A disgusting political move

[ShcShc11 0]

Quote

How high should it be allowed to go?

I'l give you a bit of a number for what 2009 should have been.

Back in 2009, the stimulus package was approximately 785 billion $, of which 275 billion $ were in tax-cuts (500 B in spending only). Many U.S States unfortunately cut their program too.

The output gap with 2006-2007 and 2008-2009 was about 1.5 trillion to 3 trillion $. In order to bring back full recovery, the stimulus should have been about 2 trillion $ in spending + reverse any cuts brought by individual States. It would be a one-all injection to dramatically ramp up demand and get out of the liquidty trap.

[Note: Tax Cuts only work in cases where individuals don't hog their money and injects it into the economy.]

Unfortunately, a 2T$ stimulus in 2009 (spending) was and still is unfeasible. This wasn't a hindsight, but there were many economists who advocated this in 2008.

The stimulus helped stabilize the U.S at 9-11% unemployment, but not enough to bring it down to normal levels. The major negative effect is that the public see it as a "proof that it was ineffective and Government can't stimulate the economy". Stimulus is now a dirty and unpopular word.

2010-2011 was where it got counter-productive and the national talks was about spending cuts at a time when U.S economy was stalling. Ben Bernanke went into QE (quantitive easing) and depreciate U.S $, but other countries (especially Euro) are depreciating their own currency neglecting their effects.


2012 has its many challenges at the moment. Chinese has a bulging housing bubble (proprieties value looked very ugly on Dec 2011) and Europe is trying to figure out how to solve their economic structural problems. The only thing politically feasible for the U.S is tax cuts, but they are relatively weak and unpredictable stimulus.

Social Security, health care cost and medicare needs to be figured out in the longer term as it threatens U.S fiscal budget by around 2030.

I will elaborate more later on (currently at work)

Cheers.

[billvon 2,406]

>I can see the logic in spending to stimulate the economy . . ..

Agreed. But if you want to use deficit spending to stimulate the economy in times of crisis, you have to pay down the deficit during times of plenty - even if that harms the economy to some degree. You can't just spend without limit. At best that causes countries to default on their loans; at worst you trigger global economic catastrophes.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>what will of the people are you talking about?

When the government shuts down and people lose schools, garbage collection, passport services, road maintenance etc then they'll get upset. When they can't pay the TSA and have to start shutting down airports they'll get even more upset. And they will all demand that SOMEONE DO SOMETHING! And the person who promises to do something will win the next election.

People all say they want the government to spend less. But if the choice is to have the government spend less or be able to send their kids to school, or visit Aunt Bettie, they'll go with the extra spending almost every time.

Why is it always schools, garbage collection, passport services, road maintenance etc that get cut? why not things like loans to solyndra, how to teach prostitutes to drink, and other things like that?

[billvon 2,406]

>Why is it always schools, garbage collection, passport services, road maintenance etc
>that get cut? why not things like loans to solyndra, how to teach prostitutes to drink,
>and other things like that?

Because that's about .0001% of our budget. Feels good, does nothing. Might as well cut funding for government religious observances.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>Why is it always schools, garbage collection, passport services, road maintenance etc
>that get cut? why not things like loans to solyndra, how to teach prostitutes to drink,
>and other things like that?

Because that's about .0001% of our budget. Feels good, does nothing. Might as well cut funding for government religious observances.

Sounds good to me, lets start cutting the least important items and keep going until the budget is balanced.

[skydiver604 0]

Thanks Bill,,,at least you're reasoning is balanced

"The greater danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

>Why is it always schools, garbage collection, passport services, road maintenance etc
>that get cut? why not things like loans to solyndra, how to teach prostitutes to drink,
>and other things like that?

Because that's about .0001% of our budget. Feels good, does nothing. Might as well cut funding for government religious observances.

Sounds good to me, lets start cutting the least important items and keep going until the budget is balanced.

Problem is everyone has their own ideas about what's important and what isn't.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Why is it always schools, garbage collection, passport services, road maintenance etc
>that get cut? why not things like loans to solyndra, how to teach prostitutes to drink,
>and other things like that?

Because that's about .0001% of our budget. Feels good, does nothing. Might as well cut funding for government religious observances.

Sounds good to me, lets start cutting the least important items and keep going until the budget is balanced.

Problem is everyone has their own ideas about what's important and what isn't.

we could start figuring that out by reading the constitution and eliminating what is not listed there in.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Why is it always schools, garbage collection, passport services, road maintenance etc
>that get cut? why not things like loans to solyndra, how to teach prostitutes to drink,
>and other things like that?

Because that's about .0001% of our budget. Feels good, does nothing. Might as well cut funding for government religious observances.

Sounds good to me, lets start cutting the least important items and keep going until the budget is balanced.

Problem is everyone has their own ideas about what's important and what isn't.

we could start figuring that out by reading the constitution and eliminating what is not listed there in.

Oh, that's brilliant!

Got news for you: "welfare" is mentioned twice in the US Constitution by name. Guess that stays!

[billvon 2,406]

>we could start figuring that out by reading the constitution and eliminating what is not
>listed there in.

So eliminate the Air Force, the interstate highways, veteran's benefits, the CDC, the FCC and the FAA? But keep welfare and slavery?

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>we could start figuring that out by reading the constitution and eliminating what is not
>listed there in.

So eliminate the Air Force, the interstate highways, veteran's benefits, the CDC, the FCC and the FAA? But keep welfare and slavery?

there is nothing about paying welfare and all men are created equal eliminates slavery.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Why is it always schools, garbage collection, passport services, road maintenance etc
>that get cut? why not things like loans to solyndra, how to teach prostitutes to drink,
>and other things like that?

Because that's about .0001% of our budget. Feels good, does nothing. Might as well cut funding for government religious observances.

promoting general welfare is not the same as pay money to people that are to lazy to work. nice try though


Sounds good to me, lets start cutting the least important items and keep going until the budget is balanced.

Problem is everyone has their own ideas about what's important and what isn't.

we could start figuring that out by reading the constitution and eliminating what is not listed there in.

Oh, that's brilliant!

Got news for you: "welfare" is mentioned twice in the US Constitution by name. Guess that stays!

[billvon 2,406]

>there is nothing about paying welfare and all men are created equal eliminates slavery.

Welfare is mentioned TWICE:

"We the People of the United States . . . promote the general Welfare"

"Congress shall have power to lay and collect Taxes . . and provide for the . . general Welfare of the United States;"

And returning escaped slaves is mentioned specifically:

"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

In other words, you can't free slaves if they escape.

So be careful what you ask for; you might get it, and you'd likely be very unhappy.

[ShcShc11 0]

In all honesty, cutting/spending discussion should be in the back of the mind for Americans.

I keep seeing topics that are intensely discussed, but will have almost little to no repercussions to the overall economy. e.g: "Omg, the Government is regulating oil profits! Catastrophic!".


The Euro-crisis is talked about a bit in the media, but there's not enough attention as to just how much repercussion there can be. The numbers are there and is fairly worrisome considering Europe has a major structural problem.

The real issue should be about the Euro and how it affects American banks. The EURO can bring a complete collapse of the whole American Financial System

These datas were done from Nov 4 2011.
http://av.r.ftdata.co.uk/files/2011/10/US-banks-GIIPS-exposure-using-Bis-data-Citi-e1317759275186.jpg

Q4 2010 to Q2 2011 datas
http://av.r.ftdata.co.uk/files/2011/11/US-banks-exposure-to-GIIPS-FT-AV-using-Bis-data1.jpg


These are just direct exposures to Europe. There are other considerations that need to be taken (if business A owes money to Bank B, but business A fails because the Euro fails... then Bank B loses all its future revenues from Business A.

And nobody really knows the full extent of just how much the banks are exposed (not even the banks themselves). They just know its "a large amount".


I'm not sure how the economy is supposed to work if large banks/Ibanks like Citi, JPMorgan, BAC, etc... goes bust at the same time.

There was a few other links that had great information on American bank exposure to Europe a few months back. I'l try to find it if anybody is interested in it.

This whole spending/cut debate will (in the worst case scenario) lead to a persistent unemployment rate of 12% over 10 years.

A EURO failure / total collapse will (in the best case scenario) lead to a 20% unemployment a la Great Depression. (I'm not the type to go into fear-mongering btw)

Of course, it will also depend on when and how the Euro fails (if it does). The longer they wait, the more time American banks have to get rid of any Euro exposures. Funnily enough, the less money American banks expose their assets to Europe, the more chance Europe will collapse.



Cheers
Shc

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>there is nothing about paying welfare and all men are created equal eliminates slavery.

Welfare is mentioned TWICE:

"We the People of the United States . . . promote the general Welfare"

"Congress shall have power to lay and collect Taxes . . and provide for the . . general Welfare of the United States;"

And returning escaped slaves is mentioned specifically:

"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

In other words, you can't free slaves if they escape.

So be careful what you ask for; you might get it, and you'd likely be very unhappy.

promoting the general welfare and paying welfare to dead beats are 2 completely different things. nice try though. I figured someone with your eduacation would have read and understood the difference. the words all men are created equal means All men not just white men and the amendment to free the slaves was just clarifing those words.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Got news for you: "welfare" is mentioned twice in the US Constitution by name.

Got news for you; looks like the Founding Fathers disagree with your viewpoint:

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."
-- Benjamin Franklin

"The revenue creates pensioners, and the pensioners urge for more revenue. The people grow less steady, spirited, and virtuous, the seekers more numerous and more corrupt, and every day increases the circles of their dependents and expectants, until virtue, integrity, public spirit, simplicity, and frugality, become the objects of ridicule and scorn, and vanity, luxury, foppery, selfishness, meanness, and downright venality swallow up the whole society. "
-- John Adams, Novanglus Letters, 1774

"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
-- James Madison

"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. "
-- Thomas Jefferson letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare.... [G]iving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-- Benjamin Franklin

Quote

Guess that stays!

Guess it doesn't!

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>we could start figuring that out by reading the constitution and eliminating what is not
>listed there in.

So eliminate the Air Force, the interstate highways, veteran's benefits, the CDC, the FCC and the FAA? But keep welfare and slavery?

And there's bill, right on time...

'What I say - “I think we should scale back the government”
What they hear – “I want to abolish all government and let orphans and the elderly starve to death in the freezing cold”.'

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Welfare is mentioned TWICE:

PROMOTE != PROVIDE...see post 66

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

[wmw999 2,129]

Quote

In all honesty, cutting/spending discussion should be in the back of the mind for Americans.

And the thought there should be people asking themselves which services they don't need.

No fair focusing only on services they don't use -- what do you have now, that you really could do without?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 2,406]

Correct. It explicitly says that Congress has the power to PROVIDE for the general welfare of the United States.

[billvon 2,406]

>promoting the general welfare and paying welfare to dead beats are 2 completely
>different things.

Agreed. Promoting general welfare is different than giving Congress the power to provide for the general welfare.

So which part of the US Constitution do you want to ignore?

>the words all men are created equal means All men not just white men and the
>amendment to free the slaves was just clarifing those words.

Clearly the writers of the Constitution felt differently than you do. Do you want to ignore that part as well?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Correct. It explicitly says that Congress has the power to PROVIDE for the general welfare of the United States.

And the writings of the founders make it crystal clear that their intention was *NOT* what is claimed in the thread regarding 'the general welfare'.

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
-- James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

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

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

>we could start figuring that out by reading the constitution and eliminating what is not
>listed there in.

So eliminate the Air Force, the interstate highways, veteran's benefits, the CDC, the FCC and the FAA? But keep welfare and slavery?

there is nothing about paying welfare and all men are created equal eliminates slavery.

is "all men are created equal" in the Constitution?

...

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

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>we could start figuring that out by reading the constitution and eliminating what is not
>listed there in.

So eliminate the Air Force, the interstate highways, veteran's benefits, the CDC, the FCC and the FAA? But keep welfare and slavery?

there is nothing about paying welfare and all men are created equal eliminates slavery.

is "all men are created equal" in the Constitution?

Nope.



Come to think of it, neither is anything about flash suppressors.