I don't see where the path they are pursuing will get us out of the economic downward spiral we are in. Don't you think that printing trillions of new dollars we are headed down that path anyway? It's not going to be pretty either path we take. As I will tell my overweight daughter, this didn't happen overnight and you won't get thin overnight either. So it is with the economy. The mess we are in didn't just happen overnight and the cure won't happen overnight either. But I would rather stand the pain for as many years as it takes but at least know that it will correct rather than drive the dollar so far down that it would take generations to come back.Bob78164 wrote:So you'd like us to repeat the success story of the Japanese economy in the 1990s? --BobSir_Galahad wrote:What is needed, IMO, is some good strong belt-tightening and letting the various markets correct and reset themselves. Those not able to weather the storm will not do well but that's capitalism at work. I also think the fed should raise interest rates to help tighten up credit, not the other way around.
The Republicans Say No
-
Sir_Galahad
- Posts: 1516
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:47 pm
- Location: In The Heartland
Re: The Republicans Say No
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - Edmund Burke
Perhaps the Hokey Pokey IS what it's all about...
Perhaps the Hokey Pokey IS what it's all about...
-
Weyoun
- Posts: 3356
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 9:36 pm
Re: The Republicans Say No
I agree with Galahad. Back in October I was cautiously supportive of such measures. But my spidey sense us telling me No now.
-
silverscreenselect
- Posts: 24617
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: The Republicans Say No
Obama is doing the same thing that Reagan and Bush 2 tried to do to jump start the economy; a combination of tax cuts and massive spending increases. There are four differences:
1) We're in a bigger mess now than we were under Reagan and under Bush when he tried it the first time.
2) The people getting the benefits of the tax cuts and spending increases are for the most part different now.
3) Reagan and Bush for the most part tried to claim that their spending was for the purpose of "keeping America safe" or "fighting the war on terror," rather than to stimulate the economy.
3) Reagan and Bush separated the spending bills from the tax cut bills so that they would be in a better position to give the tax cuts full credit for any improvements in the economy.
Tax cuts do not jump start a badly stalled economy. Look at how much good last year's $600/1200 did. Giving a lot of people a few more dollars in a time of crisis will mainly lead to hoarding the money.
Spending will help jump start the economy if it leads to a fairly quick increase in employment. From what I've been able to gather, not nearly enough of Obama's stimulus package seems geared toward that. Far too much of it is typical Democratic spending on wish list items added to out-and-out pork. I've got no problem with spending money on some things like developing alternate energy sources. But let's call it what it is, and propose it and pay for it separately, rather than engage in the out-and-out con that it's necessary to get the economy on track. The more proposals like this that are part of the bill; the easier it is to get people thinking the entire bill is like this.
The longer this goes on, the more the Republicans can make an issue of it by calling attention to a wide variety of questionable measures in the bill and the more chance that the bill will either be gutted completely or hung completely around Obama's neck if the economy doesn't rebound immediately or both.
1) We're in a bigger mess now than we were under Reagan and under Bush when he tried it the first time.
2) The people getting the benefits of the tax cuts and spending increases are for the most part different now.
3) Reagan and Bush for the most part tried to claim that their spending was for the purpose of "keeping America safe" or "fighting the war on terror," rather than to stimulate the economy.
3) Reagan and Bush separated the spending bills from the tax cut bills so that they would be in a better position to give the tax cuts full credit for any improvements in the economy.
Tax cuts do not jump start a badly stalled economy. Look at how much good last year's $600/1200 did. Giving a lot of people a few more dollars in a time of crisis will mainly lead to hoarding the money.
Spending will help jump start the economy if it leads to a fairly quick increase in employment. From what I've been able to gather, not nearly enough of Obama's stimulus package seems geared toward that. Far too much of it is typical Democratic spending on wish list items added to out-and-out pork. I've got no problem with spending money on some things like developing alternate energy sources. But let's call it what it is, and propose it and pay for it separately, rather than engage in the out-and-out con that it's necessary to get the economy on track. The more proposals like this that are part of the bill; the easier it is to get people thinking the entire bill is like this.
The longer this goes on, the more the Republicans can make an issue of it by calling attention to a wide variety of questionable measures in the bill and the more chance that the bill will either be gutted completely or hung completely around Obama's neck if the economy doesn't rebound immediately or both.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com
-
Weyoun
- Posts: 3356
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 9:36 pm
Re: The Republicans Say No
I think tax cuts CAN jumpstart the economy, but the problems with the economy aren't ones that tax cuts can really help.
And, yes, it looks like the bill is full of pork and pet projects, and not the labor intensive stuff that Keynesianism is supposed to be about promoting.
And, yes, it looks like the bill is full of pork and pet projects, and not the labor intensive stuff that Keynesianism is supposed to be about promoting.