Financial News

[kapkomet]

I used to be a Pay-Go proponent, even in favor of a balanced budget amendment, as long as a war declaration and wartime spending were exempted. I've since changed my mind, and agree more with SS2K5 - careful use of deficits is sometimes the right way to go.

 

But really, we aren't talking about just any increases here. The federal government's spending hasn't gone up 5% or 20% in the last few years - its gone up by multiples, and that is just not sustainable or viable in the long run. Congress, both the GOP-led and Dem-led, have put us down a path that is not good for anyone, and if we can get even a relative liberal like Obama to agree its time to pull back, then that's great. I agree.

There is a piece of good news that has lowered deficit projections, though. TARP has ended up being a much smaller loss than even the optimists anticipated, and that's something pretty amazing, which has helped things out a bit. Instead of being out nearly $1T, we're going to be out more like $100B, minus the gains in the other funds. I'd say that was a worthwhile investment in averting a true financial disaster.

 

That's a farce, because he's passed trillions and trillions in future spending, but only now is he agreeing "its time to pull back". He's increased the baseline so far out that it will take Barack only knows how long to reign it in.

[NorthSideSox72]

That's a farce, because he's passed trillions and trillions in future spending, but only now is he agreeing "its time to pull back". He's increased the baseline so far out that it will take Barack only knows how long to reign it in.

What's the farce?

 

First, re-read my post - note that I said RELATIVE LIBERAL. Meaning, he does like to spend. So if even HE wants to pull back, that's saying something. That was my point.

 

Second, what people don't seem to acknowledge is, Obama asked for less money, and more targeted money, in the stimulus, than what Congress gave him to sign. Also, Obama has, without Congress, run programs for cutting waste in the federal government to save hundreds of billions, which the previous GOP administration couldn't be bothered with.

 

My point here is, Obama's pretty liberal with spending, but he's not as liberal as Congress.

 

[southsider2k5]

 

I love that conservative talking point. WWII was MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING AND EMPLOYMENT.

 

Tell me, why is it that massive government spending on tanks and soldiers, which are classic "broken window fallacy" examples, can cause a recovery but massive government spending on other things like infrastructure can't spur growth?

 

It was also the very definition of a stimulus package. Very pointed and TEMPORARY spending.

[Balta1701]

It was also the very definition of a stimulus package. Very pointed and TEMPORARY spending.

But you'll note...it wasn't directed at job creation at all. It was directed at winning the war.

[southsider2k5]

But you'll note...it wasn't directed at job creation at all. It was directed at winning the war.

 

Because wars don't require any kind of industrial output or anything... Intended or not, war spending in WWII was the very definition of stimulus spending. There was no alternative energy or voting programs being put into place. This was very literal job creation because of what was being asked. It was also completely temporary, because when it was done, it was done.

[Balta1701]

Because wars don't require any kind of industrial output or anything... Intended or not, war spending in WWII was the very definition of stimulus spending. There was no alternative energy or voting programs being put into place. This was very literal job creation because of what was being asked. It was also completely temporary, because when it was done, it was done.

So are you literally arguing that defense spending is better stimulus than say, infrastructure spending?

[southsider2k5]

So are you literally arguing that defense spending is better stimulus than say, infrastructure spending?

 

I am literally arguing that WWII spending was the very definition of stimulus spending.

[Balta1701]

I am literally arguing that WWII spending was the very definition of stimulus spending.

And if we dumped $500 billion over the next 3 years into alternative energy, would it be or would it not be the very definition of that?

[southsider2k5]

And if we dumped $500 billion over the next 3 years into alternative energy, would it be or would it not be the very definition of that?

 

Could be. It depends on how it was done. I am guessing if it was done the way that the rest of this was done, not really.

[Balta1701]

Could be. It depends on how it was done. I am guessing if it was done the way that the rest of this was done, not really.

Please spell out how this is different? I think you're going to argue somehow that the current stimulus isn't temporary or something along those lines, which thoroughly confuses me because like 99% of it would be spent within that 3 year timetable i gave you anyway.

[southsider2k5]

Please spell out how this is different? I think you're going to argue somehow that the current stimulus isn't temporary or something along those lines, which thoroughly confuses me because like 99% of it would be spent within that 3 year timetable i gave you anyway.

 

Creating government agencies and programs is not stimulus spending, and neither are unfunded mandates.

[Balta1701]

Creating government agencies and programs is not stimulus spending, and neither are unfunded mandates.

Could you cite for me a few examples of that actually happening in the Stimulus package?

[southsider2k5]

Could you cite for me a few examples of that actually happening in the Stimulus package?

 

Yeah, if you can't find them, you need to read something other than the same crap you have been reading. This whole "do my homework for me or you are wrong" thing is just stupid.

[Balta1701]

Yeah, if you can't find them, you need to read something other than the same crap you have been reading. This whole "do my homework for me or you are wrong" thing is just stupid.

So if I actually tried and I seriously can't figure out what you're talking about, what does that count as? The only real mandates to states that i can find in the bill were mandates that the stimulus money actually be spent. The main "unfunded mandates" from the government are things like NCLB and Medicaid, which really weren't stimulus projects as far as I can tell.

[StrangeSox]

I am literally arguing that WWII spending was the very definition of stimulus spending.

 

So then can conservatives please stop saying "Government spending didn't end the Great Depression, WWII did!"

 

Because its literally saying "X didn't end Y, X did!"

 

And can't we have effective stimulus that leads to something productive instead of destructive, or should we ramp up F22 production whenever things dip down?

[StrangeSox]

So if I actually tried and I seriously can't figure out what you're talking about, what does that count as? The only real mandates to states that i can find in the bill were mandates that the stimulus money actually be spent. The main "unfunded mandates" from the government are things like NCLB and Medicaid, which really weren't stimulus projects as far as I can tell.

 

Do you ever get an actual response when you ask for data, corroboration, specific examples, etc?

[southsider2k5]

Do you ever get an actual response when you ask for data, corroboration, specific examples, etc?

 

I know Huffpo usually does all of the work for you guys, but I am kind of sick of it. Honestly anything I post that doesn't agree just gets ignored or randomly disqualified anyway.

[StrangeSox]

I know Huffpo usually does all of the work for you guys, but I am kind of sick of it. Honestly anything I post that doesn't agree just gets ignored or randomly disqualified anyway.

 

No, you or Kap get asked for specifics and support and you flail about without ever providing it. The response is always "OMG how can you not know?! It's so obvious!"

 

edit: if you're going to put forth an argument, be prepared to support it. Assertions aren't evidence.

Edited January 21, 2010 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

No, you or Kap get asked for specifics and support and you flail about without ever providing it. The response is always "OMG how can you not know?! It's so obvious!"

 

edit: if you're going to put forth an argument, be prepared to support it. Assertions aren't evidence.

 

No. This has been going on for years. It is a pretty recent thing where I have gotten bored with doing the work to back up statements to be ignored in favor of whatever blog is being quoted at the time. I am sick of wasting my time on evidence that is ignored. And to be quite honest, if you really wanted to know, it is a google click away. It isn't like the olden days where you have to go the library. Its just a way of e-strutting to show off.

[kapkomet]

No, you or Kap get asked for specifics and support and you flail about without ever providing it. The response is always "OMG how can you not know?! It's so obvious!"

 

edit: if you're going to put forth an argument, be prepared to support it. Assertions aren't evidence.

 

 

I saw SS2k's answer, and yea, that. I used to post links that could/would back up what I'm saying, but it's just looney bulls*** right wing talk that has to be trumped over by HuffPo, so why bother? Kaperbole ™ aside, facts are pretty undeniable unless you want to liberal spin them ad naseum.

[StrangeSox]

No. This has been going on for years. It is a pretty recent thing where I have gotten bored with doing the work to back up statements to be ignored in favor of whatever blog is being quoted at the time. I am sick of wasting my time on evidence that is ignored. And to be quite honest, if you really wanted to know, it is a google click away. It isn't like the olden days where you have to go the library. Its just a way of e-strutting to show off.

 

 

Do you not see the inherent bias and question-begging here?

[southsider2k5]

Do you not see the inherent bias and question-begging here?

 

As opposed to the exact same thing on the opposite side?

[Cknolls]

Liquidity will dry up if this plan on banks passes. But gov't always over-reaches.

[Balta1701]

Assuming you're talking about the Volcker rule proposed this morning, if it somehow passed, it'd be amazingly good.

 

Of course..it has to go through Congress. So by the time President Palin signs it, I imagine instead of banning banks and bank holding companies from running hedge funds, it will require mandatory contributions by all banks to hedge funds or something like that. And it'll be named the Lloyd Blankfein rule. Passed out of the House Financial Services committee, brought to you by Goldman Sachs. Meeting at the Citigroup meeting chamber in the JP Morgan wing of the Aetna House chambers.

 

Politically, for the Dems, this would also be ridiculously good. It's the easiest campaign message you could ask for; put the Republicans on the side of openly defending the banks. They want to anyway, so make them do it, and you might turn the tide.

[Balta1701]

Unemployment claims took a large jump this week, and the 4 week moving average is starting to turn back to increasing job losses.