and harsh one, because Volker finally called for an end to the high inflation rates of the US. He raised the fed funds rates to very high levels, which caused a decrease in overall economic activity. That is why that recession occured

This recession is due to deb fueled bubbles being burst. When a debt fueled bubble bursts you tend to see deflation. In a heavily indebted nation deflation is the last thing you want to see as it makes debt repayment harder and harder. Overall you end up with a downward spiral that causes economic activity to decrease, leading to further deflation and so on

Yet Obama does not have the inflation problem. If Obama had used the Reagan plan would we still be in a deep recession?
 
18% will be a bit high, and i highly doubt the fed will allow it to get that far. But 6%-8% will be more likely IMHO; combined with economic growth and higher taxes, the treasury will not have any problems.

There will be little growth without Jobs.. We are still seeing hundreds of thousands lose jobs each month.
 
IF the economy is DOUBLE the size it is today

in FOUR years

LOL!

voila!

these keynesians, man...

they're just like MAGICIANS!

LOL!

unfortunately, the rabbit is DEAD

Not Magic

But a way to deal with excess/bad debts at the expense of the lenders.

It is what Italy, Mexico, Greece, Turkey have done in the past.

The other option is deflation.

Typically deflation is more of a problem for economies then inflation
 
Yet Obama does not have the inflation problem. If Obama had used the Reagan plan would we still be in a deep recession?

Yes, and even worse then what it is now

Reagans admin did not have a debt bubble collapse as the cause of the recession

Volker intentionally caused the Reagan recession to battle inflation and get it under control
 
EIGHTEEN PERCENT INFLATION!!!

LOL!

THE CURE!

these keynesians really have that POPULIST touch
 
I think the capitalism would take over and the market would repair itself.

Obama did all he could to destroy capitalism through this economic downturn.

Eventually it would

But in the meantime more business would have gone under, from the banks to the auto industry (not just the big three but most of their suppliers as well.

This would have resulted in more unemployement then we have now, leading to more foresclosures on homes, and even more banks going under.

Overall there were two choices to be made. An extremely hard economic collapse, having massive unemployement, resulting in the loss of trillions of capital for everyone. This would last for about 3 years, but would have unemployment at levels higher then the great depression (and no unemployement/welfare programs to help people with). Followed by economic growth and it would be fairly rapid. The economic and social hardships would be difficult to describe in actual harshness, but lets just say strong potential for revolution. The second choice is what was choosen. To spread out the harm from the massive debt bubble over an extended period of time, and to spread it out to nearly everyone. This will last for at least 10 years, and economic growth will be muted for an extended period of time. 70's style stagflation is what should come to mind.
 
Last edited:
Eventually it would

But in the meantime more business would have gone under, from the banks to the auto industry (not just the big three but most of their suppliers as well.

This would have resulted in more unemployement then we have now, leading to more foresclosures on homes, and even more banks going under.

Overall there were two choices to be made. An extremely hard economic collapse, having massive unemployement, resulting in the loss of trillions of capital for everyone. This would last for about 3 years, but would have unemployment at levels higher then the great depression (and no unemployement/welfare programs to help people with). The economic and social hardships would be difficult to describe in actual harshness, but lets just say strong potential for revolution

The second choice is what was choosen. To spread out the harm from the massive debt bubble over an extended period of time, and to spread it out to nearly everyone. This will last for at least 10 years, and economic growth will be muted for an extended period of time. 70's style stagflation is what should come to mind.

Followed by economic growth and it would be fairly rapid

It should be noted that the stagflation of the early 70's and 80's was the result of exogenous supply shocks. Barring a similar shock, stagflation does look to be on the horizon.
 
Yes, and even worse then what it is now

Reagans admin did not have a debt bubble collapse as the cause of the recession

Volker intentionally caused the Reagan recession to battle inflation and get it under control

Nice try but notice Obama is not doing anything to help the private sector create jobs. The government can not get us out of a recession by spending. We need the private sector to hire people. What we have now is still job loss showing Obama's plan is not working. Obama is doing the same thing as they did during the depression which prolonged it. Obama will make this recession last longer than it should.
 
Eventually it would

But in the meantime more business would have gone under, from the banks to the auto industry (not just the big three but most of their suppliers as well.

This would have resulted in more unemployement then we have now, leading to more foresclosures on homes, and even more banks going under.

Overall there were two choices to be made. An extremely hard economic collapse, having massive unemployement, resulting in the loss of trillions of capital for everyone. This would last for about 3 years, but would have unemployment at levels higher then the great depression (and no unemployement/welfare programs to help people with). Followed by economic growth and it would be fairly rapid. The economic and social hardships would be difficult to describe in actual harshness, but lets just say strong potential for revolution. The second choice is what was choosen. To spread out the harm from the massive debt bubble over an extended period of time, and to spread it out to nearly everyone. This will last for at least 10 years, and economic growth will be muted for an extended period of time. 70's style stagflation is what should come to mind.

You mean the choice of a control freak to take over banks and business.

It did little to help. Big banks would have taken over smaller banks. Wait that happened. If the banks were so bad how is they are already paying back the money and showing large profits. All that in a year?

Shows me the Obama administration made it seem worse than what it was. More of the Obama fear tactics at work.
 
You mean the choice of a control freak to take over banks and business.

It did little to help. Big banks would have taken over smaller banks. Wait that happened. If the banks were so bad how is they are already paying back the money and showing large profits. All that in a year?

Shows me the Obama administration made it seem worse than what it was. More of the Obama fear tactics at work.

Um

Do you not remember the majority of the banking bailouts takeovers were done under the Bush Admin, not the Obama admin

The banks have recieved hundreds of billions of dollars in direct and indirect aid

The AIG bailout provided 180 billion dollars to worldwide banks, banks that could have gone under without that 180 billion of government money.

The fed has increased its balance sheet from just a few hundred billion to over 2 trillion dollars, most of that increase is from mortgages that banks would have had to declare as loss's on their balance sheet.

The banks are also reaping massive profits from buyint US government Tbills using money borrowed from the fed. Gaining profits from the US taxpayer.

All the bank profits are due to government actions in the financial industry. Without the government actions over the last 3 years, not one of the big banks would be around today
 
Um

Do you not remember the majority of the banking bailouts takeovers were done under the Bush Admin, not the Obama admin

The banks have recieved hundreds of billions of dollars in direct and indirect aid

The AIG bailout provided 180 billion dollars to worldwide banks, banks that could have gone under without that 180 billion of government money.

The fed has increased its balance sheet from just a few hundred billion to over 2 trillion dollars, most of that increase is from mortgages that banks would have had to declare as loss's on their balance sheet.

The banks are also reaping massive profits from buyint US government Tbills using money borrowed from the fed. Gaining profits from the US taxpayer.

All the bank profits are due to government actions in the financial industry. Without the government actions over the last 3 years, not one of the big banks would be around today

No they were done by Obama. Bush gave money Obama mad demands and put on stipulations.

All was the government you are drunk on the Koolaid.

Banks would have survived. Notice Obama was selective what banks he let fail.
 
No they were done by Obama. Bush gave money Obama mad demands and put on stipulations.

All was the government you are drunk on the Koolaid.

Banks would have survived. Notice Obama was selective what banks he let fail.

CBC News - Money - U.S. government announces AIG bailout plan

AIG Bailout Sept 2008 before Obama was elected

Bear Stearns government assisted takeover in March 2008, before Obama was elected

JPMorgan Buys Bear on the Cheap

Lehman Bro failure in Sept 2008 before Obama was elected

Lehman files for bankruptcy, plans to sell units | Reuters


Tarp was passed in Oct 2008 before Obama was elected

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program[/ame]


Fannie Mae Freddie Mac, both placed under government conservatorship in Sept 08. Before Obama was elected

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae[/ame]

The only bailout that was specifically pushed by Obama was the auto sector bailout. All others were started by Bush and co

I suggest getting off the koolaid yourself and starting getting the actual facts, rather then talk radio bull manure


Now if you continue to suggest Obama pushed Bush into making those bailouts before the election even took place, I would have to ask,

Did Bush fix the election to get Obama into office. Otherwise why not do what McCaine wanted?
 
Last edited:
In case anyone missed the memo.....

Markets do not always self correct. :2wave:
 
CBC News - Money - U.S. government announces AIG bailout plan

AIG Bailout Sept 2008 before Obama was elected

Bear Stearns government assisted takeover in March 2008, before Obama was elected

JPMorgan Buys Bear on the Cheap

Lehman Bro failure in Sept 2008 before Obama was elected

Lehman files for bankruptcy, plans to sell units | Reuters


Tarp was passed in Oct 2008 before Obama was elected

Troubled Asset Relief Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Fannie Mae Freddie Mac, both placed under government conservatorship in Sept 08. Before Obama was elected

Fannie Mae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The only bailout that was specifically pushed by Obama was the auto sector bailout. All others were started by Bush and co

I suggest getting off the koolaid yourself and starting getting the actual facts, rather then talk radio bull manure


Now if you continue to suggest Obama pushed Bush into making those bailouts before the election even took place, I would have to ask,

Did Bush fix the election to get Obama into office. Otherwise why not do what McCaine wanted?

Bailouts yes. Obama put stipulations on the money and demands. In some cases he fired people and put his choice in place.

Bush did not do this he is not a control freak like the man in the White house today

This money was put there by the democrat led congress. Bush made sure he left half the money for Obama.
 
Last edited:
In case anyone missed the memo.....

Markets do not always self correct. :2wave:

Now you will say Obama did it?
JC-hysterical.gif
 
Bailouts yes. Obama put stipulations on the money and demands. In some cases he fired people and put his choice in place.

Bush did not do this he is not a control freak like the man in the White house today

This money was put there by the democrat led congress.

If the business did not want government to interfere then they should not have come crawling to the government for money.

And yes lenders of money have the right to put conditions on the corporations to be able to get that money and to keep the loan. The government lent GM money, and felt that the CEO in charge was not the one that would see the government getting paid back, and said either he goes or no government money
 
Back
Top Bottom