The US Economy and Current Financial Crisis

[BruiserKC 0]

I figured something like this would happen, as far as the position Obama is in now. The way the media and people have built him up, he has one chance to hit this sucker out of the park. If this plan doesn't work, the same ones that have cheered him relentlessly will start to tear him down.

 

 

[NoCalMike 0]

Well it took 30 years of Reaganomics, plus some Clinton free trade, to get us into the second Republican depression, yet people want Obama to get us out in four? Yeah fucking right. The likely scenario is Obama is long gone before anything has a chance to work, and labeled a socialist, tax & spend liberal, while all of his economic policies are reversed.

 

Ok that was a bit sarcastic but really, the stimulus package is already a fraction of what it was originally, and now what, over 50% are tax cuts anyway, which isn't going to stimulate a goddamn thing, so the lesson of the 2006 and 2008 elections is what exactly, that Democrats still roll over and bend over backwards even when they are in the f-ing majority. Considering the way they were treated the last eight years when it came to input on any legislation, I think for now we can put this "bipartisan" bullshit aside, and do something for the economy. Right now the Republicans win because if the stimulus package works, they are going to say it's because they stood their ground and got a bunch of additional tax cuts worked in and got the spending down, and if it doesn't do anything soon, they can scream about "tax and spend, tax and spend"

 

I understand the Republicans have a completely different ideology when it comes to the economy and how to get it working, but for two elections they have had their asses handed to them, yet refuse to show any sort of humbling, and are still carrying on about why we have to continue the same economic polices that we've used the last 30 years, which is a major factor in how we got here.

[BruiserKC 0]

I know I mentioned this over in one of the other threads regarding the DTV Delay Act, but financial concerns have quite a few TV stations across the country saying they're going to go through with the digital transition and end analog broadcasting on Feb. 17 anyway. Here where I live our Fox, CBS, and NBC affiliates have already said they're going forward. Apparently they're saying the expense of running both digital and analog transmitters is too much.

 

XM/Sirius might be filing bankruptcy as well, the merger hasn't done them much good from the sounds of thing and they're still hemorraging money.

 

As for my earlier comment on Obama having one chance...the way the media built him up and made him out to be the Second Coming, he won't get a second chance really. Plus, the way our society has become, we want results now and everyone is pretty much wanting the quick fix. In reality, if everyone is trying to compare this to the Great Depression (which it's not), we're pretty much around 1930 at this point. The decisions made here can right the ship or send the economy sliding further downward. If Obama's plan does nothing, the same people that put him on a pedestal will start tearing him down.

[At Home 0]

Well it took 30 years of Reaganomics, plus some Clinton free trade, to get us into the second Republican depression, yet people want Obama to get us out in four? Yeah fucking right. The likely scenario is Obama is long gone before anything has a chance to work, and labeled a socialist, tax & spend liberal, while all of his economic policies are reversed.

 

Clinton free trade has nothing to do with it. The US version of free trade probably helped the trade deficit because it's so horribly lopsided. Bush free trade has nothing to do with it, either. What has to do with it is the burst of the housing bubble, a runaway financial industry, and $10.5 trillion dollars in mortgage debt.

 

It's not unlikely that it will take less than four years for any sort of package to begin to work. The United States works with very powerful anti-cyclical agents. I understand and trumpet the fact that this is not like any other recession since the GD, but if the majority of the money is on route to be spent by 2010, then that's at least a good sign. Injecting money to where it needs it most as quickly as we can will be the best thing to do, and something to get jobs back on track. Keynes also gives us another explanation of why recessions could go on for a very long time: an absence of an effective monetary and fiscal policy.

 

Ok that was a bit sarcastic but really, the stimulus package is already a fraction of what it was originally,

Sort of. Obama had always announced a plan for $800 billion, and that's what it turned out to be. He should've asked for more.

 

and now what, over 50% are tax cuts anyway

That's not true.

 

so the lesson of the 2006 and 2008 elections is what exactly, that Democrats still roll over and bend over backwards even when they are in the f-ing majority.

They still needed those 3 votes to reach the 60 required to pass the package. It's not like they were trying to get those 3 republican votes for fun.

[At Home 0]

I know I mentioned this over in one of the other threads regarding the DTV Delay Act, but financial concerns have quite a few TV stations across the country saying they're going to go through with the digital transition and end analog broadcasting on Feb. 17 anyway. Here where I live our Fox, CBS, and NBC affiliates have already said they're going forward. Apparently they're saying the expense of running both digital and analog transmitters is too much.

 

The deadline was pushed back, but I'm pretty sure that stations can just go ahead and do it anyways. Some stations could've done it a year ago if they wanted to.

 

As for my earlier comment on Obama having one chance...the way the media built him up and made him out to be the Second Coming, he won't get a second chance really. Plus, the way our society has become, we want results now and everyone is pretty much wanting the quick fix. In reality, if everyone is trying to compare this to the Great Depression (which it's not), we're pretty much around 1930 at this point. The decisions made here can right the ship or send the economy sliding further downward. If Obama's plan does nothing, the same people that put him on a pedestal will start tearing him down.

 

I don't agree with this. If you're telling me he was built up to be the Second Coming, then he's also going to have a lot of followers who will stick through this with him. I think a lot of people understand that this was a large part of the Bush years, and I certainly hope that bitter taste isn't just going to go away. I don't think anyone is trying to compare this to the Great Depression, this is more of a "worst thing since the Great Depression" thing, which is 100% true. Obama's plan isn't going to do nothing, but it's not going to do what it could've done. Remember that Obama won by almost a 2:1 ratio. I'm thinking that people are going to stick with him.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

As for my earlier comment on Obama having one chance...the way the media built him up and made him out to be the Second Coming, he won't get a second chance really. Plus, the way our society has become, we want results now and everyone is pretty much wanting the quick fix.

 

Polling suggests otherwise.

 

President-elect Barack Obama is riding a powerful wave of optimism into the White House, with Americans confident he can turn the economy around but prepared to give him years to deal with the crush of problems he faces starting Tuesday, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

 

While hopes for the new president are extraordinarily high, the poll found, expectations for what Obama will actually be able to accomplish appear to have been tempered by the scale of the nation's problems at home and abroad.

 

The findings suggest that Obama has achieved some success with his effort, which began with his victory speech in Chicago in November, to gird Americans for a slow economic recovery and difficult years ahead after a campaign that generated striking enthusiasm and high hopes for change.

 

Most Americans said they did not expect real progress in improving the economy, reforming the health care system or ending the war in Iraq - three of the central promises of Obama's campaign - for at least two years. The poll found that two-thirds of respondents think the recession will last two years or longer.

 

As the nation prepares for a transfer of power and the inauguration of its 44th president, Obama's stature with the public stands in sharp contrast to that of President George W. Bush.

 

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/18/new...ll.1-409831.php

 

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

The FBI needs Agents to investigate Bailout Fraud

 

The F Files!

 

Also, Mikey is making a movie about Wall Street! Can't wait.

 

 

[At Home 0]

Well Marvin, those people are the people that your party unleashed. I'm really not surprised.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I just want to know why Republican interests had to be respected if none of them were going to vote for the damn thing in the first place.

[Guest]

They had to get 60 votes in order to add to the deficit. Senate rule.

 

If they don't put stuff in for the Republicans, they don't get the votes.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I get that, I meant it more in a rhetorical sense.

[At Home 0]

Well, like I've said all along, Obama approached this issue as a bipartisan one instead of a fix the economy one. Also, his team has very good relations with the Senate, and I don't think they wanted to burn their bridge that quickly.

[SuperJerk 0]

They had to get 60 votes in order to add to the deficit. Senate rule.

 

Wait...whut?

[At Home 0]

Yep

[SuperJerk 0]

Son of a bitch....

[NoCalMike 0]

The 60 votes, was to merely make it filibuster proof though, right?

 

Harry Reid should have dared Republicans to filibuster this package and let them go in front of the american people and explain why taking no action at all and just standing around doing nothing is somehow going to make that work, that and why giving tax cuts to the top 2% is somehow STILL a good idea?

 

I understand the notion of bipartisanship, and why it is useful in certain situations, but the fact of the matter is, when people put the Dems in the majority in 2006 and then one step, one huge step more by electing Obama as president, to me that send a pretty clear message that we/they are tired of the economic policies of the past eight years and WANT a rapid new direction. That is what the stimulus package was offering, originally.

 

The Republicans are standing around and acting like the Dems are going against the will of the people or something when the last two elections are pretty clear indication that the public wants them to STFU and know their role for the time being and give something DIFFERENT a chance.

 

Oh and on the topic of the housing market. How do we protect from another bubble-type economy? For example, where I live in Sacramento, before this current bubble burst, 3-4 bedroom homes were going for 500,00 or more. Now this city and general outlying area does not having the income to suppor these housing prices, and most of the home buyers were folks from the Bay Area either buying & renting out 2nd homes, or just moving here because it was cheaper then the bay and commuting to work.

 

I understand why homes going up in value is a good thing, but on the flip side of the scenario, when the value starts to become so inflated that no one living in the city can actually afford to buy a house i also see that as a big problem.

 

I guess prices of houses rising wouldn't be as much of a problem though, if wages were somewhat keeping up, but they aren't.

 

So how do we protect from another inflated bubble housing market, once the economy turns around?

[At Home 0]

Did anyone watch that video of the two guys on MSNBC? It's only ten minutes long, and they'll answer your questions about what comes next in the economic administration.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

 

The Hoover strategy's really panning out so far for the GOP.

[SuperJerk 0]

Are the Democrats, Independents, and Republicans referred to in that chart supposed to be how voters from 3 groups approve of the Congress overall, or how voters overall approve of the 3 groups in Congress? The former makes more sense than the latter, since there are not a lot of Indepedents in the Congress to approve or disapprove of.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2009

The single dumbest independent clause you'll read all day

Golf claps all around to Amar Bhide:

 

The depressions and panics of the 19th century ended without any fiscal stimulus to speak of...

 

Right. And I suppose we could note that the Spanish influenza pandemic "ended without any major vaccination efforts to speak of."

 

As everyone knows, the US -- to say nothing of the rest of the industrialized world -- was in one phase or another of a major depression in roughly half of the twenty-four years between 1873-1897. The contraction that began in October 1873, for example, lasted 65 consecutive months and had near-universally corrosive results. Labor unions were annihilated; the Republican party officially threw up its hands on the question of Reconstruction; mass unemployment immiserated the land, and by the end of it all, striking railroad workers from Baltimore to St. Louis were being fired upon by federal troops. The economic catastrophe of the 1870s intensified racial animosity toward Chinese workers on the West Coast, leading to the passage of one exclusionary law after another; the depression of the 1890s spurred on lynch mobs in the rural South; and all of them roused otherwise sane people to spastic fits of worry over the menace of the foreign-born. In the US, the downturns of the 1880s and 1890s helped rejuvenate the principles of manifest destiny, leading to grossly dishonest efforts, public and private, to secure resources and compliant markets in Asia and Latin America. And throughout industrialized Europe, the Long Depression lent greater urgency to the project of colonialism, whose bloody results -- if initially unremarkable to all but their immediate victims -- were perfectly evident to everyone else by the late summer of 1914.

 

But remember: a few public works programs, the eight-hour day, and unemployment insurance would have been too awful to comprehend.

 

http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2009/02/sing...ause-youll.html

 

[At Home 0]

Haha. Awesome.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

 

Least effective protest sign ever?

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Yeah, that damn evil socialite cripple FDR, leading us to victory in World War II and getting us out of the Great Depression.

[snuffbox 0]

I'm not sure I would agree that he got us out of the Great Depression, but it's very fortunate we didn't have one of the bend-me-over Republicans in the White House during WW2. I shudder to think if one of the isolationist/'Hitler's not so bad' Republicans or a modern chickenshit like Cheney or Bush Jr had been in power during that period.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I think he would have gotten the country out of the Depression even without WW II. But who knows for sure? I just get sick of hearing the neo-con idea that he was a socialist who was bad for the country. Overall, his presidency was a success, and he got the country through some of its darkest times since the Civil War.

[snuffbox 0]

Considering the already-high unemployment numbers jumped 5 points from 1937 to 1938, I dont think FDR was on the right path. He had a lot of failings in dealing with the Depression. But, what he can be given credit for is doing something to keep the country moving and creating enough confidence among the people. If nothing had been done, we may not have been able to deal with the threats of the 1940s or seen an attempt at a rebellion towards communism.

 

And he deserves strong praise for seeing those major threats of the '40s and choosing to fight them. His is a courage unknown to so many Republicans, then and now, who would rather ignore threats or create trouble elsewhere rather than respond to our attackers.

[SuperJerk 0]

Wasn't the 1937-38 jump in unemployment caused because FDR started scaling back New Deal programs in an attempt to balance the federal budget?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

That is my understanding.

[snuffbox 0]

The New Deal must not have done a very good job of setting the broken ecomony if it gave out like a balsa wood leg when the crutch started pulling away.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Palin, Jindal and other GOP governors may refuse stimulus money

 

In Idaho, Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter said he wasn't interested in stimulus money that would expand programs and boost the state's costs in future years when the federal dollars disappear — a worry also cited by Jindal and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

 

Unfortunately they have nothing to worry about.

 

Mr. Gibbs, speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One on the way to Denver, said, “I think the president is going to do what’s necessary to grow this economy.” While “there are no particular plans at this point for a second stimulus package,” he added, “I wouldn’t foreclose it.”

 

:angry:

 

This is going to start a cycle of dependency on the federal government by the states because its easier to take the money from the federal government than it is to balance a budget on their own. Though the loophole that was inserted in the bill means that even if the Governors decline it the states can still push it through anyway (a crock of BS).