Why are Republicans Wrong about Everything?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 81 - 100 of total 44866 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Oct 20, 2011 - 03:58pm PT
photo not found
Missing photo ID#221759
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Oct 20, 2011 - 04:06pm PT
No, not really. I anticipate a 2nd term for President Barack Obama. That and a further self immolation of the GOP.
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Oct 20, 2011 - 04:07pm PT
Republican jobs plan from the Reagan presidency.


photo not found
Missing photo ID#221754
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Oct 20, 2011 - 04:13pm PT
That's an interesting comparison, Philo. Unemployment under Reagan fell from 7.6% in 1981 to 5.5% in 1988. This despite the 1982-83 recession, whose unemployment rates were comparable to the 2008-current recession. Of course, the 1982-83 recession was a market correciton that allowed interest rates to fall dramatically because of the dramatic decrease in inflation.

How's the current administration doing on unemployment?

John
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Oct 20, 2011 - 04:21pm PT
How's the current administration doing on unemployment?

Leave it to a GOP'er to ask this question.

Well let's see, is it really the Gov'ts job to create jobs? I thought the Bush tax cuts were supposed to do that.

I guess John admits here that the GOP's idea that tax cuts would lead to jobs is pure BS. Thanks for pointing that out John.
apogee

climber
Oct 20, 2011 - 04:22pm PT
Of course, Reagan inherited an economy that was nowhere near as fooked as the one Obama assumed.

Of course, current POTUS's should never point to past POTUS's.

Unless you're Reagan, apparently.
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Oct 20, 2011 - 04:23pm PT
Do you ever tire of being wrong? In fact the jobless rates are the same for Obama and Reagan at this same point in there presidency. It seems you Publickens should really love Barack except for that pesky tan.



In fact, according to data from the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 1981, Ronald Reagan's first year in office, the U.S. average unemployment rate stood at 7.6 percent. During Reagan's presidency, it reached a high of 9.7 percent, and had declined to a level of 5.5 percent when Reagan left office. The rate from when Reagan entered office through his last year declined by 2.1 points, far less than the eight-point drop for which Brooks credited Reagan.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Oct 20, 2011 - 04:45pm PT
You guys are too funny. How would the Bush tax cuts, enacted in 2001, create a change in economic conditions in 2011? Or are you saying that if we raised taxes to the pre-2001 levels (as Dr. F. wants to do), the economy would grow more now? Doing that would enact the biggest tax increase on the middle class in my 60-year lifetime. Not even Democratic macroeconomists think that would increase economic activity.

Both Reagan and Obama worked with a Democratic congress. The difference was that Reagan's policies allowed the necessary market corrections to take place, thus ending inflation and bringing interest rates back down to reasonable levels. Reagan also, necessarily, worked with Democrats to enact his program. Savers stopped getting robbed and the economy grew dramatically. Obama and the Democratic leaders in Congress told Republicans to get lost. Now they claim they really didn't have control because the Republicans could filibuster. Yes, sir, now that's leadership!

The current administration is trying to keep the imbalance in the economy going, rather than wring it out. In its way, it's acting with the same silliness that drove FDR to propose his NRA (not the N.R.A.),essentially government-run cartels, to "reflate" the economy. The economy won't improve dramatically until the correction runs its course.

John
apogee

climber
Oct 20, 2011 - 04:48pm PT
"The current administration is trying to keep the imbalance in the economy going, rather than wring it out."

That's too funny.
cintune

climber
Midvale School for the Gifted
Oct 20, 2011 - 04:54pm PT
Meanwhile, on a distant website...
Grumpy Republicans scan their forum...
Look! Look! There!
A post asking why rock climbers are so clueless.
On a thread that does not die.
StahlBro

Trad climber
San Diego, CA
Oct 20, 2011 - 05:00pm PT
Reagan wasn't dealing with a collapse of the enconomy based on unregulated banking practices that sent the entire world economy into a tailspin. He also wasn't facing the huge impact of 2 unfunded wars. Not quite the same thing.

He spent his way out of it with a huge military build up. Also unfunded.

Edit - I agree with Silver...they are duchebags with differnt names at this point. And I fell for it again.....
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Oct 20, 2011 - 05:35pm PT
based on unregulated banking practices

Neither was Obama. The housing bubble could not have existed without a great deal of governmental intervention.

John
Gary

climber
Desolation Row, Calif.
Oct 20, 2011 - 05:48pm PT
You guys are too funny. How would the Bush tax cuts, enacted in 2001, create a change in economic conditions in 2011?

Aren't they still around, John? Shouldn't these tax cuts still be creating jobs? Do they have an expiration date, after which more tax cuts are needed?

For those who say unions have an unfair influence on the political process, what significant gains have unions made in the last 40 years?

Well? Beuhler?
HighTraverse

Trad climber
Bay Area
Oct 20, 2011 - 06:08pm PT
unregulated banking practices that sent the entire world economy into a tailspin.
Just the unregulated banking practices and blatant fraud of the "Savings and Loan Crisis" of the 80's and 90's which cost the US Gov't about $90Billion.
Between 1986 and 1991, the number of new homes constructed per year dropped from 1.8 million to 1 million.
For a list of the problems from the savings and loan horse's mouth:
"Major causes according to United States League of Savings Institutions"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis
Of the 15 causes listed, 7 are de-regulation, fraud, greed and dereliction of duty. 5, 6: de-regulation; 7, 8: fraud, insider trading, greed; 9: dereliction of duty; 11: risky loans in order to pad the books to make themselves look profitable; 12: accounting firm negligence.
All of these causes were present in 2006-2008. You'd think we'd learn.

But no, we stick our heads in the sand again when puppet Shrub does his Financial Puppeteers bidding.
The housing bubble could not have existed without a great deal of governmental intervention.
That's the biggest piece of neoconservative revisionist "history" around here for weeks. It was Shrub's laissez faire economics that left the financial markets free to create any scam they liked.
OK, that's a simplification, leaving out Clinton's part in de-regulation. But the bubble had nothing whatsoever to do with OVER regulation, it was due to nearly absent regulation along with the inevitable human greed.
HighTraverse

Trad climber
Bay Area
Oct 20, 2011 - 06:17pm PT
fattrad
the stimulus money is gone.
Not entirely true.
I'm sure you're aware of the economic theory of the velocity of money. The stimulus money is still circulating, paying wages, buying products, buying raw materials. People who are still employed who'd have been ditched otherwise. Yes, the velocity is declining, AS profits (at nearly an all time high) take money out of the system (into nearly all time high bank cash reserves).

M2 velocity TANKED in 2009. And then slowly started to rise, thanks significantly to TARP and ARRA. Money was going nowhere in 2009 as I thought you, of all people, would be aware.
note the short lag between velocity and employment.
ARRA is still funded and starting new projects. I've seen at least 2 major new road projects in the past month.
From the Federal Reserve
From the Federal Reserve
Credit: HighTraverse
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Oct 20, 2011 - 06:53pm PT
photo not found
Missing photo ID#221769
Elcapinyoazz

Social climber
Joshua Tree
Oct 20, 2011 - 07:44pm PT
tax cuts in individuals hands is spent much faster than government stimulus programs.

Depends on the indiviudal and depends on the stimulus program. A tax cut for heavily indebted and/or wealthy would almost always have lower stimulative effect than say, extending unemployment benefits or giving a COLA to welfare recepients.

This is not a matter of debate. Actual academic research clearly shows the multiplier effect of various approaches. And your wording is confused at best, given that a good percentage OF the "government stimulus program" WAS tax cuts.

Here's an example from your boy McCain's advisor:



Dr. F.

climber
Retired Climber, SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 20, 2011 - 08:02pm PT
Back from work
Should I nuke it??
Dr. F.

climber
Retired Climber, SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 20, 2011 - 08:05pm PT
Or should I never nuke it

and all the trash, and crap and the huge piles of sh#t can stay on this one thread?
I think its a god idea

It will never be read from the start
you just go to the end, and rant
its just go go go


Did I miss anything, I went to bed early last night
Probably Not
Dr. F.

climber
Retired Climber, SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 20, 2011 - 09:03pm PT
The Austerity Death-Trap

by Robert Reich
Published on Thursday, October 20, 2011 by Robert Reich's Blog


Ron Paul’s newly-unveiled economic plan – promising to cut $1 trillion from the federal budget in year one (presumably that means 2013) – is only slightly more ambitious than what we’re hearing from other Republican candidates. They’re all calling for major spending cuts starting as soon as possible.

What are they smoking?

Can we just put ideology aside for a moment and be clear about the facts? Consumer spending (70 percent of the economy) is flat or dropping because consumers are losing their jobs and wages, and don’t have the dough. And businesses aren’t hiring because they don’t have enough customers.

The only way out of this vicious cycle is for the government – the spender of last resort – to boost the economy. The regressives are all calling for the opposite.

But even without these hare-brained Republican plans, we’re heading in their direction anyway. Unless Republicans agree to a budget deal before the end of the year (don’t hold your breath), the temporary payroll tax cuts and extended unemployment benefits we have now will end.

The result will be the most stringent fiscal tightening of any large economy in the world.

Together with ongoing cuts at the state and local government level, the scale of this fiscal contraction would be almost unprecedented.

It will come at a time when 25 million are Americans looking for full-time work, median incomes are dropping, home foreclosures rising, and a record 37 percent of American families with young children are in poverty.

To call this economic lunacy is to understate the point.

And if you think 2011 is bad, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

Even if you’re a deficit hawk this is nuts. Instead of reducing the ratio of debt to the size of the overall economy, this strategy increases the ratio because it causes the economy to shrink.

Call it the austerity death trap.

Under these circumstances, the harder a country works to cut its debt, the worse the ratio becomes — because the economy shrinks even faster.

Greece is already in the trap. Spain and Italy are perilously close. Even Britain, France, and Germany are tip-toeing up to it. And now us.

Deficit hawks have to understand: The first step must be to revive growth and jobs. That way, revenues increase and the debt/GDP ratio drops. Only then – when the economy is back on track – do you start cutting.

At the start of the Clinton administration the annual budget deficit was almost $300 billion. But rather than take a meat-axe to spending, we pushed for growth, as did the Fed. The expansion of the 1990s made it easy to get the budget under control. By 2000 we had a $226 billion surplus.

The austerity trap will even hurt Mitch-McConnell Republicans whose top priority is to “make sure Obama is a one-term president.”

While it increases the likelihood of this Republican goal, it doesn’t stop there. Because the austerity trap will last for many years, any Republican successor will also be a one-termer
Messages 81 - 100 of total 44866 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews