Here comes the other economic shoe dropping...

[Warren Dew]

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.

The $787 billion stimulus bill was entirely an Obama administration creation. McCain might have botched it just as badly, but there's at least a chance that he would have allowed a bipartisan bill containing an even mix of tax cuts and spending, rather than the actual bill, which was almost all spending and has proven to be useless in facilitating a recovery.

TARP was passed under Bush, but while I think it was stupid, it was not a stimulus bill. It was not designed to add any net money to the economy, and ultimately it seems like it won't, as nearly all of it has already been repaid. It's not contributing to the huge increases in the deficit since Obama was elected.

It's to be pointed out that the majority of Republicans in Congress voted against both these bills, so the huge increase in the deficit in the last few years certainly can't be blamed on "the Republicans" in general, even if you do blame Bush.

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.

The tech bubble bursting was just as big a deal as the housing bubble bursting - and millions of people did lose their jobs, even if you didn't happen to notice it.

The difference was that the Bush administration and the Republicans in Congress responded to the tech crash with stimulus in the form of a predictable, economy friendly set of tax cuts with immediate effect, while Obama and the Democrats in Congress responded to the housing crash with a bunch of opaque, delayed pork barrel spending that had, if anything, a negative effect on the economy as a whole. It also helped that Greenspan was a much more competent chairman of the Federal Reserve than is Bernanke.

The depth and length of the current recession isn't because it's some exception to the normal business cycle - it isn't. It's because the government has exacerbated this particular recession with economically bankrupt policies.

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.

It seems what you really want is for everyone else's taxes to be increased, not just yours.

[Randydeluxe]

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

Posting *anything* from the NY Post in debate is... embarrassing, man.

It seems like all of the different threads (how many are there?) that are nothing more than CES banging on about anything he can construe to support his impressive hatred for the President could be combined into one.

[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?

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.

None in particular. I just know that it's not uncommon for administrations to launch bill that will generate spendings over several years, so that it's not uncommon either for such programsj, if not violently aborted by direct action of a new administration, to go on weighing on charts such as you show without the current admin being directly responsible.

Actually, that was an honest question due to the graphics showing such an explosion of spending, while bush had been already quite busy doing that (he was the one who started the bailout for instance), I wondered if that was his legacy, or what Obama did with such extreme effects.

If you intend to answer, please be plain, I'm not fencing this time, just trying to get a fair image of the situation (assuming, of course, the diagram is honest and not cooked up from cherrypicked bits for propaganda effect, but I also assume you posted it in good faith).

[Coito ergo sum]

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

Posting *anything* from the NY Post in debate is... embarrassing, man.

It seems like all of the different threads (how many are there?) that are nothing more than CES banging on about anything he can construe to support his impressive hatred for the President could be combined into one.

What a joke. I don't hate the President. I disagree with much of what he has done, but not all. I especially disagree with his fiscal policies, which have been irresponsible, threatened the US AAA bond rating, increased the debt beyond even Bush's wildest imagination, and pandered to groups that he wants to cater to politically (prime example: his gift to unions over the weekend).

This is a thread about the economic downturn, and the facts are the facts.

And, the chart is sourced - it wasn't just made up by the NY Post.

[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.

None in particular. I just know that it's not uncommon for administrations to launch bill that will generate spendings over several years, so that it's not uncommon either for such programsj, if not violently aborted by direct action of a new administration, to go on weighing on charts such as you show without the current admin being directly responsible.

Actually, that was an honest question due to the graphics showing such an explosion of spending, while bush had been already quite busy doing that (he was the one who started the bailout for instance), I wondered if that was his legacy, or what Obama did with such extreme effects.

If you intend to answer, please be plain, I'm not fencing this time, just trying to get a fair image of the situation (assuming, of course, the diagram is honest and not cooked up from cherrypicked bits for propaganda effect, but I also assume you posted it in good faith).

The additional spending, by and large, is a function of the present Congress, and not something they were "required" to do under programs that Bush instituted. The spending programs have been massive, and yes, Bush was no fiscal conservative, but Obama is schooling him, and showing him how it's done.

[Tero]

let's look into the future

Washington D.C., 2030, Jan 15th -- Having thought itself just above the riff raff and the unemployed, yesterday the entire middle class entered the ranks of the unemployed.

The average family still enjoys a McDonalds meal once a week, but the country is now officially unemployed except for the 10% that are illegal aliens and doing all the manual work.

Upper middle class folks, a 5% category, still have work making web sites for their own products made in China.

[Ian]

let's look into the future

Washington D.C., 2030, Jan 15th -- Having thought itself just above the riff raff and the unemployed, yesterday the entire middle class entered the ranks of the unemployed.

The average family still enjoys a McDonalds meal once a week, but the country is now officially unemployed except for the 10% that are illegal aliens and doing all the manual work.

Upper middle class folks, a 5% category, still have work making web sites for their own products made in China.

I disagree. Not about major economic problems around 2030, but more about the nature of them.

The "Silver Tsunami" is coming. Baby boomers will be retiring in great numbers over the next couple decades. The US demographic pyramid will have a bit of a mushroom top. As they leave the job market, unemployment will be very low, maybe low enough to drive wages very high. But those wages will be squeezed to death by high inflation and/or taxes, as Social Security, health care and other services are pushed to their limits.

[Ian]

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.

It seems what you really want is for everyone else's taxes to be increased, not just yours.

Bingo! Just about everybody else's, anyway. Probably yours too.

[Feck]

I must be stupid and not get the point ,but the government could Spend money on infrastructure during a recession and on training and education ,granted that means higher borrowing but it also feeds cash into the economy and prepares the country for the recovery ?

and fuck-it when you earn lots in a time of recession is it so fucking terrible if you pay a little more tax ? Is it so hard for those that have a comfortable lifestyle to have a few less holidays or maybe run a car for 4 years not 2 before replacing it ?

relying on the trickle down effect (oh fuck why does that sound so shit and demeaning to poor people ) in the hope that the rich will spend their money at home and not abroad and somehow this will en-power poor people is wrong . A recession just means that the poor will work harder ,take less pay and be more easily abused by those with wealth .Top down economics is a fucking lie we can't all get jobs starching the collars of rich people or changing their oil !

[Warren Dew]

Is it so hard for those that have a comfortable lifestyle to have a few less holidays or maybe run a car for 4 years not 2 before replacing it ?

If those "comfortable" enough to buy cars buy them every 4 years when they had been buying them every 2, that's half the auto workers thrown out of work.

[Feck]

Is it so hard for those that have a comfortable lifestyle to have a few less holidays or maybe run a car for 4 years not 2 before replacing it ?

If those "comfortable" enough to buy cars buy them every 4 years when they had been buying them every 2, that's half the auto workers thrown out of work.

well i'm sure BMW will cope ! Or do the rich mostly by Merkin cars ? oops FAIL !

[Robert_S]

Is it so hard for those that have a comfortable lifestyle to have a few less holidays or maybe run a car for 4 years not 2 before replacing it ?

If those "comfortable" enough to buy cars buy them every 4 years when they had been buying them every 2, that's half the auto workers thrown out of work.

Nope. Poduction would only be halved if everyone halved their purchases, not just those who buy very frequently and if the money not spent on said car does not end up enabling someone who could not afford one to buy one.

I still say the US needs it's manufacturing back if we're to have a stable future.

[Feck]

I still say the US needs it's manufacturing back if we're to have a stable future.

Yep and why can that only be fuelled by tax cuts for the rich ? was that not included in my post about government investing in infrastructure and training ?

Considering the whims of the financial system investment in Industry would be a good idea ? look at what Thatcher did to Britain because the City ,London and the Market were seen to hold more profit that actually having industry, employment and products to sell .

[Robert_S]

I still say the US needs it's manufacturing back if we're to have a stable future.

Yep and why can that only be fuelled by tax cuts for the rich ? was that not included in my post about government investing in infrastructure and training ?

Considering the whims of the financial system investment in Industry would be a good idea ? look at what Thatcher did to Britain because the City ,London and the Market were seen to hold more profit that actually having industry, employment and products to sell .

Exactly! and look what happened to the US when the market value of housing completely eclipsed the real value. Did nobody think that the market value of a house was in any way linked to the cost of living in that house? Did anyone get to thinking that the cost of living increases might lead to a less competitive manufacturing sector as well as taking money away from every other part of the economy?

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.

What the hell are you even talking about? Networked services workers are going to buy what? More networked services? What do these networked services service? I smell a buzzword.

[Warren Dew]

well i'm sure BMW will cope ! Or do the rich mostly by Merkin cars ? oops FAIL !

You think all the people who work in BMW plants are rich, just because they work on BMWs? Do you think the people who change the oil in BMWs are rich, too, just because they work on BMWs?