Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Economics


Thanks Tree25Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 10th, 2017, 05:04 PM   #11
M(A)GA
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 23,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clara007 View Post
Got any statistics on that???
Not off hand. I wouldn't mind researching it if you wanted to let me know more what you were looking for.

Last edited by Sabcat; January 10th, 2017 at 05:55 PM.
Sabcat is offline  
Old January 10th, 2017, 07:56 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 56,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
While Obama was president, the GOP was "Ohh so concerned about deficits".
Even though deficits didn't produce inflation or any of the GOP predicted consequences, and even though economists said more deficit spending would have created jobs and growth, not inflation.

Now that the economy is at or near full employment, economists would say that deficits will matter, deficits will cause inflation, and will crowd out investment costing jobs and growth to suffer, the GOP thinks adding 9 trillion in deficits to fund tax cuts for the wealthy, is just what the doctor ordered (well maybe Dr Ron Paul).


Who could have seen that coming?
Maybe not Dr. Ron Paul. He's no fan of deficits.

That $9 trillion is exactly to fund tax cuts for the 0.1-1 percent.
imaginethat is online now  
Old January 11th, 2017, 06:48 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Katmandu
Posts: 5,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
While Obama was president, the GOP was "Ohh so concerned about deficits".
Even though deficits didn't produce inflation or any of the GOP predicted consequences, and even though economists said more deficit spending would have created jobs and growth, not inflation.

Now that the economy is at or near full employment, economists would say that deficits will matter, deficits will cause inflation, and will crowd out investment costing jobs and growth to suffer, the GOP thinks adding 9 trillion in deficits to fund tax cuts for the wealthy, is just what the doctor ordered (well maybe Dr Ron Paul).


Who could have seen that coming?
Deflation is more of a threat than inflation. Obama hasn't been able to buy any inflation with $9 trillion in fiscal deficit stimulus spending and over $5 trillion of monetary stimulus. $14 trillion in stimulus spending that bought only $4 trillion of economic growth, and $9 trillion of that has to be paid back.

With the anemic growth of the Obamaconomy what is there to invest in? When full year 2016 GDP numbers come out, Obama will be lucky to hit 2%, lower than the pathetic 2.4% of last year.

Full employment, that's a joke. We have 4 million more jobs than we had in 2007, but we have 10 million more working age Americans that need jobs, and the jobs pay less in real income terms.
Libertine is offline  
Old January 11th, 2017, 07:52 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Clara007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
Not off hand. I wouldn't mind researching it if you wanted to let me know more what you were looking for.


Ya know, Sabcat, sometimes you are just a delightful person. I truly mean that--not being sarcastic at all--and you know that sarcasm is another service I offer, but not today.

After a quick search, I found this, which is not recent but may be ballpark:
Most food stamp recipients do (work). In fact, in 2012 more than 47.8 percent of families receiving food stamp were working (the highest ever), and only 13.2 percent were welfare recipients with no working adults, according to the US Department of Agriculture.Oct 14, 2013
Where Are all the Couch Potatoes and Welfare Queens? | The ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary.....p_b_4085773.ht...
Thanks from right to left
Clara007 is offline  
Old January 11th, 2017, 12:22 PM   #15
end capitalism now
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
Not off hand. I wouldn't mind researching it if you wanted to let me know more what you were looking for.
Don't strain your brain on that one. Fact is that our modern over-productive economies don't need everyone working anyways. Either a basic guaranteed income should be instituted or the declines in the work week should have continued instead of slowly creeping back to where they were before the 40 hour week became the standard.

The problem with rightwing thinkers is they prefer to kick down/rather than punch up in a hierarchy. For some, shaming the poor is more gratifying than focusing on the rich!
*I'm more familiar with poverty than I was a few years back, and I haven't met any in those situations yet who are happy to be where they are at the bottom of the social pecking order and objects of derision for those just a little further ahead.
right to left is offline  
Old January 13th, 2017, 10:59 AM   #16
Fayt Storm ON [OFF]
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 15,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by right to left View Post
Let's see:
Deficits don't matter under Democratic administrations because they've set policies in motion to stimulate economic growth...and use all the new money being created to out-grow those deficits and return to financial solvency...or at least that's how today's high priest of Keynsian Theory-Paul Krugman explains it!

Unless I hear different, the actual rate of GDP growth under Obama's 2 terms in office are less than 2% compound growth per annum...but that's not enough to outgrow rising deficits...especially from military and security spending that treats the Treasury like a candy store!

Under Republican administrations, there likely isn't any simple, naive assumptions about growing your way out of debt, because the strategy since Ronnie Rayguns introduced Neoliberalism and Friedmannomics to the Republican Party is to deliberately grow the deficits and don't bother controlling either domestic or military spending, because when the inevitable calls for austerity come in, it will be the domestic programs that get hacked..which Republicans don't want anyway...so choose your poison!

Whether modern capitalism is dressed up in liberal clothing of concern for the unfortunate, or is pure, unadulterated social darwinism of those who live off of UNEARNED income, it is still ultimately a giant ponzi scheme that will be forced to collapse at some point in the future when finite limits of living on a finite planet act as a brake on that needed growth to finance new debt/new money-creation.

I believe this is why most of the international oligarchy are already indicating that they choose war over peace, even when it comes to going to war with nuclear powers and risking extinction! Because the end of life on Earth, is easier to contemplate for the short-term addicted thinking of the rulers of our worlld than it is to contemplate the end of the global capitalist system that enriches them. It should come as no surprise to anyone that the capitalist working principle of 'creative destruction' inevitably leads to real destruction of larger and larger expendable sectors of the global economy.

It begins with a war against the poor, and a war on "old" technologies, and advances through 'regime change' wars to an eventual all-out war for all the marbles if that's the only place left to get the returns on investment demanded by the high rollers in the global economic system.

So, lots of seemingly different issues all tie together if we want to figure out what the hell is happening today. The great irony of American politics today is that Donald Trump seems to be siding with (on balance) the oligarchs who want to take the less risky route of avoiding great wars/ while the so called liberals and progressives are by and large, standing on the same side as the warhawks! Politics makes strange bedfellows as they say.
By in large true, which is why we need to remove corporate money out of politics.
Thanks from right to left
Fayt is offline  
Old January 13th, 2017, 11:00 AM   #17
Fayt Storm ON [OFF]
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 15,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
Nope, I am saying many people choose to be on welfare in lieu of working. Big differance.
What's that? like 2% of the population?
Fayt is offline  
Old January 13th, 2017, 11:06 AM   #18
Fayt Storm ON [OFF]
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 15,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
Deflation is more of a threat than inflation. Obama hasn't been able to buy any inflation with $9 trillion in fiscal deficit stimulus spending and over $5 trillion of monetary stimulus. $14 trillion in stimulus spending that bought only $4 trillion of economic growth, and $9 trillion of that has to be paid back.

With the anemic growth of the Obamaconomy what is there to invest in? When full year 2016 GDP numbers come out, Obama will be lucky to hit 2%, lower than the pathetic 2.4% of last year.

Full employment, that's a joke. We have 4 million more jobs than we had in 2007, but we have 10 million more working age Americans that need jobs, and the jobs pay less in real income terms.
We're in a "growth" recession. That means we're growing, but below 3% of GDP. I wonder where this country would be if Obama didn't use Keynesian economic to stimulate us out of the Great Recession? Spoiler, into a depression.

The about $800 billion wasn't enough. We needed at least $2 trillion.
Fayt is offline  
Old January 13th, 2017, 11:33 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Katmandu
Posts: 5,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
We're in a "growth" recession. That means we're growing, but below 3% of GDP. I wonder where this country would be if Obama didn't use Keynesian economic to stimulate us out of the Great Recession? Spoiler, into a depression.

The about $800 billion wasn't enough. We needed at least $2 trillion.
$800 billion? Spending wasn't reduced from stimulus levels. We've had $9 trillion in fiscal stimulus and over $5 trillion in monetary stimulus. $14 trillion in stimulus that has yielded only $4 trillion of economic growth.
Libertine is offline  
Old January 13th, 2017, 12:15 PM   #20
Fayt Storm ON [OFF]
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 15,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
$800 billion? Spending wasn't reduced from stimulus levels. We've had $9 trillion in fiscal stimulus and over $5 trillion in monetary stimulus. $14 trillion in stimulus that has yielded only $4 trillion of economic growth.
No, current spending doesn't decrease when you invest over $800 billion dollars into the economy. The stimulus increases it. You don't count the current spending when using economic terms, "priming the pump". It's an investment.

And to just point out. Almost $300 dollars of that stimulus was tax cuts. Tax cuts do a terrible job at stimulating the economy. My point is that we needed well over $2 trillion dollars. Not $800 billion. The ARRA did stop the recession from getting worse.
Fayt is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Economics

Tags
deficits, matter



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Trump Isn’t All Wrong About Trade Deficits—- excalibur Current Events 1 August 5th, 2016 03:08 PM
USA’s chronic trade deficits Supposn Economics 75 July 8th, 2016 01:23 AM
The Deficits Republicans Don't Want to Talk About LongWinded Current Events 22 January 28th, 2015 03:28 PM
Trade deficits are always detrimental to their nations’ GDPs. Supposn Economics 10 May 13th, 2014 01:16 PM
Trade Deficits Are Always Detrimental To Their Nations’ Gdps. Supposn U.S. Federal Policy 0 March 28th, 2011 12:08 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.