|
On November 03 2010 03:17 Dimenus wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 03:11 Savio wrote:On November 03 2010 03:03 Lobotomist wrote:
Too many people expect that you can just fix the economy. As if, because he's been in power for 2 years, Obama should have brought the US back to a pre-Bush economic state. There really hasn't been a president that took office after a financial collapse and returned the country to pre-collapse state on their own. Even FDR couldn't (until the war of course, which wasn't him as much as circumstance that).
Maybe Reagan? This: + Show Spoiler +When President Reagan took office in January of 1981 he was faced with a recession, double digit inflation, weak economic growth, a Fed Funds rate of 19% (its highest level ever), and an unemployment rate of 11% (the highest since World War II). At the end of his Presidential term in January of 1989 the rate of inflation had fallen from 12% to 4%, he had succeeded in helping the economy begin to grow at a rate of 6% annually, and unemployment was down to 7%. ![[image loading]](http://www.icmarc.org/ImageCache/rc/content/marketview/chart/2004/20040610reaganslegacy_2ectt/v2/image_5b_40id_3d_22chart_22_5d/1/chart20040610.gif) --http://www.icmarc.org/xp/rc/marketview/chart/2004/20040610reaganslegacy.html Led to: + Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://uspoliticsguide.com/images/Presidents-history/1984-electoral-map.gif) 2nd Term FTW! No..... The 80-81 recession was caused by the Fed on PURPOSE to head off inflation. Paul Volcker raised the fed interest rate drastically to kill the massive inflation (13.5%). This recession we are in now and the recession of 80-81 are completely different beasts.
Actually Volcker raised the FFR to kill stagflation of the '70s, which is a must more dangerous beast than inflation alone.
edit: okay, it's really just the inflation aspect of stagflation. My derp.
edit2: Volcker did NOT cause the recession of 80-81 via FFR increase though, there was already a worldwide recession from the 70's. The FFR increase was to halt further stagflation. The 70's recession, as I understand it, was caused by inappropriate monetary responses to economic conditions, such as monetary stimulus.
edit3: Upon further research, he did cause the recession of 80-81, but it was to halt stagflation. Okay, got it now I think. It's been awhile since I studied this :D
|
"Living breathing" was a poor choice of words. Let me clarify, to me by amending the constitution an average of once every 13 years, including as recently as 1992 does make it a living document. I was referring to it as a document that can change as times progress.
Also, interpretation is not a black and white issue. Someone has to define what "cruel and unusual" means. Whether or not someone has to be a member of a "well regulated militia" in order to own a gun. In order for our system to work there does need to be some interpretation of the document.
|
On November 03 2010 03:28 Savio wrote:Some interesting images contrasting Bush and Obamas response to current recession vs Reagan's response to his recession. Both looking over a 31 month period: ![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2YvXTEZIY7Q/THGIu_sC2PI/AAAAAAAAA98/SeHq7L_6eoQ/s1600/1+-+Bush+Obama+Jobs.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2YvXTEZIY7Q/THGJFA3p-xI/AAAAAAAAA-E/QgC5twSnKc4/s1600/1+-+Reagan+Jobs.jpg) + Show Spoiler +Original data comes from Bureau of Labor Statistics. Text of interventions added in by 3rd party "LibertyWorks.com" Bush and Obama: Bailouts, and "jobs bills" Reagan: Tax cuts
Those graphs reminds me of when ATI and Nvidia are presenting their new graphics cards.
|
On November 03 2010 03:37 ey215 wrote:
"Living breathing" was a poor choice of words. Let me clarify, to me by amending the constitution an average of once every 13 years, including as recently as 1992 does make it a living document. I was referring to it as a document that can change as times progress.
You should be aware that typically when someone calls the Constitution a "living and breathing" document, they are referring to their policy preference of interpreting it to allow modern policies, not the fact that it can be amended by a fairly strict process.
|
On November 03 2010 03:32 Dimenus wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 03:28 Savio wrote:
Some interesting images contrasting Bush and Obamas response to current recession vs Reagan's response to his recession. Both looking over a 31 month period:
Bush and Obama: Bailouts, and "jobs bills"
Reagan: Tax cuts Why are you not responding to what I wrote? Reagan's recession was CAUSED BY THE FED. Stop comparing two recessions that were caused by completely different things.
I didn't respond to this because it didn't deserve a response. Every recession has a different cause, and we were never talking about what the cause of these 2 recessions were, we were talking about the presidents' response to the recession they had.
Before you get all happy about that graph, you should look at the little box at the bottom of each division that says "total cumulative tax cuts/increases"
Total cumulative tax cuts: -275.3 Billion
Total cumulative tax increases: 132.7 Billion
Edit: Also that very same writer points out that Reagan did most of his tax increases during the "expansion" that followed the recovery and not during the recession itself. The writer attributes this to the fact that Reagan "actually cared enough about budget deficits that [he] thought raising taxes was necessary to bring them down"
There is a fundamental difference between the approach Bush and Obama took to their recession and the one Reagan took to his. So far, Bush and Obama's approach has been unsuccessful.
|
Can we all just come together and be excited that we voted today? I love me some voting. Gives me the right to bitch and moan later when things go wrong! :D
|
On November 03 2010 03:45 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 03:37 ey215 wrote:
"Living breathing" was a poor choice of words. Let me clarify, to me by amending the constitution an average of once every 13 years, including as recently as 1992 does make it a living document. I was referring to it as a document that can change as times progress. You should be aware that typically when someone calls the Constitution a "living and breathing" document, they are referring to their policy preference of interpreting it to allow modern policies, not the fact that it can be amended by a fairly strict process.
I am now, hence why I rephrased. 
|
just voted.
wow that was easy. fast, efficient. thank you new york state for not ruining my afternoon!
|
United States7481 Posts
did you vote for jimmy mcmillan?
|
On November 03 2010 03:47 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 03:32 Dimenus wrote:On November 03 2010 03:28 Savio wrote:
Some interesting images contrasting Bush and Obamas response to current recession vs Reagan's response to his recession. Both looking over a 31 month period:
Bush and Obama: Bailouts, and "jobs bills"
Reagan: Tax cuts Why are you not responding to what I wrote? Reagan's recession was CAUSED BY THE FED. Stop comparing two recessions that were caused by completely different things. I didn't respond to this because it didn't deserve a response. Every recession has a different cause, and we were never talking about what the cause of these 2 recessions were, we were talking about the presidents' response to the recession they had. Before you get all happy about that graph, you should look at the little box at the bottom of each division that says "total cumulative tax cuts/increases" Total cumulative tax cuts: -275.3 Billion Total cumulative tax increases: 132.7 Billion Edit: Also that very same writer points out that Reagan did most of his tax increases during the "expansion" that followed the recovery. There is a fundamental difference between the approach Bush and Obama took to their recession and the one Reagan took to his. So far, Bush and Obama's approach has been unsuccessful.
What I'm trying to point out is you can't use the same recovery for two different recessions which were caused by different things. We had a supply side cutback in 80-81, and lowering the rate back down in compliation with tax cuts was a GOOD idea in that situation, I'm not debating that point.
I'm saying that your comparison sucks because you're making a false comparison. Also the middle class wasn't in severe debt like they are now, what good do tax cuts do when people are already underwater?
Edit: I agree that Bush and Obama's response was semi-unsuccessful, but Obama also has the same de-regulation idiots in his economic department that were the protege's of the idiots who caused this in the 1st place.
|
On November 03 2010 03:55 Antoine wrote:
did you vote for jimmy mcmillan?
jimmy and i are homies
but no. cuomo.
|
On November 03 2010 03:55 Dimenus wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 03:47 Savio wrote:On November 03 2010 03:32 Dimenus wrote:On November 03 2010 03:28 Savio wrote:
Some interesting images contrasting Bush and Obamas response to current recession vs Reagan's response to his recession. Both looking over a 31 month period:
Bush and Obama: Bailouts, and "jobs bills"
Reagan: Tax cuts Why are you not responding to what I wrote? Reagan's recession was CAUSED BY THE FED. Stop comparing two recessions that were caused by completely different things. I didn't respond to this because it didn't deserve a response. Every recession has a different cause, and we were never talking about what the cause of these 2 recessions were, we were talking about the presidents' response to the recession they had. Before you get all happy about that graph, you should look at the little box at the bottom of each division that says "total cumulative tax cuts/increases" Total cumulative tax cuts: -275.3 Billion Total cumulative tax increases: 132.7 Billion Edit: Also that very same writer points out that Reagan did most of his tax increases during the "expansion" that followed the recovery. There is a fundamental difference between the approach Bush and Obama took to their recession and the one Reagan took to his. So far, Bush and Obama's approach has been unsuccessful. What I'm trying to point out is you can't use the same recovery for two different recessions which were caused by different things. We had a supply side cutback in 80-81, and lowering the rate back down in compliation with tax cuts was a GOOD idea in that situation, I'm not debating that point. I'm saying that your comparison sucks because you're making a false comparison. Also the middle class wasn't in severe debt like they are now, what good do tax cuts do when people are already underwater?
The principle of cutting taxes so people have more money on hand to spend or save or whatever they like is well known. It doesn't really matter what the initial shock was to the economy that caused the recession. The point is that its better to give the people their money directly through tax cuts than to try to artificially create temporary jobs with "jobs bills" and bailouts.
Also, you admit that Reagan's actions were a good idea, but why do you think Bush's and Obama's are also good? I think Reagan's were good and Bush and Obama's were bad. So why do you think Obama's have been good and where is the evidence that they are working in any way?
|
On November 03 2010 03:47 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 03:32 Dimenus wrote:On November 03 2010 03:28 Savio wrote:
Some interesting images contrasting Bush and Obamas response to current recession vs Reagan's response to his recession. Both looking over a 31 month period:
Bush and Obama: Bailouts, and "jobs bills"
Reagan: Tax cuts Why are you not responding to what I wrote? Reagan's recession was CAUSED BY THE FED. Stop comparing two recessions that were caused by completely different things. I didn't respond to this because it didn't deserve a response. Every recession has a different cause, and we were never talking about what the cause of these 2 recessions were, we were talking about the presidents' response to the recession they had. Before you get all happy about that graph, you should look at the little box at the bottom of each division that says "total cumulative tax cuts/increases" Total cumulative tax cuts: -275.3 Billion Total cumulative tax increases: 132.7 Billion Edit: Also that very same writer points out that Reagan did most of his tax increases during the "expansion" that followed the recovery and not during the recession itself. The writer attributes this to the fact that Reagan "actually cared enough about budget deficits that [he] thought raising taxes was necessary to bring them down" There is a fundamental difference between the approach Bush and Obama took to their recession and the one Reagan took to his. So far, Bush and Obama's approach has been unsuccessful.
Your selective interpretation aside, you realize Bush began the current recession while having tax cuts, right? After inheriting a massive surplus.
Keep in mind Obama has kept tax cuts in place by Bush this far. So by your advocated tax cut mechanism, and minus Obama's stimulus and the collective bailouts, would we have had more or less jobs right now?
Regarding Obama's proposed tax cuts (yes, "cuts") which would only increasingly tax those with over 250k, which would obviously increase government revenue and decrease debt (which your side is keen to act as if it is on the side on despite that not taxing the wealthy would create almost another trillion in debt by itself), what leads you to believe that more jobs would be created by wealthy people if they were not taxed?
Meanwhile, Obama has been trying to create a tax cut for businesses, which the Republicans have blocked.
Obama has attempted, but was blocked by your party, a business tax cut for the purpose of creating jobs, a tax cut for those < 250k to allow them to spend and invest, and a tax on those above who are not going to invest any extra with the taxed income.
|
On November 03 2010 03:59 Savio wrote:
[
The principle of cutting taxes to ppl have more money on hand to spend or save or whatever they like is well known. It doesn't really matter what the initial shock was to the economy that caused the recession. The point is that its better to give the people their money directly through tax cuts than to try to artificially create temporary jobs with "jobs bills" and bailouts.
Also, you admit that Reagan's actions were a good idea, but why do you think Bush's and Obama's are also good? I think Reagan's were good and Bush and Obama's were bad. So why do you think Obama's have been good and where is the evidence that they are working in any way?
There is no multiplier in giving the RICH a massive tax decrease during a demand caused recession. Things like big ass boats, bigger ass houses, and biggest ass novelty items have no multiplier. The middle class having money to spend is what drives the demand portion of our economy. The rich are not constrained by cash on hand, they're constrained by their desires, that's why in THIS recession money is better spent in the hands of the poor/middle class because they HAVE to spend it (unemployment benefits). Tax cuts for the rich are not cost effective in a demand fueled recession and might actually make the economy worse due to the massive loss in revenue. It's not as if the private economy operates completely independent of any government RnD or services they provide. The cutbacks to pay for the taxcuts wouldn't make for a very dependable net gain. That's why I would advocate infrastructure spending in this case, to put more people back to work giving them money to spend.
I admit Reagan's actions were kind of good from a feel good perspective, not that they were necessarily good from a monetary perspective. (Reagan tripled the national debt in 8 years).
I don't think Bush's response was good at all. Blank check to the banks hello TARP. Obama's wasn't good but wasn't as terrible, the auto industry is at least profitable now and the execs were replaced.
|
I don't think Bush's response was good at all. Blank check to the banks hello TARP. Obama's wasn't good but wasn't as terrible, the auto industry is at least profitable now and the execs were replaced.
That is kind of an odd dichotomy considering the banks have repaid TARP and both Obama and Bush and their economic advisors believed it was necessary to bail them out (and it probably was).
|
Voted Reid; Angle scares me. 
|
On November 03 2010 04:12 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +I don't think Bush's response was good at all. Blank check to the banks hello TARP. Obama's wasn't good but wasn't as terrible, the auto industry is at least profitable now and the execs were replaced. That is kind of an odd dichotomy considering the banks have repaid TARP and both Obama and Bush and their economic advisors believed it was necessary to bail them out (and it probably was).
Yeah that is probably a bad call on my part, inner partisan speaking out. My beef with Bush was more the lack of regulation in regards to the bailout, not the actual bailout itself. I agree things would of been catastrophic had it not been for the bailout. It sucks because you hate to have to bail them out for being dickwads, but so many more people would suffer without.
Obama and Bush have a majority of the same Chicago School advisors though. Summers and Orzag are shmucks =/.
|
On November 03 2010 04:07 Servolisk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 03:47 Savio wrote:On November 03 2010 03:32 Dimenus wrote:On November 03 2010 03:28 Savio wrote:
Some interesting images contrasting Bush and Obamas response to current recession vs Reagan's response to his recession. Both looking over a 31 month period:
Bush and Obama: Bailouts, and "jobs bills"
Reagan: Tax cuts Why are you not responding to what I wrote? Reagan's recession was CAUSED BY THE FED. Stop comparing two recessions that were caused by completely different things. I didn't respond to this because it didn't deserve a response. Every recession has a different cause, and we were never talking about what the cause of these 2 recessions were, we were talking about the presidents' response to the recession they had. Before you get all happy about that graph, you should look at the little box at the bottom of each division that says "total cumulative tax cuts/increases" Total cumulative tax cuts: -275.3 Billion Total cumulative tax increases: 132.7 Billion Edit: Also that very same writer points out that Reagan did most of his tax increases during the "expansion" that followed the recovery and not during the recession itself. The writer attributes this to the fact that Reagan "actually cared enough about budget deficits that [he] thought raising taxes was necessary to bring them down" There is a fundamental difference between the approach Bush and Obama took to their recession and the one Reagan took to his. So far, Bush and Obama's approach has been unsuccessful. Your selective interpretation aside, you realize Bush began the current recession while having tax cuts, right? After inheriting a massive surplus.
I'm pretty sure the sub-prime mortgage bubble had something to do with the creation of the initial shock that caused the recession, not the tax cuts. I don't believe his cuts were done in response to a recession but before it making the application irrelevant since the topic of discussion is "Presidents' response to recession" NOT "causes of recessions".
Obama/Bush have spent trillions of dollars in bailouts and jobs bills since the recession started and if they had just done across the board (yes even the wealthy who pay most of our taxes for us anyway) tax cuts, it would have been better in my opinion. It would be a simple bill to pass to. You don't have to restructure the current tax schedule, just say "Everyone who is paying taxes, gets 10% off this year" or whatever it is. Leave the restructuring of the tax schedule (which will always be controversial) for years when we are not in crisis and we can take our time to really debate stuff long and hard. If Obama was serious about wanting his tax cuts to go through he would have done this. Instead he tried to pass a controversial restructuring of the tax schedule in the middle of a financial crisis.
|
On November 03 2010 04:17 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 04:07 Servolisk wrote:On November 03 2010 03:47 Savio wrote:On November 03 2010 03:32 Dimenus wrote:On November 03 2010 03:28 Savio wrote:
Some interesting images contrasting Bush and Obamas response to current recession vs Reagan's response to his recession. Both looking over a 31 month period:
Bush and Obama: Bailouts, and "jobs bills"
Reagan: Tax cuts Why are you not responding to what I wrote? Reagan's recession was CAUSED BY THE FED. Stop comparing two recessions that were caused by completely different things. I didn't respond to this because it didn't deserve a response. Every recession has a different cause, and we were never talking about what the cause of these 2 recessions were, we were talking about the presidents' response to the recession they had. Before you get all happy about that graph, you should look at the little box at the bottom of each division that says "total cumulative tax cuts/increases" Total cumulative tax cuts: -275.3 Billion Total cumulative tax increases: 132.7 Billion Edit: Also that very same writer points out that Reagan did most of his tax increases during the "expansion" that followed the recovery and not during the recession itself. The writer attributes this to the fact that Reagan "actually cared enough about budget deficits that [he] thought raising taxes was necessary to bring them down" There is a fundamental difference between the approach Bush and Obama took to their recession and the one Reagan took to his. So far, Bush and Obama's approach has been unsuccessful. Your selective interpretation aside, you realize Bush began the current recession while having tax cuts, right? After inheriting a massive surplus. I'm pretty sure the sub-prime mortgage bubble had something to do with the creation of the initial shock that caused the recession, not the tax cuts. I don't believe his cuts were done in response to a recession but before it making the application irrelevant since the topic of discussion is "Presidents' response to recession" NOT "causes of recessions". Obama/Bush have spent trillions of dollars in bailouts and jobs bills since the recession started and if they had just done across the board (yes even the wealthy who pay most of our taxes for us anyway) tax cuts, it would have been better in my opinion. It would be a simple bill to pass to. You don't have to restructure the current tax schedule, just say "Everyone who is paying taxes, gets 10% off this year" or whatever it is. Leave the restructuring of the tax schedule (which will always be controversial) for years when we are not in crisis and we can take our time to really debate stuff long and hard. If Obama was serious about wanting his tax cuts to go through he would have done this. Instead he tried to pass a controversial restructuring of the tax schedule in the middle of a financial crisis.
The vast majority of it was caused by the MBS market and crediting agencies over-valuing bad mortgages. Due to stagnant inflation-adjusted income of the middle class (hello trickle down) people were using their house equity to buy more shit under the assumption that the value would always go up, and continued to build up debt. Sub-prime was part of the cause, but it wasn't the main player. Fanne and Freddie also got into the whole MBS scam and actually bought up quite a bit of the bad mortgages once their execs thought they could make lots of money off them.
Dude the SUPER rich pay less than the other 49.9 % due to the capital gains tax. The medium-rich do pay quite a bit in taxes, but the super rich are way below anyone else above even 120k. (which I'm not calling rich btw).
|
Honestly, you guys are focusing on the wrong thing. Temporary tax cuts and jobs bills are not going to save the economy if the central bank is not going to accommodate them, because ultimately, they control inflation and for some reason, are deathly afraid of it.
The Fed could easily allow the economy to recover if it was more aggressive in raising inflation expectations. And despite what Krugman thinks, no central bank has ever failed to raise inflation if it wanted to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
