Would it have been better to do as Hoover did and let the economy fix itself vesus the stimulus fix?

[Lucky... 0]

WHo thinks what? Furthermore, if you are of the schoo of thought that spending had to happen, is deficit spending better or increasing taxes to spend better?

[marks2065 0]

Quote

WHo thinks what? Furthermore, if you are of the schoo of thought that spending had to happen, is deficit spending better or increasing taxes to spend better?

couldn't vote, you didn't even include the actual topic of the thread as a possibility.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

WHo thinks what? Furthermore, if you are of the schoo of thought that spending had to happen, is deficit spending better or increasing taxes to spend better?

couldn't vote, you didn't even include the actual topic of the thread as a possibility.

What option would you like to see, or is this just a misdirection?

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

WHo thinks what? Furthermore, if you are of the schoo of thought that spending had to happen, is deficit spending better or increasing taxes to spend better?

couldn't vote, you didn't even include the actual topic of the thread as a possibility.

What option would you like to see, or is this just a misdirection?

how about "just should have let things work themselves out and save billions."

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

WHo thinks what? Furthermore, if you are of the schoo of thought that spending had to happen, is deficit spending better or increasing taxes to spend better?

couldn't vote, you didn't even include the actual topic of the thread as a possibility.

What option would you like to see, or is this just a misdirection?

how about "just should have let things work themselves out and save billions."

I'm so sorry, you must have missed it, it was the first one: Yes, the economy would fix itself as soon as the stimulus has improved it

Work themselves out, fix itself; what is the difference?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

WHo thinks what? Furthermore, if you are of the schoo of thought that spending had to happen, is deficit spending better or increasing taxes to spend better?

couldn't vote, you didn't even include the actual topic of the thread as a possibility.

What option would you like to see, or is this just a misdirection?

how about "just should have let things work themselves out and save billions."

I'm so sorry, you must have missed it, it was the first one: Yes, the economy would fix itself as soon as the stimulus has improved it

Work themselves out, fix itself; what is the difference?

Your word choice was unclear - it makes it sound as if the the stimulus fixed it.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

WHo thinks what? Furthermore, if you are of the schoo of thought that spending had to happen, is deficit spending better or increasing taxes to spend better?

couldn't vote, you didn't even include the actual topic of the thread as a possibility.

What option would you like to see, or is this just a misdirection?

how about "just should have let things work themselves out and save billions."

I'm so sorry, you must have missed it, it was the first one: Yes, the economy would fix itself as soon as the stimulus has improved it

Work themselves out, fix itself; what is the difference?

Your word choice was unclear - it makes it sound as if the the stimulus fixed it.

Nope, I meant doing nothing would bring improvements as fast as the stimulus has brought improvements.

1) Do nothing

2) Do the stimulus

3) Tax cuts, my friends

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Your word choice was unclear - it makes it sound as if the the stimulus fixed it.

Nope, I meant doing nothing would bring improvements as fast as the stimulus has brought improvements.

1) Do nothing

2) Do the stimulus

3) Tax cuts, my friends

Can you change it to that?

And you forgot "Hoover killed 12 million"

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

WHo thinks what? Furthermore, if you are of the schoo of thought that spending had to happen, is deficit spending better or increasing taxes to spend better?

couldn't vote, you didn't even include the actual topic of the thread as a possibility.

What option would you like to see, or is this just a misdirection?

how about "just should have let things work themselves out and save billions."

I'm so sorry, you must have missed it, it was the first one: Yes, the economy would fix itself as soon as the stimulus has improved it

Work themselves out, fix itself; what is the difference?

Your word choice was unclear - it makes it sound as if the the stimulus fixed it.

Nope, I meant doing nothing would bring improvements as fast as the stimulus has brought improvements.

1) Do nothing

2) Do the stimulus

3) Tax cuts, my friends

do nothing and it would have fixed itself quicker. also we would have the increase in debt causeing problems and slowing the recovery. I know myself that I am not buying anthing for my shop and the hours I cut my employees will not return until the situation with the government gets better and the health care issue is dropped. I can easily cover many of the things my employees do and will not commit my money to be spent directly because of the overspending of government(causing tax increases) and the possibility of health care reform (causing an increase in insurance cost and taxes associated with it).

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Nope, I meant doing nothing would bring improvements as fast as the stimulus has brought improvements.

I believe that letting the economy fixing itself would have taken longer, but may have been better for our country in the long run.

HOWEVER I think the problem is that the quick fix (the stimulus package) should be seen as baggage. It's not possible to know how long the economy would have taken to fix itself (outside of some educated guesses) so it's hard to weigh the consequences (baggage of the massive extra debt) vs the benefits.

Also, misapplication of stimulus funds can cause or is causing (depending on who you talk to) more baggage. If we'd put it in to infrastructure, and re-tooling of failing industries, instead of just injecting cash into the system (which is mostly all it has done so far) the effects would be much more long lasting.

The extra qualification you put on your "do nothing" option in this poll means that there are not any valid choices for some responders. This is why statistics and polls suck. They tell the story that those gathering the numbers want to be told.

--
Rob

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

do nothing and it would have fixed itself quicker.

Based upon???????????? Any evidence, reference, data? Or just more diidy told me so

BTW, GWB did nothing and unemp rose 3.4% from Feb 08 to Feb 09; so WTF could you possibly do to make a point supporting that doing nothing is better for recovery? GDP fell every quarter except 1 frrom mid 2007 until Obama took office, the market was in freefall. Really dude, make a point.

Quote

also we would have the increase in debt causeing problems and slowing the recovery.

So you're saying the recovery was slowed by the spending? Are you saying the GDP could have gone from -6.4% to + 5.9% in less time? Can you show historical data to support that? You realize Hoover basically did nothing and things got far worse, right? You realize GWB did nothing and things got far worse, right? Can yoiu provide any evidence that doing nothing is better for recovery?

Quote

I know myself that I am not buying anthing for my shop and the hours I cut my employees will not return until the situation with the government gets better and the health care issue is dropped.

I'm sure the gov is really worried. So you're going to put yourself out of business to protest the gov moves. That sounds as bright as a hunger strike. So tell us, how did you feel about fascist Ronny's tripling of the debt and spend fenzy? How did you feel about GHWB and Clinton's tax increases and spending cuts? You are aware they fixed fascist pig Ronny's mess, right? Sounds like Clinton went teh way you want Obama to go. Of course Clinton received an economy in recovery vs one in freefall, so let's be apples/apples here.

Quote

I can easily cover many of the things my employees do ...

What does that mean; what do they do that would cost you?

Quote

...and will not commit my money to be spent directly because of the overspending of government(causing tax increases)...

And this is where you really need some education; stat! Outlays, which is a fancy way of saying, "spending" are legislated usually very independently to that of receipts, or revenue collection via taxation. If you look at the last 30 years, when spending (outlays) has increased the most, tax collection (receipts) decreased, at least per capita. There are other factors, such as both receipts and outlays should increase at the rate of inflation + population increase, so don't be fooled by numbers that seem to increase when in fact they are actually decreasing as tehy aren't keeping up with inflation and with polulation growth. Examples:

- Reagan = cut taxes from 70% top brkt to 28% in ~6 years, while he increased spending insanely. Receipts did grow, largely due to his runaway spending, but the debt tripled, meaning his spending was FAR MORE GROSS than were the little benefit of increased receipts.

- Clinton = Cut spending to = that of population growth + inflation (which was low under CLinton) so that he balanced the budget. He also increased the top brkt from 31% to 40%, which then took a 290B deficit and left it at 236B surplus after 8 years, as well, the debt increase lowered every year frrom 12 years of ~250B to that of 33B his last year.

- GWB = The turd in the punchbowl is this guy, did a Reagan on steroids. He took a balanced budget and doubled a 5.5T debt, left a deficit around 1T his last year. He presided over a total failure of teh banking/mortgage system while not understanding what was going on. Hyperinflation was sick as house prices doubled and gas tripled at one point. Of course as he cut taxes from 40% top brkt to 35% he also blew out spending.

So which of these models do you like the best? NOW, EXPLAIN HOW SPENDING INCREASES LEAD TO TAX INCREASES. It appears the inverse is true. Or are you saying that in a responsible admin istration that would happen?

Quote

...and the possibility of health care reform (causing an increase in insurance cost and taxes associated with it).

That is your biased guess. But a little more help fer ya: INCREASED COMPETITION CREATES LOWER PRICES. Just trying to help ya out there.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I believe that letting the economy fixing itself would have taken longer, but may have been better for our country in the long run.

Perhaps it was a little immediate gratification, maybe a necessary evil. When you say longer, I think you mean 5 - 10 years longer and I think we both know that. Firstly we would have had to find the bottom and as illustrated by the Great Depression, even they weren't willing to find that. 2 1/2 years after Hoover did nothing and massive suffering ensued, he signed the largest income tax increase ever, the Revenue Act of 1932 where the top brkt was raised from 25% to 63%. Healing started to begin.

So where/when was the bottom? Fortunately we will never know, but let's be real, it would be 10 years before recovery. Writing blank checks for money we don't have was the right thing to do, most of the world followed along.

Quote

HOWEVER I think the problem is that the quick fix (the stimulus package) should be seen as baggage. It's not possible to know how long the economy would have taken to fix itself (outside of some educated guesses) so it's hard to weigh the consequences (baggage of the massive extra debt) vs the benefits.

We were still in gross freefall, the market was at < 1/2 of its peak a couple year prior, from Feb 08 to Feb 09 unemp rose 3.4%, GDP was in the shitter starting mid 07, so where wa steh bottom has to be answerd before we guess at where the way up would have been. Let's be real, it would have been a 10-year mess.

Quote

Also, misapplication of stimulus funds can cause or is causing (depending on who you talk to) more baggage. If we'd put it in to infrastructure, and re-tooling of failing industries, instead of just injecting cash into the system (which is mostly all it has done so far) the effects would be much more long lasting.

Oh, you mean like starting industry? Building factories, etc? I agree, but then we would be such horrible socialists, right? And the gov buying GM and Chrysler to keep them afloat wasn't doing just that?

Quote

The extra qualification you put on your "do nothing" option in this poll means that there are not any valid choices for some responders. This is why statistics and polls suck. They tell the story that those gathering the numbers want to be told.

What else would you add? I posted:

- Do nothing
- Stimulus good
- Tax cuts

Not sure what I missed. And by placing 10 options some of the meaning gets convoluted and diluted, so I wanted to keep it general.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

I know myself that I am not buying anthing for my shop and the hours I cut my employees will not return until the situation with the government gets better and the health care issue is dropped.

I'm sure the gov is really worried. So you're going to put yourself out of business to protest the gov moves. That sounds as bright as a hunger strike.

why would I be putting myself out of business? I haven't lost any productivity, I do the work instead of the employee. My company doesn't suffer only the employees. I work more hours but that is ok for me just not my employees. My business has been slowed by the economy but it is still productive and profitable.
As far as health care goes the increases in any tax on premiums are now on the employee I have put a limit on how much of the health insurance I pay for and the increase in premiums and any tax on the policy will be covered by the employee.

Quote

***I can easily cover many of the things my employees do ...

What does that mean; what do they do that would cost you?

they collect a paycheck and the slower the economy gets the less hours they get and the more I do their jobs

Quote

- Clinton = Cut spending to = that of population growth + inflation (which was low under CLinton) so that he balanced the budget. He also increased the top brkt from 31% to 40%, which then took a 290B deficit and left it at 236B surplus after 8 years, as well, the debt increase lowered every year frrom 12 years of ~250B to that of 33B his last year.

lets be clear here, Clinton did not cut taxes, he spent like a drunken fool until the republicans took control of congress and only gave him reasonable bills to sign

Quote

GWB = The turd in the punchbowl is this guy, did a Reagan on steroids. He took a balanced budget and doubled a 5.5T debt, left a deficit around 1T his last year.

so if GWB's 1 trillion dollar deficit is bad, what is Obama's 1.5 trillion dollar deficit 2 years in a row?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

why would I be putting myself out of business? I haven't lost any productivity, I do the work instead of the employee.

So why lay off employees if your demand has been the same? Or has your product demand diminished? Taxes haven't been raised; not sure of your dillema other than not liking what might be coming.

Quote

My company doesn't suffer only the employees.

You haven't stablished why you've laid people off/cut hours; has the demand fallen off?

Quote

My business has been slowed by the economy but it is still productive and profitable.

OK, here we go, so the demand for your product/svs has been diminished due to the recession started buring the GWB years. SO now you have to lay off employees and you want to blame it on the proposed HC, which hasn't been a factor either way, or what? Other than you hating anything Democratic, you ahve yet to establish how anything Obama has hurt your business, you just chant the rhetoric. The stimulus has saved your ass.

Quote

As far as health care goes the increases in any tax on premiums are now on the employee I have put a limit on how much of the health insurance I pay for and the increase in premiums and any tax on the policy will be covered by the employee.

Who's fault are the premium increases? Obama? How? The ins cos are jacking rates regardless of anyone/anything.

Just think, if the public option passed, your employees would have that covered on their own and it would take a burden off of you as an employer.

Quote

they collect a paycheck and the slower the economy gets the less hours they get and the more I do their jobs

OK but the economy has only picked up since Obama's stimulus; you still have failed to make an argument against the stimulus.

Quote

lets be clear here, Clinton did not cut taxes,...

Perhaps some glasses are in order for you. In the very passage I posted and you replied to, I wrote: He also increased the top brkt from 31% to 40%, ... In case that's too difficult to understand, that means a tax increase, so you are arguing amoot point; we both agree that Clinton raised taxes.

Here's a little help for ya: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1993

Quote

he spent like a drunken fool until the republicans took control of congress and only gave him reasonable bills to sign

So the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 didn't cut spending? Hmmm, ok - only if you say so. BTW, Clinton shut down the gov to get the R's to act right, Newt's head rolled over that one .

Quote

so if GWB's 1 trillion dollar deficit is bad, what is Obama's 1.5 trillion dollar deficit 2 years in a row?

What has Obama spent money on?

- Economic recovery
- Iraq War
- What else?
- Where's the waste?

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

I believe that letting the economy fixing itself would have taken longer, but may have been better for our country in the long run.

Perhaps it was a little immediate gratification, maybe a necessary evil. When you say longer, I think you mean 5 - 10 years longer and I think we both know that.

so far I'm with you, but don't pretend to know what I think. And I won't pretend to know what you think.

Quote

Oh, you mean like starting industry? Building factories, etc? I agree, but then we would be such horrible socialists, right? And the gov buying GM and Chrysler to keep them afloat wasn't doing just that?

buying some car manufacturers that couldn't manage their way out of a paper bag was not retooling or investing in infrastructure. It was simply injecting cash into the situation. Note that I said "re-tooling failing industry." Not "buying out of failing industry"

if what was proposed was instead a large government contract to GM to re-tool some plants and build (for government purchase and implementation) parts for solar power plants, along with long term leases or purchase of some mostly unused land in some of our more sparsely populated states, coupled with construction contracts for solar power plants, then THAT would be retooling.
***

What else would you add? I posted:

- Do nothing
- Stimulus good
- Tax cuts

Not sure what I missed. And by placing 10 options some of the meaning gets convoluted and diluted, so I wanted to keep it general.

ah... your posts are never convoluted...


yet while "keeping it general", you made the first option so specific that it has no meaning any longer. (except to you and how you would twist any vote for that option)

yes, your post later cleared things up a bit, but if your main purpose was trying to "keep it general", you would have done so in the posting of the questions. Clearly that wasn't your main thought when devising questions for the poll.

--
Rob

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

so far I'm with you, but don't pretend to know what I think. And I won't pretend to know what you think.

Fair enough. But let's be real, altho we will know where the bottom would have taken us, just they won't ever know in June 1932 with the massive tax increase, this wouldn't have spun around in 2 years.

Quote

buying some car manufacturers that couldn't manage their way out of a paper bag was not retooling or investing in infrastructure. It was simply injecting cash into the situation. Note that I said "re-tooling failing industry." Not "buying out of failing industry"

I partially agree, but the structure was there so we just pumped more blood into it. I think cutting teh phat off the top would be a great start at GM, which I think some of that was done. It's easier to fix a turd than to push out a whole new one. Rememebr, autos are aor #4 product last I checked.

Quote

if what was proposed was instead a large government contract to GM to re-tool some plants and build (for government purchase and implementation) parts for solar power plants, along with long term leases or purchase of some mostly unused land in some of our more sparsely populated states, coupled with construction contracts for solar power plants, then THAT would be retooling.

I agree there, the GM thing was a quick necessary fix, IMO, but for long, sustained growth we need just that. I think he is pumping cash that way.

Quote

yet while "keeping it general", you made the first option so specific that it has no meaning any longer. (except to you and how you would twist any vote for that option)

It was prolly too wordy, all I meant was to do nothing and let it roll.

Quote

yes, your post later cleared things up a bit, but if your main purpose was trying to "keep it general", you would have done so in the posting of the questions. Clearly that wasn't your main thought when devising questions for the poll.

Either way, let's not get semantic. The word, "objective" is truely not literal, but utopian. Anyway, we know the deal

- Do nothing
- Stimulus
- Tax cuts

[lawrocket 3]

Better? Better for whom?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Better? Better for whom?

Better for overall economic recovery for the masses. No, I wasn't referring to rich lawyers hoarding more cash.

[chutem 0]

How much of the problem do you think is related to out of control personal spending payed for with credit? The economy looks good when when people are spending alot of money, but if the people don't pay it back how good was it really? Now that people can't pull a bunch of money out of the home equity they have due to inflated home values how will they keep spending more than they make so we can have a good economy?

I bought my first home in November of last year.(I'm 44 so I've rented alot) It was built in 2004 and the people who bought it refinanced it 3-4 times up to a final debt of $288,000. I bought it in very good condition for $132,000. They did not put the money back into the home so I must assume they spent it on other things. Obviously they spent it because they lost the house to the bank.

Defaulting/negotiating down credit card debt is a big thing these days. I'm guessing the days of running up tens of thousands of dollars in credit card debt people can't pay back are a thing of the past. Gotta love the commercials though-- Did those evil credit card companies loan you more than you can afford? It's not your fault and we can help you--

Is the only way this country can avoid depression to spend money we don't have and may not be able to pay back? (both gov and individuals)

I know I'm way oversimplifying the situation and remember I'm just a small business owner who's not as sharp on world finances as many here.

Would those of you on the right and left please educate me?

Thanks,
James

[justinb138 0]

Quote

WHo thinks what? Furthermore, if you are of the schoo of thought that spending had to happen, is deficit spending better or increasing taxes to spend better?

If you still think Hoover "let the economy fix itself", you obviously didn't do any of that reading I suggested a while back.

[hwt 0]

Here is a small bit of history for you.

When Reagan took office in 1981, the US economy was in shambles. We have difficulty remembering how bad the economy was under Carter, but it was described in terms of the "misery index," and the word "stagflation" was coined to refer to the double-whammy of economic stagnation combined with runaway inflation. The automotive industry was on the verge of collapse under the pressure from Japanese competition and an oil crisis. The American way of life itself seemed to be in serious jeapordy. It wasn't the Great Depression, but it was as close as we've come to it since.

The top tax rate was 70% when Reagan took office. He got it cut in half to 35%. At the same time, he eliminated many tax shelters that the rich routinely relied on to avoid paying taxes altogether, forcing them to invest in the free market and actually pay taxes. Shortly after the tax cuts were enacted, the economy took off for an unprecedented period of peacetime growth. The misery index plummeted as unemployment fell, inflation slowed, and interest rates dropped, leading to a seven-year boom that the liberal media cynically dubbed "the decade of greed."

Eight years later George Bush swept into office on Reagan's coattails and a pledge of "no new taxes." Although he tried to keep his pledge, Bush ultimately succumbed to unrelenting pressure by the Democratically controlled Congress to increase taxes. Not surprisingly, the economy went into a mild recession, though nothing like the recession of a decade earlier. Unemployment was well below what it had been under Carter, and inflation was completely under control. Nevertheless, the liberal media shamelessly dubbed it the "worst economic period of the last fifty years."

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Lucky will tell us how it really was in 10...9...8...7...

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[kallend 2,027]

You conveniently forget to mention that the national debt tripled under Reagan. He borrowed the country to imaginary prosperity using what GHW Bush called "Voodoo Economics".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Better? Better for whom?

Better for overall economic recovery for the masses. No, I wasn't referring to rich lawyers hoarding more cash.

So quit voting democrat. Read about Millberg Weiss. Bill Lerach. Sticking it to corporations.

Except...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

How much of the problem do you think is related to out of control personal spending payed for with credit?

Hard to apportion it, but it is a problem whether the economy is good or shitty.

Quote

The economy looks good when when people are spending alot of money, but if the people don't pay it back how good was it really? Now that people can't pull a bunch of money out of the home equity they have due to inflated home values how will they keep spending more than they make so we can have a good economy?

That's why hyperinflation such as we had under GWB is so horrible. I bought my house in 98 and it grew at 4-5k/year, I wished it grew faster, but that was the boring stability then. Looking back, that was perfect. I don't own that house, but it is now assessed at the same exact value as I paid for it in 98. So much for hyperinflation. Clinton-enomics are far better that RW garbage policy.

Quote

I bought my first home in November of last year.(I'm 44 so I've rented alot) It was built in 2004 and the people who bought it refinanced it 3-4 times up to a final debt of $288,000. I bought it in very good condition for $132,000. They did not put the money back into the home so I must assume they spent it on other things. Obviously they spent it because they lost the house to the bank.

They could have been able to afford the house but walked due to never having any equity or even breaking even . But yes, people pulling money out of their mortgage was teh cause of that, along with lenders setting up the ponzi scheme.

Quote

Defaulting/negotiating down credit card debt is a big thing these days. I'm guessing the days of running up tens of thousands of dollars in credit card debt people can't pay back are a thing of the past. Gotta love the commercials though-- Did those evil credit card companies loan you more than you can afford? It's not your fault and we can help you--

Right, unsecured debt is a mutual problem. However, I think it should be law that unsecured debt be no more than + to 1 year salary, probably = to 1/2 year would be better.

Quote

I know I'm way oversimplifying the situation and remember I'm just a small business owner who's not as sharp on world finances as many here.

I don't think even the fed chairman can figure out US finances, so we're all kinda making guesses based upon previous performance. Thin gs we do know based upon past performance are:

- Tax cuts don't turn out well

- unsecured credit is a 2-edge sword; w/o it retaolers would suffer, with it the whole credit industry is hosed

- Stability, not greed yields the best result