Look, I don't believe stimulus "worked" either, but this

Quote :

"Unemployment when way past where they said it would have gone with the stimulus, hell, past where they said it would go without it. AKA, it failed hard. "

isn't the reason it didn't work. Stimulus was pushed as a means of lowering unemployment X%. That they missed on the number UE would go down to was because they underestimated how much it would continue to rise.

Don't get me wrong, I think the modelers need many many more decades to get their shit right if ever, but saying unemployment didn't go down to the exact number they quoted isn't the right reason to say it didn't work.

9/7/2011 7:07:50 AM

You guys really don't understand a goddamn thing do you ? Again, do you actually read the article, or just the headline? We haven't actually "lost" a dime in bailing out the car companies. The $14 billion is what we're projected to lose based on how much the shares of GM that we own will be worth when we sell them. We could just never sell them, continue collecting dividends, and we'd never lose anything. Also, if the bailouts didn't happen, we would have lost tens of billions more due to the companies failing, million workers no longer paying taxes, and having to pay them all unemployment. I know, it's hard for you to wrap your head around more than one thought at a time, but give it a fucking shot. Hell, that article says of the $700 billion spent to save the banking and automotive industry, the actual cost to the tax payer will be $36 billion. So $36 billion vs becoming Iceland. Sounds like the tax payer won big time on that one.

9/7/2011 11:36:26 AM

The Democratic party needs a better PR machine.

No company would have referred to it as a "bailout." That word has never had a positive connotation. They would have called it an investment and harped on the projected returns for its shareholders.

You touched on it earlier. The biggest failure of Democrats is the inability to condense policy down into easily digestible talking points.

9/7/2011 12:24:50 PM

It's not just that, it's the cognitive dissonance inherent in the right's entire argument. $14 billion to save the jobs of a million middle class workers is a crime and the government overstepping their bounds. But $1.3 trillion dollars (conservative numbers) due to the Bush tax cuts that did nothing but make rich people (they call them "job creators") richer? According to them, that's such an insignificant figure in comparison to our deficit that eliminating the cuts isn't even worth discussing. How in the world can you expect any progress to be made when you have to deal with people like that?

9/7/2011 12:43:26 PM

Yeah, but the people echoing those soundbites know that they're being inconsistent. But it works because it resonates with their base. Democrats kind of need to get the message across through the same medium in order to counter that misinformation.

I know it comes across as a "lowest common denominator" attitude, but fuck, how else can you possibly fight it?


I mean, the right's biggest accomplishment has been to condense policy into bumper-sticker notes that convince people to vote against their own best interests. derp/

[Edited on September 7, 2011 at 12:56 PM. Reason : ]

9/7/2011 12:48:19 PM

Quote :

"Don't get me wrong, I think the modelers need many many more decades to get their shit right if ever, but saying unemployment didn't go down to the exact number they quoted isn't the right reason to say it didn't work."

that's just it. it didn't even bring it down. shit just kept on rising and rising. when we peel back the porkulous, we see why: it didn't actually fund anything that legitimately created jobs; it just funded pet projects that the dems hadn't been able to fund for the past 14 years with a Republican controlled congress. That's all the porkulous was. is it any wonder it didn't work? Had we actually spend 700billion on what the stimulus was purported to be, I would hope it would have worked, otherwise Keynes was an absolute fool.

Quote :

"We haven't actually "lost" a dime in bailing out the car companies. The $14 billion is what we're projected to lose based on how much the shares of GM that we own will be worth when we sell them."

I thought they had "paid back everything with interest". Your words, not mine. Keep on moving those goalposts!

Quote :

"Also, if the bailouts didn't happen, we would have lost tens of billions more due to the companies failing, million workers no longer paying taxes, and having to pay them all unemployment."

Or we could bail them out and be in this credit quagmire where no one knows who the fuck is sound and no one gets any money lent to them to start up or continue businesses and delay the ultimate crash for a decade or so, when it will be drastically worse.

Quote :

"So $36 billion vs becoming Iceland. "

IIRC, NPR said Iceland was recovering quite nicely right now. It'd be nice to have that "problem".

Quote :

"$14 billion to save the jobs of a million middle class workers Democratic Voters is a crime and the government overstepping their bounds."

It was nakedly obvious what was going on. Obama was protecting the unions who fucked over the car companies in the first place. Who actually got protected in the auto-bailouts? That's right, the unions, an entity that NEVER BEFORE has been protected under bankruptcy proceedings. Who got the shaft? The people who actually had legal protection via secured debt.

Quote :

"But $1.3 trillion dollars (conservative numbers) due to the Bush tax cuts that did nothing but make rich people (they call them "job creators") richer? "

How do you figure, when the vast majority of the Bush tax cuts didn't go to the rich? And you accuse 'pubs of cognitive dissonance.

9/7/2011 1:40:22 PM

This is how figure,

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/77xx/doc7718/EffectiveTaxRates.pdf

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/77xx/doc7718/SupplementalTables.xls

I don't expect you to actually read, but the beauty about the internet is people like aaronburro can't throw out lies like "the vast majority of the Bush tax cuts didn't go to the rich" because all the data is right there for anyone willing to look at it.

Also, do you have any idea why Iceland is recovering? For starters, their government took over the domestic operations of Iceland's private banks and either downsized or completely eliminated all their foreign operations. They introduced significant tax hikes. They implemented extreme regulations on private business. They basically did the exact opposite of everything the right in this country stands for.

Quote :

"I thought they had "paid back everything with interest". Your words, not mine. Keep on moving those goalposts!"

They did you moron. Every dime of government loan money was paid back, with interest, exactly like I said. Is it really that hard for you to make a distinction between a handout and buying stock?

9/7/2011 3:51:17 PM

http://tinyurl.com/3oabl5y

US falls to 5th in global competitiveness, survey shows - John Heilprin - MSNBC.com

The U.S. has tumbled further down a global ranking of the world's most competitive economies, landing at fifth place because of its huge deficits and declining public faith in government, a global economic group said Wednesday.

The announcement by the World Economic Forum was the latest bad news for the Obama administration, which has been struggling to boost the sinking U.S. economy and lower an unemployment rate of more than 9 percent.

Switzerland held onto the top spot for the third consecutive year in the annual ranking by the Geneva-based forum, which is best known for its exclusive meeting of luminaries in Davos, Switzerland, each January.

Singapore moved up to second place, bumping Sweden down to third. Finland moved up to fourth place, from seventh last year. The U.S. was in fourth place last year, after falling from No. 1 in 2008.

The rankings, which the forum has issued for more than three decades, are based on economic data and a survey of 15,000 business executives.

The forum praised the U.S. for its productivity, highly sophisticated and innovative companies, excellent universities and flexible labor market. But it also cited "a number of escalating weaknesses" such as rising government debt and declining public faith in political leaders and corporate ethics.

The results of a survey of 142 nations comes a day before Obama is preparing to tackle jobs issues in a speech to the U.S. Congress, and just as U.S. polls show a clear majority of those surveyed say they disapprove of the way Obama is handling the economy.

Switzerland held onto its top ranking, the forum said, because of "continuing strong performance across the board" with innovation, technological readiness, even-handed regulation and having one of the world's most stable economic environments.

Germany, Europe's economic powerhouse, was sixth, followed by the Netherlands and Denmark. Japan came in ninth, and Britain was 10th. France was 18th, and Greece, saddled with debt, fell to 90th.

The report looked at broader trends: While the U.S. slipped, emerging markets gained traction. China took 26th place, highest among major emerging economies; Brazil was 53rd; India was 56th; and Russia was 66th.

"Fiscal imbalances that have been building up around the world are really a danger to future competitiveness, in terms of the ability of countries to invest in those things that will be very important for competitiveness going forward, things like education, infrastructure and so on," said Jennifer Blanke, an economist with the forum.

9/7/2011 4:07:26 PM

Quote :

"Singapore moved up to second place, bumping Sweden down to third. Finland moved up to fourth place, from seventh last year. The U.S. was in fourth place last year, after falling from No. 1 in 2008."

Don't make this sound like an Obama problem when it's actually a Bush problem.

9/7/2011 4:57:43 PM

Shrike, do you honestly believe that all the US automakers would have simply shut their doors and sent everyone home if they didnt get a bailout? To suggest such a thing is fing absurd. Big companies file bankrupcy all the time and reorganize.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/2005-09-14-airline-bankruptcy-cover_x.htm

Learn some history. Amazingly I can still get a flight on ALL these bankrupt airlines who still employ people. Success!!!!!
(also note that right after 9/11 we gave the airlines like 5B dollars to keep them flying, which they filed for bankrupcy anyway)

Read the last paragraph and read up on the post office current articles....Identical.

On airline bailout
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/09/eveningnews/main532311.shtml

9/7/2011 5:11:50 PM

Quote :

"Shrike, do you honestly believe that all the US automakers would have simply shut their doors and sent everyone home if they didnt get a bailout? To suggest such a thing is fing absurd. Big companies file bankrupcy all the time and reorganize."

Was about to post this. Hilarious he keeps referring to cog dissonance and talking points when all he is doing is echoing opposite polarity tripe.

9/7/2011 5:18:23 PM

Are you guys comparing US Airlines to US automakers? Talk about apples to oranges. US airlines have no competition. They can file for Chapter 11, reorganize, and keep chugging along while sustaining massive losses because no matter how shitty they are, people still have to fly. On the other hand, no one has to buy new cars, and no one definitely has to buy new domestic cars. If Ford/GM/Chrysler had continued going on the path they were going without government intervention, yes, they would have been completely wiped out by foreign competition. Do you get it yet?

And it wasn't just bailouts. GM took specific instruction from the White House on how to reorganize and return their company to profitability. You really do have no fucking clue what you're talking about, do you?

[Edited on September 7, 2011 at 5:37 PM. Reason : :]

9/7/2011 5:36:00 PM

Do you get that your argument could be applied to the bailing out of many different industries, enterprises, and circumstances? Bankruptcy is a necessary market process. If you make cars that no one wants to buy, then you lower prices, you design better models, or you liquidate your assets. It's pretty simple, and by trying to "save industries," we just dig a deeper hole.

9/7/2011 5:39:31 PM

God damnit Shirke. There is only so much stupid in one post before it's so terrible that even if it isn't trolling we might as well consider it as such.

9/7/2011 5:46:36 PM

What hole did we dig bailing out US automakers? I know you're just now joining the conversation, but in summary, we spent pennies on the dollar to save the three major US automakers, who are now turning regular profits, hiring new workers, and for the first time in over two decades, building environmentally friendly cars that are competitive with their foreign competition. What am I missing that's so bad about all that?

^You can call it trolling, but I'm not stopping. Maybe eventually you people will get it through your thick fucking skulls just how terribly wrong your ideology is.

[Edited on September 7, 2011 at 5:52 PM. Reason : :]

9/7/2011 5:49:04 PM

It's fine if you don't agree with my politics, but for fucks sake, stop trying to present data as if it supports your case when it doesn't...the same type of cog. dis. you're accusing everyone else of doing.

Do you fucking read what you type, this in particular is hilarious:

Quote :

"US airlines have no competition"

Quote :

"people still have to fly"

Quote :

"no one has to buy new cars"

Quote :

"they would have been completely wiped out by foreign competition"

If i set out to do a dissertation in the worlds best trolling post with as much stupid as possible in it with so few words...I don't think I could do it with a decade of research.

Look, if you're trolling, kudos because this is pretty good. But if you aren't...like, if you're dead serious about these statements then...I just...I don't even. You simply have no concept...not even the slightest fucking clue about how capitalism or business works.

9/7/2011 5:57:31 PM

Quote :

"What hole did we dig bailing out US automakers? I know you're just now joining the conversation, but in summary, we spent pennies on the dollar to save the three major US automakers, who are now turning regular profits, hiring new workers, and for the first time in over two decades, building environmentally friendly cars that are competitive with their foreign competition. What am I missing that's so bad about all that?"

It's impossible to know where that money would have gone instead. Pennies on the dollar is not trivial, by the way, on the scale we're discussing.

Is there any reason that the U.S. government should not bail out any enterprise that is failing? Why is it that only the largest, most powerful/influential corporations get bail outs?

9/7/2011 6:06:59 PM

^^Congratulations on pulling more quotes out of context and pretending to make a point. Are you just an aaronburro alias or what? Why don't you tell us what you think would have happened to the US auto industry without government intervention? Or explain to me how people can get from New York to San Francisco in 5 hours without using a domestic airline?

^The simple answer is the largest enterprises employ the most people and their failure would result in the greatest consequences. Frankly, the banking industry never should have been allowed to get as large as it did, but the solution isn't to just let it completely collapse and take a massive chunk of the US economy with it.

[Edited on September 7, 2011 at 6:10 PM. Reason : :]

9/7/2011 6:07:16 PM

Why? The literature is out there about what would have happened. You'll just complain it's from a biased source.

Ford didn't even need a fucking bailout but don't let that little fact ruin your thoughts about US auto industry apocalypse without the most sage investor the US Government.

9/7/2011 6:12:00 PM

Ok, so you have nothing, got it. Kindly shut the fuck up and exit stage left. And you're right, Ford didn't need bailout money, which is why they didn't get any, as I noted in at least one of my previous posts. But they did need people to start buying new cars again, which is exactly what the stimulus provided.

9/7/2011 6:14:17 PM

Quote :

"sage"

This thread could use some sage right about now.

9/7/2011 6:20:28 PM

Quote :

"The simple answer is the largest enterprises employ the most people and their failure would result in the greatest consequences. Frankly, the banking industry never should have been allowed to get as large as it did, but the solution isn't to just let it completely collapse and take a massive chunk of the US economy with it."

That's an incredibly simple answer, yes. It also has awful implications. We're told that it will be complete disaster when don't "save" these failing enterprises, but we're never told that the consequences of doing so may be even worse.

It's apparent that you don't have a clue how the banking industry became so large. Lack of regulation may be to blame, but that's putting the cart before the horse - a government that is able to encourage or mandate inflationary activity (that is, the creation of credit, bank notes, debt using money that is not actually in reserves) will necessarily result in the "pyramiding" of bank debt. That's exactly what happened. Of course, per your statement, we can't let the risk takers lose their shirts - losses must be offloaded onto the people.

9/7/2011 6:20:37 PM

Shirke, you stupid fuck

Quote :

"But they did need people to start buying new cars again"

PEOPLE KEPT BUYING CARS EVEN IN THE DEPTS OF THE PANIC

Sure, they weren't buying them at bubble induced levels and maybe not at levels to sustain all car lines. Big fucking deal.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303745304576361663907855834.html

go ahead, cry that it's an obviously neocon leaning skreed since Murdoch bought the WSJ. Clearly no reason for you to read that.

9/7/2011 6:39:27 PM

Quote :

"I don't expect you to actually read, but the beauty about the internet is people like aaronburro can't throw out lies like "the vast majority of the Bush tax cuts didn't go to the rich" because all the data is right there for anyone willing to look at it. "

do a little research into the amount of money that goes to each and you'll see just how wrong you are.

Quote :

"They did you moron. Every dime of government loan money was paid back, with interest"

and when we use creative accounting, we can say whatever we want. I guess when the government bought the shares, that wasn't a "government loan" of any sort.

Quote :

"On the other hand, no one has to buy new cars, and no one definitely has to buy new domestic cars."

no one has to fly with any specific airline, either. fail, again.

Quote :

"GM took specific instruction from the White House on how to reorganize and return their company to profitability."

yes, and it was "reward the unions, reward the unions, reward the unions".

Quote :

"The simple answer is the largest enterprises employ the most people and their failure would result in the greatest consequences."

so, in short, moral hazard. privatize the gains, socialize the losses. that's a winning combination, dude.

Quote :

"Frankly, the banking industry never should have been allowed to get as large as it did"

so you let the banks get LARGER with government money. FUCKING BRILLIANT.

9/7/2011 7:31:21 PM

Quote :

"God damnit Shirke. There is only so much stupid in one post before it's so terrible that even if it isn't trolling we might as well consider it as such. "

+1

"Airlines have no competition because people need to fly, yet people dont need cars."

Bless your heart

9/7/2011 10:46:27 PM

Quote :

"It's apparent that you don't have a clue how the banking industry became so large. Lack of regulation may be to blame, but that's putting the cart before the horse - a government that is able to encourage or mandate inflationary activity (that is, the creation of credit, bank notes, debt using money that is not actually in reserves) will necessarily result in the "pyramiding" of bank debt. That's exactly what happened. Of course, per your statement, we can't let the risk takers lose their shirts - losses must be offloaded onto the people."

I know exactly how the banking industry became so large, a trend of de-regulatory policies that started in the 1970s and culminated in the sub prime mortgage crisis. In 2005 this guy basically described exactly how that crisis happened.

http://www.kc.frb.org/publicat/sympos/2005/pdf/rajan2005.pdf

Quote :

"(take) risks that generate severe adverse consequences with small probability but, in return, offer generous compensation the rest of the time. These risks are known as tail risks.[...] But perhaps the most important concern is whether banks will be able to provide liquidity to financial markets so that if the tail risk does materialize, financial positions can be unwound and losses allocated so that the consequences to the real economy are minimized."

And the risk takers were never in danger of losing their shirts. The risk takers knew exactly what they were doing, and were profiting from it. Goldman was betting on the failure of their own securities as early as 2006. Hell, they were even betting on the bankruptcy of AIG, because they knew the securities AIG was insuring were junk. It was one giant fucking scam and they were laughing about it (literally, there are emails where they were actually laughing about deals they had just made) while knowing what the eventual consequences would be. The bailout wasn't about saving the risk takers. They had already collected their massive bonuses, severance pays, or sold off their stock before the crash happened. The bailout was about saving everyone else.

Quote :

"do a little research into the amount of money that goes to each and you'll see just how wrong you are."

I did the research and even posted the fucking data for you to read, which you seem to have ignored as usual. 99% of the savings went to the top 1%. That's a fact. But you don't care about facts, you only care abut your own goddamn delusions (AWG IS A HOAX EVERYONE).

Quote :

""Airlines have no competition because people need to fly, yet people dont need cars.""

Wow, misquoting me again, is that the best you've got? I never said no one needed cars, I said no one needed to buy new cars, and especially new domestic cars. I also never said airlines have no competition, I said US airlines have no competition, meaning that they don't have to compete with foreign companies on domestic flights the same way US automakers have to compete with foreign automakers. But nice try, really, I'm sure that post was a hit with your ilk who lack any sort of critical thinking skills.

Also, have any of you flown in the past 10 years, or bought a plane ticket? Basically every domestic airline these days is identical in their service, with the exception of Southwest that only flies to specific cities. 99% of the time, you buy a ticket through something like Orbitz or Experia, click on the cheapest one and never even notice the airline until the day you have to print your boarding pass. Now compare that to how people buy cars and explain to me how you can make any sort of comparison between those two industries.

[Edited on September 8, 2011 at 11:15 AM. Reason : :]

9/8/2011 11:09:19 AM

Quote :

"I know exactly how the banking industry became so large, a trend of de-regulatory policies that started in the 1970s and culminated in the sub prime mortgage crisis. In 2005 this guy basically described exactly how that crisis happened. http://www.kc.frb.org/publicat/sympos/2005/pdf/rajan2005.pdf "

No, dude. You absolutely do not know how the banking industry became so large, having read your statement above. Do you know what happened in 1913, 1933, and 1971? I even admitted that deregulation is partially to blame, but that it would be putting the cart before the horse to blame the size of banking purely on that. When the United States government allows fractional reserve banking and a lender of last resort, the banking industry can only grow, because every bank is given the ability to extend credit with money that they don't actually have.

I'm astonished at how much you think you know contrasted with how ignorant you actually are. You have a lot of reading and learning to do on this issue.

9/8/2011 11:24:41 AM

According to you, blaming any problem on anything besides the Federal Government is putting the cart before the horse.

[Edited on September 8, 2011 at 11:31 AM. Reason : clarity]

9/8/2011 11:29:29 AM

Stick to things you actually know something about. This is not one of those areas.

9/8/2011 11:36:37 AM

Quote :

"When the United States government allows fractional reserve banking and a lender of last resort, the banking industry can only grow, because every bank is given the ability to extend credit with money that they don't actually have."

So a system that was created in 1913 is to blame for something that didn't begin happening until the 1970s. If that's your argument then you really are a clueless ideologue.

9/8/2011 11:46:43 AM

Just to be clear - you're making the claim that the banking industry didn't start expanding until the 1970s?

9/8/2011 11:48:50 AM

Yes, until then the banking industry was small and dominated by depository banks. Since then, it's exploded into an industry that is instead dominated by investment banks and fund managers. Of course it was "growing" before then, but the rate of growth increased exponentially and became disproportional to the growth of the rest of the economy.



[Edited on September 8, 2011 at 11:58 AM. Reason : :]

9/8/2011 11:54:04 AM

Quote :

"I did the research and even posted the fucking data for you to read, which you seem to have ignored as usual. 99% of the savings went to the top 1%"

if that's the case, then why is it that the actual costs show that over 2/3rds of the money of the cuts go to the "non-rich"? Don't believe me? how bout NPR?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129052425
"Absolutely. The tax - the Bush tax cuts costs $300 billion a year: 100 billion to the top 2 percent, 200 billion to the middle-class." And they are defining 175,000 as "rich", which means it's probably even more skewed when you look at it in detail. do some fucking research, dude. or is 2/3rds not a "vast majority" to you? I give you actual numbers, you give me tax tables. I see who is actually looking at the facts

Quote :

"And the risk takers were never in danger of losing their shirts. The risk takers knew exactly what they were doing, and were profiting from it. Goldman was betting on the failure of their own securities as early as 2006. Hell, they were even betting on the bankruptcy of AIG, because they knew the securities AIG was insuring were junk. It was one giant fucking scam and they were laughing about it (literally, there are emails where they were actually laughing about deals they had just made) while knowing what the eventual consequences would be. The bailout wasn't about saving the risk takers."

and yet, that's exactly what it did. They deserved to get hammered, yet you propose that they don't, in the name of "saving the rest of us". The fact is, we just made the situation even worse and still haven't gotten out of the mess.

btw, that growth is far from "exponential". it's damned near linear from 1945 with a modest slowdown in 1980.

[Edited on September 8, 2011 at 12:24 PM. Reason : ]

9/8/2011 12:22:51 PM

Quote :

"Yes, until then the banking industry was small and dominated by depository banks. Since then, it's exploded into an industry that is instead dominated by investment banks and fund managers. Of course it was "growing" before then, but the rate of growth increased exponentially and became disproportional to the growth of the rest of the economy."

This doesn't match up with reality or the graph you posted. The graph measures size of the financial industry as a percent of GDP, which steadily rises, suddenly dropping off when banks are actually allowed to fail after they've overextended.

Your claim that the financial industry was "mostly depository" is ridiculous. Since 1913, and truthfully for a long time before that, banks have been loaning out a lot more than they actually had in deposits, precisely because the government said that the practice was perfectly okay. Of course, a banking system built on this faulty foundation can be destroyed at any time by bank runs. This is still the case today. The banking cartel could be decimated tomorrow if people got scared. That's why the media isn't talking about bank insolvency right now. The whole fucking system would come crashing down.

Glass Steagal required the separation of commercial and investment banking - that wasn't done away with until the 1990s. What, do you think banks just started popping up randomly? You have no interest in figuring out what the root causes may have been? Your only answer is "the government did too little, not too much!"

Quote :

"And the risk takers were never in danger of losing their shirts. The risk takers knew exactly what they were doing, and were profiting from it. Goldman was betting on the failure of their own securities as early as 2006. Hell, they were even betting on the bankruptcy of AIG, because they knew the securities AIG was insuring were junk. It was one giant fucking scam and they were laughing about it (literally, there are emails where they were actually laughing about deals they had just made) while knowing what the eventual consequences would be. The bailout wasn't about saving the risktakers."

This makes no sense whatsoever. They were in danger of losing their shirts. The government didn't let them. That's because the government is literally controlled by banking cartel interests. They had their cake and ate it too.

The banks should have been split up, with loans being sold on the open market. We just couldn't let that happen though, could we? Now we have a bunch of fucking zombie banks running around with no recourse.

[Edited on September 8, 2011 at 1:25 PM. Reason : ]

9/8/2011 1:24:01 PM

and not only do we have zombie banks, we have LARGER zombie banks than we had before. in one breath, he complains that banks were too large, and in the next, he lauds a measure that made them even fucking larger

9/8/2011 1:27:21 PM

^^^You didn't give me numbers, you gave me a quote from a former Republican congressman and political strategist. I gave you a report and tables written by a non-partisan body who's actual job is to study this shit. Try again.

Quote :

"This doesn't match up with reality or the graph you posted. The graph measures size of the financial industry as a percent of GDP, which steadily rises, suddenly dropping off when banks are actually allowed to fail after they've overextended."

No it doesn't. That graph shows that financial services represented a relatively flat percentage of our GDP, with dips and gains that coincided with the rest of the economy. The more money people had, they more they deposited into banks. In the late 1970s it stopped responding to normal market pressures because it was no longer dependent on domestic deposits. Why didn't it crash again during the recessions of the 1980s and 1990s? Where is the dot com crash recession? Due to a fundamental change in the way financial services generated profits and managed risk, they were able to continue growing during booms and busts, and became a much larger share of our GDP than should have ever been allowed.

Also neither of you seem to remember what happened in 2008 at all, but the fact that you have short memories is no surprise. The bankruptcy of one investment bank, Lehman Brothers, shocked the credit markets so badly that totally solvent companies like GE and McDonalds were concerned about maintaining enough liquidity to finance their day to day operations. If TARP hadn't been enacted, basically every single US financial institution, depository and investment banks alike, would have gone the way of Lehman. I'm not defending the creation of zombie banks, I'm defending the prevention of global economic Armageddon.

9/8/2011 1:54:26 PM

Quote :

"You didn't give me numbers, you gave me a quote from a former Republican congressman and political strategist."

are you saying he's lying? you gave me tax tables. that doesn't tell me shit about total revenues. admit it, you talked out your ass. how about CNN via the Treasury Dept? will that make you happy?

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/15/news/economy/bush_tax_cuts_faqs/index.htm

Quote :

"Of that, $3 trillion accounts for the cost of extending them for the vast majority of Americans, as the president has proposed. The remaining $700 billion is the cost of extending them permanently for the high-income earners."

that's more than 3 to 1. keep talking out your ass

Quote :

"That graph shows that financial services represented a relatively flat percentage of our GDP, with dips and gains that coincided with the rest of the economy. "

what the fuck graph are you looking at? I see a straight fucking line from 1945 to now, with a slight bend in 1980. seriously, are you that fucking stupid? And that dip in the 30s corresponds to EXACTLY what destroyer was saying

Quote :

"If TARP hadn't been enacted, basically every single US financial institution, depository and investment banks alike, would have gone the way of Lehman."

And we would have been better off for it in the long run. Instead, we just made the problem worse and rewarded the fools who took stupid risks

Quote :

"I'm not defending the creation of zombie banks, I'm defending the prevention of global economic Armageddon."

by defending one, you defend the other. Moreover, we haven't prevented economic Armageddon. We've just delayed it

[Edited on September 8, 2011 at 2:33 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on September 8, 2011 at 2:34 PM. Reason : ]

9/8/2011 2:30:38 PM

Quote :

"are you saying he's lying? you gave me tax tables. that doesn't tell me shit about total revenues. admit it, you talked out your ass. how about CNN via the Treasury Dept? will that make you happy?"

Ok, let's recap because apparently you still can't read. I said:

Quote :

"But $1.3 trillion dollars (conservative numbers) due to the Bush tax cuts that did nothing but make rich people (they call them "job creators") richer?"

You responded with:

Quote :

"How do you figure, when the vast majority of the Bush tax cuts didn't go to the rich? And you accuse 'pubs of cognitive dissonance."

I posted a CBO study of tax rates and their effect on income from 1979 to 2004 that showed that when those tax cuts went into effect, only the rich received any actual benefit, which is exactly what I said (and frankly, you don't need to look at any data to see that the past decade has been horrible for the middle class while the rich have thrived). You responded with quotes and articles that is discussing (and yes, lying) about a completely different issue, namely what the US government will save in 2012 and on if the tax cuts expire. So basically, you lost, lost again, and then made a completely different argument using specious data in an attempt to redeem yourself.

Seriously dude, just stop. You can't even read so how the hell am I supposed to expect you to properly interpret a graph or understand the consequences of a global credit freeze.

[Edited on September 8, 2011 at 4:02 PM. Reason : :]

9/8/2011 3:58:06 PM

Quote :

"I posted a CBO study of tax rates and their effect on income from 1979 to 2004 that showed that when those tax cuts went into effect, only the rich received any actual benefit,"

so, you think it perfectly reasonable that nobody in the middle class saw any tax cuts at all from 2001 to to 2008 and then if we extended the cuts after 2012, the midde class magically get 3/4ths of the money. Is that what you are saying? Cognitive dissonance must be hitting you HARD right now

or am I misreading you?
does "But $1.3 trillion dollars (conservative numbers) due to the Bush tax cuts that did nothing but make rich people (they call them "job creators") richer?" not mean "only the rich got money out of the tax cuts?" If you are talking about policies that helped the rich and fucked the middle class, then why bring up the tax cuts by themselves? You got nothing, dude

Quote :

"You responded with quotes and articles that is discussing (and yes, lying) "

Really? CNN is lying? The Treasury Department is lying? Is that where you want to go with this now? No one in the middle class got ANY tax cut? THAT'S what you want to claim now? I can find countless articles that show a 3 to 1 ratio of money received and expected to be received. Are they all lying?

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/07/let_cuts_expire.html
700 billion for rich. 3T for everyone. 3 to 1. are they lying, too?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/opinion/23krugman.html
Paul Krugman: 680billion for rich, 3T for everyone. 3 to 1. Is Krugman lying, too?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/14/george-will/george-will-says-tax-cuts-wealthy-cost-less-over-1/
678B for rich. Still using 3T for everyone. Still 3 to 1. Is politifact lying, too?


Or, are you trying to say that projections are going to be vastly different than the results of those exact same policies the previous 10 years?

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2011/06/10/taxmovement/
EPI says 38% of tax cuts went to rich. that's 2 to 1. Are they lying, too?

[Edited on September 8, 2011 at 4:50 PM. Reason : ]

9/8/2011 4:28:40 PM

Quote :

"No it doesn't. That graph shows that financial services represented a relatively flat percentage of our GDP, with dips and gains that coincided with the rest of the economy. The more money people had, they more they deposited into banks. In the late 1970s it stopped responding to normal market pressures because it was no longer dependent on domestic deposits. Why didn't it crash again during the recessions of the 1980s and 1990s? Where is the dot com crash recession? Due to a fundamental change in the way financial services generated profits and managed risk, they were able to continue growing during booms and busts, and became a much larger share of our GDP than should have ever been allowed."

At no point are financial services as a percentage of GDP "relatively flat." Are we looking at the same graph or what?

Banks haven't crashed since the 1930s because the government has been backstopping them ever since, with the introduction of FDIC. This isn't "deregulation" - the government has explicitly stated that it will not allow big banks to fail. Every policy coming out of Washington bolsters this policy. The Fed is handing out money at .25%.

Quote :

"Also neither of you seem to remember what happened in 2008 at all, but the fact that you have short memories is no surprise. The bankruptcy of one investment bank, Lehman Brothers, shocked the credit markets so badly that totally solvent companies like GE and McDonalds were concerned about maintaining enough liquidity to finance their day to day operations. If TARP hadn't been enacted, basically every single US financial institution, depository and investment banks alike, would have gone the way of Lehman. I'm not defending the creation of zombie banks, I'm defending the prevention of global economic Armageddon."

Whether economic doomsday will be global or not remains to be seen, but it's coming for the United States either way. There is no exit or silver bullet; the mistakes are baked into the economy. There will be a lot of pain before things get better, and the government can't stop that, it can only discontinue the terrible policies that got us here in the first place.

[Edited on September 8, 2011 at 5:11 PM. Reason : ]

9/8/2011 5:11:03 PM

still waiting for you to tell me which of those people are lying and which aren't. Still waiting for you to explain how 62% isn't a "vast majority". Still waiting for you to explain why, if the policy is kept the same, we shouldn't expect future tax cut shares to be downright similar previous ones

[Edited on September 8, 2011 at 5:13 PM. Reason : ]

9/8/2011 5:11:28 PM

Quote :

"Hell, they were even betting on the bankruptcy of AIG, because they knew the securities AIG was insuring were junk."

Huh? Not initially. They were smarter than many of the other firms and began to speculate that they wouldn't get paid if things really hit the fan so they took steps to force AIG to post collateral. It was precisely this stepped that ended up pushing AIG over the brink. Sadly, you align with Democrats because you think they'll protect the little man but so far I've seen NOTHING other than lip service on this front with shitty legislation like the CFPA that does not a fucking thing. The market does not care and it's an apt solution for equitably doling out pain where it should be delivered.

9/8/2011 6:22:59 PM

No financial re-regulation = no fundamental reform of dysfunctional financial behavior (such as creating asset price bubbles, borrowing too much, crowding out real economic investment, focusing on quarterly performance)

Waxing philosophical on the role of government = ballsy, not inaccurate, unpopular

Investing in school teachers and school buildings generates a very low return. If we are going to spend money, we shouldn't be paying people to work. We should be paying people to develop self-perpetuating productive economic activity. The economists telling him to spend on teachers are fucking stupid, and that should be a litmus test for which advisers he should listen to.

[Edited on September 8, 2011 at 8:00 PM. Reason : .]

9/8/2011 7:50:23 PM

Jeff Landry (R-LA) during Obama's speech last night.

Statement from Rep. Landry: "By allowing the hard-working people in the Gulf of Mexico to ply their trade, we can save 25,000 job. And by lifting the ban on new offshore drilling, we could create 1.2 million jobs. Mr. President, do the right thing: let us drill."

[Edited on September 9, 2011 at 2:20 PM. Reason : .,.]

9/9/2011 2:20:23 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/attack-watch-new-obama-campaign-site-to-fight-smears-becomes-laughing-stock-of-the-internet/2011/09/14/gIQAspHDSK_blog.html

completely pathetic.

an ornery child at best.

9/14/2011 9:19:23 PM

Quote :

"What you won't hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon -- that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to demonize. – Barack Obama, June 3, 2008 "

9/14/2011 9:30:55 PM

who in their right mind would listen to a liberal's call for not demonizing opponents and not roll their eyes in disgust, recalling just how many times the race card gets played

9/14/2011 10:48:51 PM

Quote :

"Really? CNN is lying? The Treasury Department is lying? Is that where you want to go with this now? No one in the middle class got ANY tax cut? THAT'S what you want to claim now? I can find countless articles that show a 3 to 1 ratio of money received and expected to be received. Are they all lying?"

No, you dumb fuck. I never said that. I said, and I posted actual numbers proving it, that no one in the middle class benefited from Bush's tax cuts. No one in the middle classes wealth or income actually grew due to the tax cuts, which was supposed to be the point of the bill. When the tax cuts went into effect, the rich saw a substantial jump in their income, and the middle class saw nothing. You're telling me what the tax cuts supposedly did, I'm telling you what they actually did.

Quote :

"If you are talking about policies that helped the rich and fucked the middle class, then why bring up the tax cuts by themselves? "

What other policies? Bush passed those tax cuts and the medicare prescription bill in the his first couple years of office, championed them as pro-populist policies, and then jacked off in Iraq for the next 6 years. So again, we spent $1.3 trillion on tax cuts that DID NOTHING BUT MAKE RICH PEOPLE RICHER. But hey, continue arguing with yourself over a point no one but you is making, it's hilarious.

Quote :

"At no point are financial services as a percentage of GDP "relatively flat." Are we looking at the same graph or what? Banks haven't crashed since the 1930s because the government has been backstopping them ever since, with the introduction of FDIC. This isn't "deregulation" - the government has explicitly stated that it will not allow big banks to fail. Every policy coming out of Washington bolsters this policy. The Fed is handing out money at .25%."

Ok, obviously you're not smart enough to understand so I'll spell it out for you. The Fed was created in 1913, and from there until the late 1970s, financial services as a share of our GDP experienced booms and busts along with the rest of our economy. They sank with every depression/recession and grew with every bull market. Perhaps "flat" was the wrong word to use, but if you look at the graph, their share of our GDP in the early 1900s and then in the 1960s is relatively equal. Call it "flat", "proportional" or whatever you want to call it, but the point is the same. Then, starting in the late 1970s, financial services began growing at an alarming rate, independent of any external market forces, continuing through today. The Fed was created over 60 years before that trend began, so what changed? Regulation of the financial sector.

[Edited on September 15, 2011 at 11:36 AM. Reason : :]

9/15/2011 11:30:11 AM

Obama extends Cuba embargo one year

Quote :

"The decision was "in the national interest of the United States", the White House said. Mr Obama has said the trade ban will stay in place until the communist government in Cuba frees political prisoners and improves human rights. "

What an imbecile.

9/15/2011 11:37:23 AM

I totally agree on this one. Fuck the trade embargo with Cuba. Open that shit up.

9/15/2011 11:42:26 AM