Financial News

[NorthSideSox72]

You really think there won't be a dramatic enough shift? I'm expecting it to be dramatic enough that we have a government shutdown mid next year. The Republicans have been talking about it casually for at least 6 months.

I meant in election results. I don't see the GOP taking the senate - the math just doesn't work for them. They will probably take the House, by a slim margin, but even that is far from a given.

 

[Balta1701]

I meant in election results. I don't see the GOP taking the senate - the math just doesn't work for them. They will probably take the House, by a slim margin, but even that is far from a given.

They're very, very close on the Senate. The polls suggest something like 51-49 right now.

[NorthSideSox72]

They're very, very close on the Senate. The polls suggest something like 51-49 right now.

I took a look at the dashboard on Silver's site, and my take is that number you quote is a best case for Republicans.

 

We'll see though, lots of time left to November.

 

[Balta1701]

That works great for about a year, then doesn't do s***.

 

The people in this economy have embraced austerity (at least relatively, compared to before - Americans are still massive consumers). So give them cheap technology that saves them money. That's the businesses and infrastructure needs to address. The people will spend on those things, but also save money on a recurring basis, thus giving them more cash to spend or invest.

 

Fixing a road won't do it.

FWIW, "Works great for about year" is exactly what it would take if the package was large enough to get things done. That's the WWII example; a very brief spurt of massive government spending/expansion of government debt and a huge stimulus as a result.

 

I focus on things like roads, sewers, dams, rail lines, schools, explicitly because these things have been terribly neglected since "Have your tax cuts and your cake too" became the motto of one party a few decades ago. The electrical grid would fit in there nicely as well.

[southsider2k5]

FWIW, "Works great for about year" is exactly what it would take if the package was large enough to get things done. That's the WWII example; a very brief spurt of massive government spending/expansion of government debt and a huge stimulus as a result.

 

I focus on things like roads, sewers, dams, rail lines, schools, explicitly because these things have been terribly neglected since "Have your tax cuts and your cake too" became the motto of one party a few decades ago. The electrical grid would fit in there nicely as well.

 

That's what we were told when we had the last package pushed through. That hasn't exactly happened the way it was supposed to.

[Balta1701]

That's what we were told when we had the last package pushed through. That hasn't exactly happened the way it was supposed to.

You bolded it but obviously missed it, because I already added the qualifier in anticipation of your response.

if the package was large enough to get things done

[southsider2k5]

You bolded it but obviously missed it, because I already added the qualifier in anticipation of your response.

 

I seem to remember being told that it was large enough last time around. That it should result in 8% unemployment...

[Balta1701]

I seem to remember being told that it was large enough last time around. That it should result in 8% unemployment...

And I also remember being told that it would result in rampant inflation and that we'd be paying interest rates through the roof. And i also remember you telling me that the 300 point stock market drop on the day it passed was entirely due to the Stimulus's passage (the DJIA of course is up >3000 points/40% since then).

[southsider2k5]

And I also remember being told that it would result in rampant inflation and that we'd be paying interest rates through the roof. And i also remember you telling me that the 300 point stock market drop on the day it passed was entirely due to the Stimulus's passage (the DJIA of course is up >3000 points/40% since then).

 

Guess what all of that means... The stimulus failed.

[Balta1701]

Guess what all of that means... The stimulus failed.

Unless I use the explicit standard you used on the day it passed...the DJIA, in which case it's a rousing success.

 

Or the change in monthly job losses. In which case it's a rousing success.

 

It really is a fun game you guys got to play. Tell me how the stimulus was too big, too wasteful, how it needed to be more loaded with tax cuts, tell us how it isn't going to be out the door fast enough if it focuses on high-impact spending, carve out massively the aid to the states, pretend that no one was out there saying it wasn't big enough, and pretend that it didn't do basically exactly what you'd expect for too small of a package, and then tell us how it failed.

[southsider2k5]

Unless I use the explicit standard you used on the day it passed...the DJIA, in which case it's a rousing success.

 

Or the change in monthly job losses. In which case it's a rousing success.

 

It really is a fun game you guys got to play. Tell me how the stimulus was too big, too wasteful, how it needed to be more loaded with tax cuts, tell us how it isn't going to be out the door fast enough if it focuses on high-impact spending, carve out massively the aid to the states, pretend that no one was out there saying it wasn't big enough, and pretend that it didn't do basically exactly what you'd expect for too small of a package, and then tell us how it failed.

 

lol @ the "standard" I set. That might be one of the biggest lies you have ever told on here. I have ALWAYS said the stock market is a measure of future expectations.

 

All of those tax credits, such as housing, and directed spending plans, and shovel ready projects have done nothing to put the private sector back on to its feet, because we are right back here again, looking for another plan. The housing market is still dead. No one is still lending. The private sector is still languishing.

 

It failed.

[Balta1701]

It failed.

Because we had to make it worse to make you and your side happy.

 

That might be one of the biggest lies you have ever told on here. I have ALWAYS said the stock market is a measure of future expectations.

The stock market bottomed in March, 2009. The stimulus was passed in late February. So, the stock market clearly thinks its helped things get better, based on exactly your standard. Unless that standard only applies when a Democrat does something that makes it go down and a Republican makes it go up...and not the reverse. Which would be kinda a weird standard.

[southsider2k5]

Because we had to make it worse to make you and your side happy.

 

Even the things the Dems wanted, haven't done what they were supposed to.

 

The irony is that if tax cuts don't work, why is Obama on TV asking for them?

[Jenksismyhero]

Even the things the Dems wanted, haven't done what they were supposed to.

 

The irony is that if tax cuts don't work, why is Obama on TV asking for them?

 

Because he's a patriot of this country, and he realizes that unless he becomes the "better man" in this situation, the economy will never recover. He will, therefore, against his better judgement, appease the Republicans, and give in to their demands, for the good of the whole.

 

I love me that Obama.

[Balta1701]

I'm biting my tongue to avoid a rant on how truly uninformed that last statement is.

[lostfan]

Obama isn't or hasn't ever been against tax cuts across the board, the people who say that don't really listen to everything he says. Like any Democrat he's in favor of certain tax cuts, against some others, wants to leave some of it alone, wants to let most of the Bush tax cuts expire b/c of the deficit, and/or wants to raise taxes on certain people (higher taxes in higher brackets which isn't as much of a Commie idea as the supply-side crowd tries to make it sound). Whereas a Republican always, always, always, always, ALWAYS wants to cut taxes with just a handful of isolated examples that don't.

[kapkomet]

Tax cuts ALWAYS raise revenues into the government, the problem is spending goes twice as high. Democrats ALWAYS "forget" to mention that point.

 

Since ALWAYS is pretty silly here, you know.

[lostfan]

Name 5 Republicans in Congress who have voted for tax increases or even said they intended to do it in the past 10 years. I'll give you John McCain (who has since completely and totally flip-flopped). Go.

Edited September 8, 2010 by lostfan

[kapkomet]

Name 5 Republicans in Congress who have voted for tax increases or even said they intended to do it in the past 10 years. I'll give you John McCain (who has since completely and totally flip-flopped). Go.

 

 

So what? That's not the point. Even if it was your point and it is wrong.

[lostfan]

So what? That's not the point. Even if it was your point and it is wrong.

lol I am infallible. True story.

[kapkomet]

lol I am infallible. True story.

 

Really? That's pretty cool, because I'm not.

 

Bwhahahaha...

[kapkomet]

Because we had to make it worse to make you and your side happy.

 

The stock market bottomed in March, 2009. The stimulus was passed in late February. So, the stock market clearly thinks its helped things get better, based on exactly your standard. Unless that standard only applies when a Democrat does something that makes it go down and a Republican makes it go up...and not the reverse. Which would be kinda a weird standard.

 

 

AND

 

 

AND

 

 

Let's see - 60 Democrats in Senate, large House majority, and you are WHINING about how this is the Republicans fault? Sorry, but it cannot be the Republicans fault this time. It's because your fearless wonderboy has no real balls and targeted his little pet projects instead of what really works. It didn't fail from that standpoint, because now you have this s*** baked into the annual budgets, bloated pork and all. Nice hide the weenie.

 

Other then that, YOUR PEOPLE failed you. Got that? Blame your own wonder party for once. YOUR IDEAS DO NOT WORK.

[StrangeSox]

Tax cuts ALWAYS raise revenues into the government,

 

Please stop lying.

[Balta1701]

Tax cuts ALWAYS raise revenues into the government

So cutting taxes all the way to 0% would raise revenue?

[Balta1701]

Let's see - 60 Democrats in Senate, large House majority, and you are WHINING about how this is the Republicans fault? Sorry, but it cannot be the Republicans fault this time. It's because your fearless wonderboy has no real balls and targeted his little pet projects instead of what really works. It didn't fail from that standpoint, because now you have this s*** baked into the annual budgets, bloated pork and all. Nice hide the weenie.

 

Other then that, YOUR PEOPLE failed you. Got that? Blame your own wonder party for once. YOUR IDEAS DO NOT WORK.

It really says something to me that you guys are so willing to ignore reality in this case because it makes your point.

 

There is simply no way that any honest and informed person could look at the performance of the Congress over the last 2 years and think that the Obama admin had an easier Congressional setup than the Bush admin. did, for example. Filibusters have skyrocketed. Obama has had 1/2 as many judges confirmed at this point in his presidency as Bush did. Bush rolled over the Democrats repeatedly and got tons of them to vote with him on tax cuts, the Iraq debacle, you name it. Simple things that the Republicans did without even a mention, like passing the Tax cuts through reconciliation, are suddenly the most heinous of procedural crimes.

 

If you're going to argue that the Dems got anywhere close to everything they want because of the "60 democrats in the Senate and large house majority", you're either being willfully dishonest or you flat out haven't been paying attention.