Here comes the other economic shoe dropping...

[Robert_S]

Soooo... We can has manufacturing again?

I hope not. "Things you can touch but don't help feed, clothe, or shelter you" - which is to say manufactured goods - simply aren't important enough to be the foundation of a modern economy. Automobiles may be an exception, but the vast majority of autos sold in the U.S. are made here as well, albeit many under foreign nameplates.

The way to the future is through networked services, not manufactured goods.

When a good portion of disposable income goes toward imported goods, I find that statement hard to believe.

[Coito ergo sum]

He was right about the bottom 95% - the tax increase was supposed to be further down the road. After two years of his administration, tax hikes were in the plan.

Tax hikes were always the plan, obviously. Not sure what you're claiming he's right about, though. He said that nobody making under $250,000 would see a dime of tax increase, and now everyone down to the 10% bracket is going to get it in the ass with no lube and without even the courtesy of a reach-around.

And I say it's about friggin' time! RAISE MY TAXES, MR. PRESIDENT.

LOL - I love that. Nothing was stopping you from paying more before. If it's YOUR taxes you're really interested in, then why didn't you tack on another 10% or more last year?

I'll give him a BIG pass on this. And a nice sloppy kiss in the form of donations to his 2012 campaign if he has the sack to bring taxes back up.

He does. It's all part of his "fundamental transformation" that he wants to achieve. Although, even that should not deserve "a pass." The ends don't justify the means, and politicians need to be held to their word. If we say, "lie to me because I know you love me and will do good for me", then we get the politicians we deserve: fuckwad lying sacks of dog shit.

I'm sure plenty of people will whine about "getting it in the buttocks" when taxes go back up. Those are the same people who gave Bush Jr. a pass when his tax cuts drove the budget on a nosedive into trillions of dollars in red ink,

You're not concerned with red ink. If you were, you'd be REALLY fucking concerned now by the "drunken sailor on shore leave" style spending going on. Obama is on track to have increased the debt more in 2 years than Bush did in 8. And, you have the gall to complain about Bush's red ink, while "giving a pass" to BO's?

and today they blast Obama for presiding over a giant budget shortfall. No doubt they also ignore things like a stimulus package being completely inevitable whether Obama or McCain was elected, or history such as the great conservative Reagan raising taxes six times during his administration.

So that means that it's a good time to raise taxes now? The Democrat Congress raised taxes while Reagan was President, and so now, while the economy sucks donkey dick, it automatically is good to raise them now? Nobody in their right mind raises taxes in the middle of a depression.

To use a recent Obama soundbite, the conservatives are betting on people having amnesia. To hell with them. They offer nothing more than baseline theories; "lower taxes = growth". My arse. The budget has been getting it in the buttocks for nearly a decade already, and every citizen along with it.

Obama offers nothing but his grandiloquent suggestions of a fundamental transformation. He's not all that concerned in the economy recovering, or in manufacturing in the US increasing. His position on the US is well known: he thinks we've lived higher on the hog than we should have - our economy has to get smaller, not bigger, because it's unsustainable, and that industry is bad for the environment and therefore should be discouraged, not encouraged.

If you're worried about the budget deficit - 'bama ain't your man. He doesn't give a crap about it. That much is clear from his policies.

[Coito ergo sum]

Let the tax cuts expire completely, and we'll see a second dip that extends right on into 2012 - at which point the Republicans will lock up the government for longer than the Democrats did in 1932.

Not a good result, in my opinion. One party rule tends to be overly extremist, from either party.

Fair enough, IMO. I'd be OK with keeping them partly in place, at least until the recovery picks up speed again. Simply keeping them fully in place or fully gone once they expire are both not so good ideas.

Why? Are you saying that the tax cuts are favorable to the recovery? I mean, if your argument is that the tax cuts were bad because they caused the deficits, and the stimulus is good because it helped the economy, then I don't see why you would not be four square in favor of more stimulus and higher taxes.

[Coito ergo sum]

LOL - I love how Obama supporters descry the Bush deficits, but are perfectly fine with exponentially bigger ones now.

[Svartalf]

Mmmh... remind me what Obama did to explode the deficits like that? or is part of that due to programs launched under bush and flowering under his successor?

[Warren Dew]

Mmmh... remind me what Obama did to explode the deficits like that? or is part of that due to programs launched under bush and flowering under his successor?

About half of the increase is Obama's stimulus bill. Much of the rest is due to his drawing out the recession and the associated low tax receipts.

It's going to get worse with his health care plan.

[Ian]

double post

[Ian]

LOL - I love how Obama supporters descry the Bush deficits, but are perfectly fine with exponentially bigger ones now.

Happy to do it, too. And nobody is perfectly fine with the current deficits - but we know who's really to blame for them.
Have no illusions: those deficits would be looking very similar if McCain were in office right now.

BTW - Your horseshit shredding of every sentence of my earlier post is a perfect example of why I won't be bothering with this thread again. FFS.

[Coito ergo sum]

Mmmh... remind me what Obama did to explode the deficits like that? or is part of that due to programs launched under bush and flowering under his successor?

What program are you referring to?

No - Obama has been President since 1/09, and it is 9/10, right now. The Congress has been solidly Democratically controlled since 1/06. This can't be foisted on Bush. Obama, Reid and Pelosi have had UNPRECEDENTED power to do as they pleased with control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency in numbers not seen before. THEY chose their course.

[Coito ergo sum]

LOL - I love how Obama supporters descry the Bush deficits, but are perfectly fine with exponentially bigger ones now.

Happy to do it, too. And nobody is perfectly fine with the current deficits - but we know who's really to blame for them.
Have no illusions: those deficits would be looking very similar if McCain were in office right now.

BTW - Your horseshit shredding of every sentence of my earlier post is a perfect example of why I won't be bothering with this thread again. FFS.

The people that are really to blame for them is the Congress, especially (which has been Democratically controlled since 2006) and the President. The spending that has occurred in 09 and 10 is not Bush's spending.

Horseshit shredding? What's horseshit are your posts, full of nonsense about "please oh please raise MY taxes, I've been dying to pay more." If you were really dying to pay more, you'dve fucking paid more, and you didn't. Nobody was stopping you.

And, this sorry-ass blame Bush crap is a load of fucking bull. I remember, full well, the recession that coincided with Bush taking office, and not a god-damn Democrat or liberal to be found suggested that it had anything to do with the previous administration. It was the "Bush recession" and "see how great everything was under Clinton, and now Bush is here and it's a recession." Modern day liberals are so transparently hypocritical and poseur boosters it's not even funny.

For once, stop playing the "big daddy Republicans are to blame for everything" card - it's been going on since the 80s - like the Democrats are for some reason just powerless to do anything because the big-bad Republicans won't let them. For fuck's sake - you've got a fucking landslide majority in the House and almost 60 fucking votes in the Senate, and the Presidency, and possibly a majority on the Court -- it's teetering -- and STILL there is no responsibility on the part of the Democrats?

It's like how the fucking liberals claim that prior to Obama there was some god-damn capitalist free for all which "got us where we are" - without one fucking minute recognizing that the Democrats have controlled Congress, handily, for the better part of the last fucking 80 years - by a fucking country mile. But, of course, oh, no, the Democrats had nothing at all to do with anything. Now you're going to try to pawn off a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit on the previous administration.

That fucking mutt won't even beg for food, let alone hunt.

[Warren Dew]

Have no illusions: those deficits would be looking very similar if McCain were in office right now.

True, but only because McCain is as stupid as Obama about the economy - and would still have had an overwhelmingly Democratic congress to contend with.

[Ian]

LOL - I love how Obama supporters descry the Bush deficits, but are perfectly fine with exponentially bigger ones now.

Happy to do it, too. And nobody is perfectly fine with the current deficits - but we know who's really to blame for them.
Have no illusions: those deficits would be looking very similar if McCain were in office right now.

BTW - Your horseshit shredding of every sentence of my earlier post is a perfect example of why I won't be bothering with this thread again. FFS.

The people that are really to blame for them is the Congress, especially (which has been Democratically controlled since 2006) and the President. The spending that has occurred in 09 and 10 is not Bush's spending.

Horseshit shredding? What's horseshit are your posts, full of nonsense about "please oh please raise MY taxes, I've been dying to pay more." If you were really dying to pay more, you'dve fucking paid more, and you didn't. Nobody was stopping you.

And, this sorry-ass blame Bush crap is a load of fucking bull. I remember, full well, the recession that coincided with Bush taking office, and not a god-damn Democrat or liberal to be found suggested that it had anything to do with the previous administration. It was the "Bush recession" and "see how great everything was under Clinton, and now Bush is here and it's a recession." Modern day liberals are so transparently hypocritical and poseur boosters it's not even funny.

For once, stop playing the "big daddy Republicans are to blame for everything" card - it's been going on since the 80s - like the Democrats are for some reason just powerless to do anything because the big-bad Republicans won't let them. For fuck's sake - you've got a fucking landslide majority in the House and almost 60 fucking votes in the Senate, and the Presidency, and possibly a majority on the Court -- it's teetering -- and STILL there is no responsibility on the part of the Democrats?

It's like how the fucking liberals claim that prior to Obama there was some god-damn capitalist free for all which "got us where we are" - without one fucking minute recognizing that the Democrats have controlled Congress, handily, for the better part of the last fucking 80 years - by a fucking country mile. But, of course, oh, no, the Democrats had nothing at all to do with anything. Now you're going to try to pawn off a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit on the previous administration.

That fucking mutt won't even beg for food, let alone hunt.

Jeez, you sound like every other Republican talking head out there. "Hey look everybody, the deficit exploded over the last two years! Look who's administration it is! 2+2=4, it's that simple. Now, you should really vote Republican - 'cause we're all about fiscal responsibility, dontcha know."


The giant deficit is, above all, a product of two things: 1) a huge economic downturn and 2) the stimulus package. Any knucklehead can see that much.
As for #1, Obama was not remotely responsible for it, obviously. Maybe he's the #1 guy to blame for the recovery getting sluggish, I'll grant you that that is a good debate.
As for #2, the stimulus was initiated by W. Bush and totally inevitable regardless of who won the White House. (Nor is it unprecedented in history, btw). If McCain was in right now, the stimulus might've looked different in detail, but not in principle.

Therefore I conclude: Fuck the goddamn motherfucking bastard Republicans.

Btw - The "recession" that was in place when Bush took office was only one in a technical sense. The dot-com/tech bubble deflated. Unemplyment hardly moved. Inflation and interest rates hardly moved. Consumer confidence hardly moved. Most people didn't even notice it.

Also btw - Are you seriously implying that people will take it upon themselves to fork over more taxes, even if they think they ought to be raised. Tell me you're not serious. I'll be happy to pay more - but little ol' me ain't gonna make a dent in the budget. Obama and Congress can make the decision to increase my taxes and then I'll be more than happy to comply - that's why I voted for him.

[Santa_Claus]

George Bush (and all Presidents back to Reagan) just too greedy, too dumb and too interested in self and "freinds and family" to grasp the fundamental problems of the US economy - can only borrow up the yazoo if you can show the world you can earn the wealth. had 30 years of smoke and mirrors (I know, I've done well out of it) where folk have got confused between wealth & money.

Ponzi economics.

And a couple of years ago the dooda hit the fan. but that was only a symptom of the underlying disease - I think Obama understands, but he could be faking it! the Debts he runs up are immaterial, it's the economy he leaves behind that will count - the irony is that to get back to (genuinely) being a wealth creator (on the scale the US needs to support it's global reach, that underpins it's economic model) will require yet more smoke & mirror ponzi economics. and debt!

Or he could just be driving the final nails into the US economy. We'll all know in 10 years time...........

[Coito ergo sum]

LOL - I love how Obama supporters descry the Bush deficits, but are perfectly fine with exponentially bigger ones now.

Happy to do it, too. And nobody is perfectly fine with the current deficits - but we know who's really to blame for them.
Have no illusions: those deficits would be looking very similar if McCain were in office right now.

BTW - Your horseshit shredding of every sentence of my earlier post is a perfect example of why I won't be bothering with this thread again. FFS.

The people that are really to blame for them is the Congress, especially (which has been Democratically controlled since 2006) and the President. The spending that has occurred in 09 and 10 is not Bush's spending.

Horseshit shredding? What's horseshit are your posts, full of nonsense about "please oh please raise MY taxes, I've been dying to pay more." If you were really dying to pay more, you'dve fucking paid more, and you didn't. Nobody was stopping you.

And, this sorry-ass blame Bush crap is a load of fucking bull. I remember, full well, the recession that coincided with Bush taking office, and not a god-damn Democrat or liberal to be found suggested that it had anything to do with the previous administration. It was the "Bush recession" and "see how great everything was under Clinton, and now Bush is here and it's a recession." Modern day liberals are so transparently hypocritical and poseur boosters it's not even funny.

For once, stop playing the "big daddy Republicans are to blame for everything" card - it's been going on since the 80s - like the Democrats are for some reason just powerless to do anything because the big-bad Republicans won't let them. For fuck's sake - you've got a fucking landslide majority in the House and almost 60 fucking votes in the Senate, and the Presidency, and possibly a majority on the Court -- it's teetering -- and STILL there is no responsibility on the part of the Democrats?

It's like how the fucking liberals claim that prior to Obama there was some god-damn capitalist free for all which "got us where we are" - without one fucking minute recognizing that the Democrats have controlled Congress, handily, for the better part of the last fucking 80 years - by a fucking country mile. But, of course, oh, no, the Democrats had nothing at all to do with anything. Now you're going to try to pawn off a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit on the previous administration.

That fucking mutt won't even beg for food, let alone hunt.

Jeez, you sound like every other Republican talking head out there. "Hey look everybody, the deficit exploded over the last two years! Look who's administration it is! 2+2=4, it's that simple. Now, you should really vote Republican - 'cause we're all about fiscal responsibility, dontcha know."


The giant deficit is, above all, a product of two things: 1) a huge economic downturn and 2) the stimulus package. Any knucklehead can see that much.
As for #1, Obama was not remotely responsible for it, obviously. Maybe he's the #1 guy to blame for the recovery getting sluggish, I'll grant you that that is a good debate.
As for #2, the stimulus was initiated by W. Bush and totally inevitable regardless of who won the White House. (Nor is it unprecedented in history, btw). If McCain was in right now, the stimulus might've looked different in detail, but not in principle.

Therefore I conclude: Fuck the goddamn motherfucking bastard Republicans.

Btw - The "recession" that was in place when Bush took office was only one in a technical sense. The dot-com/tech bubble deflated. Unemplyment hardly moved. Inflation and interest rates hardly moved. Consumer confidence hardly moved. Most people didn't even notice it.

Also btw - Are you seriously implying that people will take it upon themselves to fork over more taxes, even if they think they ought to be raised. Tell me you're not serious. I'll be happy to pay more - but little ol' me ain't gonna make a dent in the budget. Obama and Congress can make the decision to increase my taxes and then I'll be more than happy to comply - that's why I voted for him.

You're the one asking to be taxed more. I didn't realize your desire to be taxed more required you to be compelled to do it. If you were speaking rhetorically, then that's fine.

The Stimulus Package was not initiated by Bush, not the one voted in during Obama's Presidency, and I, for one, strongly opposed the "stimulus" nonsense under Bush as well. It was doomed to failure, and it failed. And, they, with Stimulus II under Obama, did the same thing again, expecting a different result, and it didn't work again.

The reality is these Stimulus programs are bailouts for the wealthy, and that's it. They are massive influxes of funds to banking institutions which should have been made to pay for their own mistakes. Others would have picked over their bones, as it should be. Fuck them, and fuck the massive corporate welfare that just keeps getting more massive.

Nothing done has helped anyone improve their position, except the banks and the massively wealthy, and the politicians who stood to lose if they appeared as if they had "done nothing."

I'm happy to blame the fucking Republicans. Those sacks of crap are the ones that put through TARP and the first Stimulus package, and look at the deficits that ran up. A boatload of shit! And, the Dems took that as fucking carte motherfucking blanche to just see the Republicans and raise them three trillion dollars. Fuck 'em!

There! Now I'm sure I'm going to be sorry for these last few posts, as they are infused with more than a modicum of Budweiser. I disclaim all responsibility for these rants as a result.

[Ian]

How can you say "the stimulus failed"? For one thing, it's hard to take credit for things that haven't happened - such as a global Depression, which more than a few distinguished people have said would have been the case if no form of government intervention had ever happened. Uncle Sam has used spare tires before.
It's also a long term investment - only 2/3 of it will have been spent by the end of this year. Nobody is really in a position to say whether it failed or not.

If your only definition is whether it turned the US economy from freefall to a bull market within a year and a half, then yes I'd say it failed.

One thing I think we both agree upon: the neocon Republicans of the Bush years were terrible in terms of fiscal responsibility. Maybe the Democrats are no better, I can't say. If the economy was still in the shape it was in the mid-2000s with Obama as president right now, would we be on track towards a balanced budget again in the forseeable future? I dunno. Thing is, I don't know that the GOP has the people to really correct things either. It's the one thing I actually like about the Tea Party: they don't like debt (although they REALLY don't like taxes. And realistically, spending can only be cut by so much so fast).

Anywho, I prefer talking about the macro stuff. I could point out short-term stuff like the Dow surging on news that manufacturing is up, or Bernanke's pep talk a few days ago about how a double dip isn't anticipated, or that the quarter million jobs lost over the last two months is a fraction of the million created in the four months before that. But I won't post those on a regular basis or elaborate on them. I don't like to look too closely at bits of news, not when the whole picture is so vast.