The debt based economy.

[jtssrx]

19 minutes ago, XC.Morrison said:

Well it was the worst recession since WW2 so that tracks.  

No, it doesn't track. the recovery itself was pitiful 

 

[Snoslinger]

obama absolutely could have fucked up things alot more. for starters, by listening to some of you worldly renowned economics experts who wanted no bail outs, stimulus spending, etc.

 

[Mainecat]

49 minutes ago, ActionfigureJoe said:

Right. There’s no economic bullets left when the downturn comes. Taxes have been slashed to record lows and spending has increased to record highs. This is trump’s high risk, high reward mentality.

Bankruptcy #6

[jtssrx]

17 minutes ago, Snoslinger said:

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rexsinquefield/2016/11/29/obama-and-the-dems-dismal-recovery/#70df7198cb0e

 

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/final-tally-obamas-subpar-economy-cost-americans-2-4-trillion/

[T1R9sledder]

19 minutes ago, Snoslinger said:

obama absolutely could have fucked up things alot more. for starters, by listening to some of you worldly renowned economics experts who wanted no bail outs, stimulus spending, etc.

 

Just to be clear you're admitting Obama did fuck up some stuff?

[Snoslinger]

6 minutes ago, T1R9sledder said:

Just to be clear you're admitting Obama did fuck up some stuff?

No. I’m saying that obama could have fucked the economy up more than it was

[XC.Morrison]

50 minutes ago, jtssrx said:

No, it doesn't track. the recovery itself was pitiful 

 

Who is to blame for the post–Great Recession austerity?

Federal spending growth following the Great Recession is clearly slower than it was following the early 1980s and early 2000s recessions but on par with spending growth following the early 1990s recession. At the state and local level, slow growth of public spending is even more pronounced, and state and local policymakers deserve blame for adopting austere spending policies, such as the decision, by 19 states, to refuse free fiscal stimulus from the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act.

However, even despite the fact that most of the slow growth in total spending during this recovery can be accounted for by state and local spending trends, the lion’s share of the blame for fiscal austerity during the recovery should still accrue to Republican members of Congress in Washington, D.C. The reason for this is simple: State and local policymakers face spending constraints that do not apply to federal policymakers. Most specifically, these state and local policymakers by and large have to balance the operating portions of their budgets by law. They can admittedly borrow to finance long-run infrastructure projects, but have been unwilling to do so (as is documented by McNichol (2016)). But even besides the legal strictures against running operating deficits (a stricture not constraining federal action), states also face real economicconstraints to undertaking fiscal stimulus. To put it most simply, states do not print their own currency. This means that they really do have to be more cautious about running up debt that sometimes erratic financial markets can decide (rightly or wrongly) is unsustainable. In short, states do need to at least keep one eye on the “bond vigilantes” in financial markets that can appear to punish entities that are perceived to be too profligate.

The federal government, on the other hand, is free to run deficits, and, because it can print its own currency, bond vigilantes cannot spark a self-fulfilling financial crisis. Further, even during normal times, transfers from the federal government to states account for more than 20 percent of total state and local resources for spending, and there is no reason that federal aid to states could not have been more forthcoming.

Even the timing of austerity over the current recovery is fairly easy to pinpoint in actions undertaken by Republicans in Congress. The Obama administration championed and signed the ARRA during the recession in early 2009, and the law led to a sharp uptick in government spending that persisted throughout the early stages of the recovery.5 Through the end of 2010 (when the ARRA had mostly petered out), total government spending per capita was not that different than in previous recoveries (and actually rose more rapidly than in previous cycles during the recession phase). But in 2011 Republicans in the House of Representatives demanded spending cuts as a precondition for raising the debt ceiling, a vote that had historically been pro-forma (the ceiling has been raised 78 times just since 1962). The resulting Budget Control Act of 2011 has significantly reduced the growth of discretionary spending. Both in word and deed, Republican lawmakers have embraced and enforced fiscal austerity, and the result has been the most discouraging recovery on record.

https://www.epi.org/publication/why-is-recovery-taking-so-long-and-who-is-to-blame/

[Anler]

9 minutes ago, XC.Morrison said:

Who is to blame for the post–Great Recession austerity?

Federal spending growth following the Great Recession is clearly slower than it was following the early 1980s and early 2000s recessions but on par with spending growth following the early 1990s recession. At the state and local level, slow growth of public spending is even more pronounced, and state and local policymakers deserve blame for adopting austere spending policies, such as the decision, by 19 states, to refuse free fiscal stimulus from the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act.

However, even despite the fact that most of the slow growth in total spending during this recovery can be accounted for by state and local spending trends, the lion’s share of the blame for fiscal austerity during the recovery should still accrue to Republican members of Congress in Washington, D.C. The reason for this is simple: State and local policymakers face spending constraints that do not apply to federal policymakers. Most specifically, these state and local policymakers by and large have to balance the operating portions of their budgets by law. They can admittedly borrow to finance long-run infrastructure projects, but have been unwilling to do so (as is documented by McNichol (2016)). But even besides the legal strictures against running operating deficits (a stricture not constraining federal action), states also face real economicconstraints to undertaking fiscal stimulus. To put it most simply, states do not print their own currency. This means that they really do have to be more cautious about running up debt that sometimes erratic financial markets can decide (rightly or wrongly) is unsustainable. In short, states do need to at least keep one eye on the “bond vigilantes” in financial markets that can appear to punish entities that are perceived to be too profligate.

The federal government, on the other hand, is free to run deficits, and, because it can print its own currency, bond vigilantes cannot spark a self-fulfilling financial crisis. Further, even during normal times, transfers from the federal government to states account for more than 20 percent of total state and local resources for spending, and there is no reason that federal aid to states could not have been more forthcoming.

Even the timing of austerity over the current recovery is fairly easy to pinpoint in actions undertaken by Republicans in Congress. The Obama administration championed and signed the ARRA during the recession in early 2009, and the law led to a sharp uptick in government spending that persisted throughout the early stages of the recovery.5 Through the end of 2010 (when the ARRA had mostly petered out), total government spending per capita was not that different than in previous recoveries (and actually rose more rapidly than in previous cycles during the recession phase). But in 2011 Republicans in the House of Representatives demanded spending cuts as a precondition for raising the debt ceiling, a vote that had historically been pro-forma (the ceiling has been raised 78 times just since 1962). The resulting Budget Control Act of 2011 has significantly reduced the growth of discretionary spending. Both in word and deed, Republican lawmakers have embraced and enforced fiscal austerity, and the result has been the most discouraging recovery on record.

https://www.epi.org/publication/why-is-recovery-taking-so-long-and-who-is-to-blame/

Republicans know this, it was deliberate and anyone who isnt a partisan hack could see it. Why do you suppose republicans are so gun ho on spending cuts when there is a democrat president but are quite the spend thrifts when they have a republican president? Because our economy is propped up by govt spending and easy access to cheap credit... Republicans raised the deficit half a trillion dollars in a growing economy. And low and behold, times are good. 

But in 2011 Republicans in the House of Representatives demanded spending cuts as a precondition for raising the debt ceiling, a vote that had historically been pro-forma (the ceiling has been raised 78 times just since 1962). The resulting Budget Control Act of 2011 has significantly reduced the growth of discretionary spending. Both in word and deed, Republican lawmakers have embraced and enforced fiscal austerity, and the result has been the most discouraging recovery on record.

[jtssrx]

20 minutes ago, XC.Morrison said:

Who is to blame for the post–Great Recession austerity?

Federal spending growth following the Great Recession is clearly slower than it was following the early 1980s and early 2000s recessions but on par with spending growth following the early 1990s recession. At the state and local level, slow growth of public spending is even more pronounced, and state and local policymakers deserve blame for adopting austere spending policies, such as the decision, by 19 states, to refuse free fiscal stimulus from the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act.

However, even despite the fact that most of the slow growth in total spending during this recovery can be accounted for by state and local spending trends, the lion’s share of the blame for fiscal austerity during the recovery should still accrue to Republican members of Congress in Washington, D.C. The reason for this is simple: State and local policymakers face spending constraints that do not apply to federal policymakers. Most specifically, these state and local policymakers by and large have to balance the operating portions of their budgets by law. They can admittedly borrow to finance long-run infrastructure projects, but have been unwilling to do so (as is documented by McNichol (2016)). But even besides the legal strictures against running operating deficits (a stricture not constraining federal action), states also face real economicconstraints to undertaking fiscal stimulus. To put it most simply, states do not print their own currency. This means that they really do have to be more cautious about running up debt that sometimes erratic financial markets can decide (rightly or wrongly) is unsustainable. In short, states do need to at least keep one eye on the “bond vigilantes” in financial markets that can appear to punish entities that are perceived to be too profligate.

The federal government, on the other hand, is free to run deficits, and, because it can print its own currency, bond vigilantes cannot spark a self-fulfilling financial crisis. Further, even during normal times, transfers from the federal government to states account for more than 20 percent of total state and local resources for spending, and there is no reason that federal aid to states could not have been more forthcoming.

Even the timing of austerity over the current recovery is fairly easy to pinpoint in actions undertaken by Republicans in Congress. The Obama administration championed and signed the ARRA during the recession in early 2009, and the law led to a sharp uptick in government spending that persisted throughout the early stages of the recovery.5 Through the end of 2010 (when the ARRA had mostly petered out), total government spending per capita was not that different than in previous recoveries (and actually rose more rapidly than in previous cycles during the recession phase). But in 2011 Republicans in the House of Representatives demanded spending cuts as a precondition for raising the debt ceiling, a vote that had historically been pro-forma (the ceiling has been raised 78 times just since 1962). The resulting Budget Control Act of 2011 has significantly reduced the growth of discretionary spending. Both in word and deed, Republican lawmakers have embraced and enforced fiscal austerity, and the result has been the most discouraging recovery on record.

https://www.epi.org/publication/why-is-recovery-taking-so-long-and-who-is-to-blame/

 

9 minutes ago, Nazipigdog said:

Republicans know this, it was deliberate and anyone who isnt a partisan hack could see it. Why do you suppose republicans are so gun ho on spending cuts when there is a democrat president but are quite the spend thrifts when they have a republican president? Because our economy is propped up by govt spending and easy access to cheap credit... Republicans raised the deficit half a trillion dollars in a growing economy. And low and behold, times are good. 

But in 2011 Republicans in the House of Representatives demanded spending cuts as a precondition for raising the debt ceiling, a vote that had historically been pro-forma (the ceiling has been raised 78 times just since 1962). The resulting Budget Control Act of 2011 has significantly reduced the growth of discretionary spending. Both in word and deed, Republican lawmakers have embraced and enforced fiscal austerity, and the result has been the most discouraging recovery on record.

GOVERNMENT DOESN'T OR ISN"T SUPPOSED TO GROW THE ECONOMY. 

[Anler]

22 minutes ago, jtssrx said:

 

GOVERNMENT DOESN'T OR ISN"T SUPPOSED TO GROW THE ECONOMY. 

So you dont think a half a trillion dollars has an effect on the economy? You can THINK whatever you want but you would be incorrect. 

[ActionfigureJoe]

39 minutes ago, jtssrx said:

 

GOVERNMENT DOESN'T OR ISN"T SUPPOSED TO GROW THE ECONOMY. 

It’s not supposed to turn the other way as banks rob riches. 

[jtssrx]

39 minutes ago, Nazipigdog said:

So you dont think a half a trillion dollars has an effect on the economy? You can THINK whatever you want but you would be incorrect. 

No I don't think the government should be taking taxes from the citizens to stimulate the economy 

[Angry ginger]

Just now, jtssrx said:

No I don't think the government should be taking taxes from the citizens to stimulate the economy 

so we should not have a military then your saying as thats the #1 stimulator to the economy 

[jtssrx]

11 minutes ago, Angry ginger said:

so we should not have a military then your saying as thats the #1 stimulator to the economy 

The Military is expressly talked about in the constitution. Taxing the people to grow the economy isn't 

[Anler]

5 minutes ago, jtssrx said:

No I don't think the government should be taking taxes from the citizens to stimulate the economy 

Alot of things the govt shouldnt be doing

4 minutes ago, Angry ginger said:

so we should not have a military then your saying as thats the #1 stimulator to the economy 

I dont know if thats the #1 but certainly is a big factor at $600 billion... 

[XC.Morrison]

19 minutes ago, jtssrx said:

The Military is expressly talked about in the constitution. Taxing the people to grow the economy isn't 

Hoover shared your philosophy.  

[Anler]

Funny thing about that sequester the Republicans demanded under Obama... When it started biting them in the ass they wanted it repealed.  

 

 

[ActionfigureJoe]

32 minutes ago, jtssrx said:

The Military is expressly talked about in the constitution. Taxing the people to grow the economy isn't 

People shit in holes in the ground and doctors bled sick people back when the constitution was constructed. 

[revkevsdi]

14 hours ago, jtssrx said:

So Obama was forced to double our Debt becuase of Bush? Explain to me how doubling the debt fixed anything? Why was the spending okay under Obama but not under trump? Why is debt all the sudden an issue? 

Dear dumbfuck..... Wars are expensive, so are recessions.  If you have an economy that suddenly loses 10% of the workforce and faces reduced corporate taxes because of a huge recession, your revenues decrease.  You also have to pay welfare programs.

That's what drove the debt up

[SnowRider]

6 hours ago, revkevsdi said:

Dear dumbfuck..... Wars are expensive, so are recessions.  If you have an economy that suddenly loses 10% of the workforce and faces reduced corporate taxes because of a huge recession, your revenues decrease.  You also have to pay welfare programs.

That's what drove the debt up

And now they ignore the debt which is fueling their favorite talking point.......the growth rate of the economy.  They really are a stupid bunch..... @jtssrx just got boot stomped  

[snoughnut]

21 hours ago, Nazipigdog said:

Since the last economic crash? Brilliant. As I said you all want to sit around and point fingers, why not look at what caused this and what this OP is about. As long as banks can skim profits off of reckless lending with zero accountability we are going to keep seeing these crashes. Like that crash before WW2 also... 

 

x's a billion

[Jimmy Snacks]

1 minute ago, snoughnut said:

 

x's a billion

I’m with SnoPutz!

[Mainecat]

Trump will bankrupt the US. He’s a 5 time expert and certainly on his way.

[snoughnut]

14 minutes ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

I’m with SnoPutz!

Does this mean we get to be buddies?

[Jimmy Snacks]

8 minutes ago, snoughnut said:

Does this mean we get to be buddies?

Yeah but we won’t be swapping spit in the showers!😜😜😜