Debt Clock. How long has it been since you looked?

DFD voted to CUT their own retirements. And ya I'm down for shit to fail so we can go through a short depression and bounce back. This current years and years and years of hardship w no end in sight is for the birds. Originally Posted by LovingKayla

This sounds like the "cutting off the nose to spite the face" mentality. Very self destructive thinking. You along with all others who are not wealthy will suffer if you allow things in this country to fall apart into another depression. I don't think you really grasp the ramifications of that. What makes you think we would fall into a short depression? It might end up being a total economic collapse that we are unable to dig ourselves out of.

forget I ask for rhetoric to be put aside.

Cut spending is only half the equation, and at this point a spending cut without increasing revenue only keeps the country in a stagnant economy.

The right continues the mantra "you cant spend your way out" Credible economist world wide say just the opposite. If we (government) dont spend when things are bleak, nobody does, if nobody is spending,instant recession/depression.
Increasing revenue offsets spending, without that the debt grows even more.

Increase revenue, cut spending and allow the economy to right itself ... THEN taxes can be restructured as needed, not until.

Sooner or later it WILL happen ... when it gets to the point it HAS to happen we are basically fucked Originally Posted by CJ7

We gotta have a cite for that little tidbit, CBJ7. No credible economist thinks we can continue to increase our debt. It is almost 100% of GDP. We are very near critical mass which will result in an economic collapse of biblical proportions.

Even the Keynesian theory you propose was never designed to fix a situation like ours. Keynesians state that government should spend money during a business contraction, and restrict money in a period of growth. Massive debt was never part of Keynesian theory.

So come on, CBJ7, let's see someone credible supporting your ridiculous statement.

DFD voted to CUT their own retirements. And ya I'm down for shit to fail so we can go through a short depression and bounce back. This current years and years and years of hardship w no end in sight is for the birds. Originally Posted by LovingKayla

I think accountants call valuing an asset at its real value "marking to market". I think that's what we need to do with our economy. Don't prop anything up. Don't prop up the housing market, don't prop up failing green energy companies, don't prop up GM, don't prop up Chrysler. Let everything fall to its actual value and rebuild from there. The longer the federal government continues to pour money into the economy the greater and more painful the inevitible mark to market will be.

We're just creating zombie companies and zombie markets. It's like "Weekend at Bernies" on a massive scale. Obama didn't really save GM or Chrysler because they didn't go through a bankruptsy reorganiztion that would have allowed renegotiating bloated union contracts that drove them into insolvency in the first place. Eventually, without billions more in federal money GM and Chrysler, with their current business models, will fail.

A wise Democrat senator, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, (yes I actually wrote that!) advised president Nixon that a policy of benign neglect (non intervention) was the best federal policy towards race relations.

I think benign neglect is very often the best federal policy towards economic downturns. Market driven economies naturally have hot and cold cycles. When the federal government does too much to stimulate the economy in a downturn it usually makes things worse.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...ficit_spending

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...ficit_spending Originally Posted by CJ7

This is from the article you linked to.

THE Center on Budget and Policy Priorities wants to explain a simple truth that a lot of people seem to have a hard time understanding. That simple truth is this: you don't cut government spending or raise taxes during a recession

Obama and every other liberal in the country want's to raise taxes, the very thing your article says not to do. The article says don't cut government spending; all the Republicans are proposing to do on spending is to reduce the rates of increases; that's not cutting. Republicans rarely ever actually propose a real cut of anything. Democrats call increasing at five percent instead of ten percent a cut. Your article says that you shouldn't cut spending in a downturn; it doesn't say to dramatically increase spending in downturn, which is what Obama has done.

Republicans are not proposing real spending cuts. Democrats are proposing real tax increases and want to continue to increase already out of control spending.

A two year old blog that the author was embarrassed to sign, and further, it supports my view of Keynesianism more than yours. Get a grip, CBJ7, you're playing with the big boys now. This lame crap won't cut it.

Says who? Says Martin Feldstein. Says Goldman Sachs. Says David Walker, president of the Peterson Foundation—

Cog, Just because an article is old doesn't mean it isn't factual.

Goldman Sachs, the company that makes its money from deficit spending. Good god, CBJ7, you need to go to the training board before you post here anymore. Goldman Sachs likes big debt. What a news flash! LOL!

Come back when you have learned something.

Cog, Just because an article is old doesn't mean it isn't factual. Originally Posted by Sexyeccentric1

That's true. But not in this case.

the fundamentals of economy never get old COF

apparently you know as much about that as you did business

Sure, you can quote Goldman Sachs. Go ahead. See where it gets you. When you grow up, read some real economists and see if they say the same thing. I suggest Ludwig VonMises, Milton Friedman, and some Austrians. Even responsible Keynesians know that your ideas are bullshit. So go learn something and come back.

the fundamentals of economy never get old COF

apparently you know as much about that as you did business Originally Posted by CJ7

You seem not to have noticed that I completely refuted your "argument". Is there any chance you'll actually try and defend your position? Try to respond to the specific points I made. Linking to more blog sites is not acceptable. Anybody can do that; it means nothing.

Joe, CBJ7 can't respond to your post. I told him to grow up before he returns. I wouldn't expect him for awhile. Just sayin'.

You seem not to have noticed that I completely refuted your "argument". Is there any chance you'll actually try and defend your position? Try to respond to the specific points I made. Linking to more blog sites is not acceptable. Anybody can do that; it means nothing. Originally Posted by joe bloe

to be fair, all I see is your opinion


remember unemployment extensions aka spending?